Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-25 PACKET 08.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission December 21, 2015 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, December 21, 2015, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Brittain called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Sam Awad, Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, Adam Graf, Jake Haagsman, Wayne Johnson, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Kimberly Graff Staff Present: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Robin Roland, Finance Director Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Rostad made a motion to approve the agenda. Fox seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum Brittain asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No one addressed the Commission. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Brittain explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 SunShare: 100th Street — Case TA2015-046 SunShare LLC has applied for a zoning text amendment to allow community solar gardens or solar farms within the Transitional Planning Area, as shown in the City of Cottage Grove Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan, for approximately 430 acres of land located south Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 14 of 100th Street between Hadley Avenue and Jamaica Avenue. This public hearing was con- tinued from November 23, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the findings in the staff report. Johnson asked if this proposed amendment could eliminate the possibility of expanding the business park to the south. McCool responded that logically the business park would expand to the south of 100th Street. If that property was occupied with solar panels, it would not be available for business development. Chuck Beisner, 609 South 10th Street, Minneapolis, asked the Commission to approve the ordinance amendment to allow solar gardens and farms on land that is designated "transitional planning area" on the Future Land Use Plan, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission two months ago. He stated that half the business park is still available for development and there is plenty of land east and west of the property they are looking at for a solar garden. He also noted that a solar garden would work well within the business park. Solar gardens are a transitional use and would not be there permanently; they are typically in use for 20 to 30 years. If the business park does expand after their contract with Xcel expires in 25 years, the solar garden can be removed and the property developed into its highest and best use at that time. Additionally, the property owner with a solar garden or farm continues paying the same taxes that the land currently does. Beisner said he has talked with the City about the possibility of a host community agreement, which would pay funds in lieu of taxes in order to ensure the same funds were collected as would be for a traditional development ver- sus a solar garden. He respectfully disagreed with the staff findings for denial, noting that he agreed with the findings two months ago when the recommendation was for approval of this area for solar. Beisner said a solar garden would not impede any future development and would work well in a business park setting. The proposed solar garden would meet all setbacks in the city code. Fox asked where specifically the property in question is located and if they considering other properties within the yellow region on the map. Beisner responded that they are looking at the 30 -acre parcel at the southwest corner of 100th Street and Ideal Avenue. He noted that while there are 4,000 acres available for solar gardens, there is not necessarily a substation or feeder lines close enough to allow a solar garden to be built without constructing additional infrastructure. He stated that the majority of the land marked for solar gardens is unusable. Johnson noted that there is a letter in the packet from Todd Julen regarding the effects the solar garden would have on his property. He asked how close the 30 -acre parcel is to Mr. Julen's property. Beisner responded that it surrounds his property. Johnson asked if the equip- ment would be 10 feet from the property line. Beisner responded that it would meet the setback requirements forthat area. McCool explained that the minimum setbacks forthat zoning district is 20 feet. Johnson asked if that is the same for commercial properties. McCool responded that the side yard setback for commercially -zoned property is 10 feet. Fox asked if Xcel would run new lines. Beisner responded that they have a cap on what they will spend to upgrade their infrastructure and would have to do an analysis to figure out the costs of expansion. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 14 Zopfi asked if they want to utilize a 30 -acre parcel in the center of a future business park expansion and surround a homeowner with solar panels because it is easier to tap into the existing power line versus paying extra to extend the line. Beisner responded that the property has a willing landlord, and they hope the zoning code could be amended to allow it. Zopfi asked if they had approached any other property owners south of the identified 430 acres where solar gardens are allowed. Beisner replied that they have spoken with a number of those residents, and this is the property they were able to come to an agreement on. He reit- erated that a solar garden would not impede the development of the business park. Zopfi stated that with a 25 to 30 year life cycle, it may make more sense to set aside certain areas for solar gardens instead of moving the gardens as contracts expire. Beisner responded that the current contract with Xcel is for 25 years; that could get extended so the solar garden could be there longer than 25 years. Zopfi stated that he understands that but from his perspective he can see the City's need for that 30 acres being sooner than waiting for 25 years to build around it. Brittain opened the public hearing. Todd Julen, 10350 Ideal Avenue South, stated that he sent a letter explaining that this solar garden would completely surround his house. When he moved to this property 17 years ago, he did not plan on seeing a sea of glass. This would not make his living there beneficial. He asked that the Commission stay with what the City Council approved. Randy Kroll, 1485 18th Avenue, New Brighton, stated that he is the owner of the property where the solar garden is proposed. He purchased that property over two years ago with the idea of establishing an economic engine in the City of Cottage Grove in the form of a hydro- ponic greenhouse, but that did not work out. He desires that this land be used for its highest and best use at this point in time and believes that is a solar garden. He thinks it will be an environmental asset for the City, it is in the right place, and it would not prohibit future devel- opment. He noted that the Julen's owned the property and subdivided it the way it is with 10 acres on one parcel and 20 acres on the other. As soon as commercial development is avail- able, he plans to develop the property, which could be less attractive than a solar garden. The solar garden he is proposing would have environmentally -friendly measures to attract birds and wildlife. They have already talked to a number of businesses who would like to subscribe to the garden because it provides an opportunity for local businesses to save costs on their energy. The agreement he has with the applicant and Xcel is limited to 25 years, which can be renewed. He has not heard what timeframe the City has to make this a commercial parcel. Robert Albright, 8391 113th Street South, believes the proposal would be a poor use of the land. The area is directly across the street from a first-class community that could expand easily. He does not believe that this use would provide jobs for the city and expressed concern about the size of the tax base for a solar farm. Bob Julen, 10600 Ideal Avenue South, stated that the Planning Commission should stick with the City Council's decision and if they don't, the solar people should buy his son's house. This will harm the value of the property. He also does not want to look at a solar garden every day. Tom Hunter, 8235 River Acres Road South, stated that the City has already identified 4,200 acres where this type of land use could be provided and the developer should look at those Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 4 of 14 acres. He would also invite the current 30 -acre landowner to live near it if he thinks this is an asset. Andrew Nelson, 9874 Hamlet Lane South, stated that he does approve of this type of project. He does not live in an area where he would be surrounded by it; however, he does believe there is a greater need to be considered. He stated one thing that hasn't been addressed is what the benefit would be for Cottage Grove. He asked if our energy costs would go down. He does not view solar panels as an eyesore and believes windmills are more destructive than solar panels. He does not believe that solar panels would hurt property values. He asked if there is any data to support that solar panels benefit property values and if they have histori- cally helped the cities in which they have been built, such as with energy costs. Wayne Butt, 7310 and 7405 Lamar Avenue South, stated that he is not for or against solar panels. He asked why solar farms would be built in the Twin Cities metro area when there is property throughout the state with lower values. He believes in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind and would put some on his property if the city allowed him to but not in abundance because it is an eyesore. He noted that if industrial/commercial development expands to the south, the property owner could be surrounded by buildings. He was in a similar situation with his business and a neighbor who didn't want an event venue next to him, so he is conscientious of how it impacts his neighbor. If this is a 25 -year plan and the land is vacant and not producing, something of value should be put there. Butt noted that in Springfield, Ohio a business put solar panels above the parking lot, which covered and protected the vehicles, and asked if that could be an option for the Hy -Vee project. He then stated that it is very expensive to run utility lines. If a line is there and SunShare wants to put their products in that vicinity, they should be allowed. He asked if there are lines available in the east of the com- munity along Manning Avenue where panels would be allowed. He asked where the power is going and if it would reduce his electric bill as he pays an extra fee per kilowatt to use renew- able energy. Richard Mullin, 8211 River Acres Road South, stated that he is all for the solar panel program but should not start a new program in a controversial area. It would seem that picking a more suitable area that doesn't impede upon the neighbors who would be directly impacted by it. He disapproves of this proposed location but would approve it in another area. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. McCool stated that this application would change the ordinance. If the ordinance was changed to allow for solar collection systems in that area, the applicant would be required to come back for a conditional use permit. Graf asked what the criteria is for approving a conditional use permit. McCool responded that the ordinance requires a minimum of five acres; if the solar power that is generated is sold back to the utility company it requires a conditional use permit; there are setback requirements; information on how it is connected to the utility company's service lines must eventually be provided to the City; and any connections conveying electricity must be underground. Graf asked staff if a solar collection system would be approved if it met the criteria of the ordinance. McCool responded yes, and there would be conditions attached to that approval. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 5 of 14 Johnson asked if this was rezoned to a commercial property, would solar panels be allowed in that zoning district. McCool responded that the ordinance allows solar collection systems of a large utility scale in all zoning districts, but a minimum of five acres and a conditional use permit are required. Olsen stated that the City's comprehensive plan will be updated soon, which goes through a very rigorous screening process by the Met Council, so it is not known definitively that a prop- erty in the City will or will not fall within the MUSA at the conclusion of the next update. In response to the question about energy cost benefits to the residents of the City, there is noth- ing in state law that dictates that would be the case. In fact, the reason that energy companies such as Xcel are moving into more renewable sources is because they are mandated by state legislature to have a greater percentage of energy production from renewable sources. He noted that the 25 -year contracts with Xcel Energy would be extremely difficult to break because of the tax breaks that are included. Rostad stated that it is logical that further expansion of the industrial park and residential area would go south of the existing industrial park and residential neighborhood. He thinks that tying up land in the middle of that area would make the property to the east less attractive. The land south of 100th Street would be of better use in an industrial park and because of that he does not want to add this 430 acres to the solar garden ordinance. Fox pointed out that there may be a trunk line running through there but he believes that the best use with a better tax base would be industrial and residential development. To address the question about value, this would affect the value of any property surrounding it if it looked different than what people are used to seeing. He also pointed out that individual landowners in this area can put their own panels up; the question here is if it can be provided back to the grid as a commercial operation. Graf stated that if there were just a discussion of one 30 -acre parcel, he would consider allow- ing that but this is about opening up several hundred acres to other solar collection systems. Graf made a motion to recommend that the City Council deny the zoning text amend- ment based on the findings in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Brittain stated that the Commission spent a lot of time on the solar energy ordinance, and the general ideology is that as a community, we are supportive of solar energy. However, we have a responsibility to the community to make sure that we don't have infrastructure sprawl. There has to be a certain level of continuity to the infrastructure as it expands. Cottage Grove is on the leading edge of development. During the discussions, we focused on the transitional plan- ning area and he thinks it was a good catch by the City Council to exclude the transitional planning area, especially with the upcoming update of our comprehensive plan, which would allow us to view all of the transitional planning areas and determine what the best future uses would be. We need to protect that area so a proper comprehensive plan can be done and have the most productive use of this property, so he agrees with the denial recommendation. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Brittain announced that SunShare had also applied for a zoning text amendment for an area along 70th Street and Keats Avenue, but they withdrew that application. 6.2 Glengrove Industrial Park 6th Addition — Case PP2015-052 Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 6 of 14 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a preliminary plat for Glengrove Industrial Park 6th Addition, which would be located on a 63.442 acre tract of land between 97th Street and 100th Street, east of Hemingway Avenue. This subdivision will create one platted lot and two outlots. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat application subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Awad seconded. Rostad asked if the extension of the road would be paved as part of this plat. McCool responded that 97th Street from Hemingway Avenue was reconstructed this year. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.3 TIF District 1-16 Plan and Program Modification — Case CP2015-057 TIF District 1016 is proposed for the construction of a 38,400 square foot warehouse and a 43,560 square foot greenhouse for Gardenworld within the Cottage Grove Business Park. Not a public hearing. Roland summarized the staff report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the resolution that states that the district is in conformance with the City of Cottage Grove's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Rostad made a motion to adopt the resolution that states that the proposed TIF District 1-16 is in agreement with the City's Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.4 Gardenworld — Case SP2015-054 and CUP2015-055 APPRO Development has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit for a greenhouse, warehouse, and office for Gardenworld, Inc. to be located on the southeast corner of Hemingway Avenue and 97th Street. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson asked if there is any concern that there would be greenhouses next to Leafline Labs and being confused for the Leafline growing areas. Jack Matasosky, APPRO Development, 17226 Huntington Path, Lakeville, MN, responded that that question has come up. They are hoping signage provides clarification. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 7 of 14 Brittain asked if the proposed polycarbonate material would have enough insulation value for the cold climate and what type of heating would be provided. Matasosky replied that the sun does provide heat, but there will be minimal heating because they will inhibit the flowers from blooming by maintaining colder temperatures. Stephanie Paquin, 6028 Fairmount Avenue South, Minneapolis, CFO for Gardenworld, re- sponded that they try to keep the temperature around 34 degrees to keep the plants dormant in the winter season. They do need to heat it during the coldest months to bring it up to 34 degrees. They are usually done shipping by the end of May/June. There will be some hanging heating units. Their use of the greenhouses are not really for growing as much as to provide their product with light and ventilation. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Awad made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan review and conditional use permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.5 Ecoplexus Solar Garden — Case CUP2015-056 Ecoplexus has applied for a conditional use permit for a community solar garden on approximately 80 acres of land located one quarter mile south of 70th Street (CSAH 22) and one quarter mile north of 77th Street east of Laverne Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson asked why this application is being reviewed now because it is missing some key information regarding the design of the system. McCool responded that Xcel Energy's and Ecoplexus' engineers are working on the design for the proposed project. The applicant re- ported that the design has not been completed for review at this point in time and that they do accept the conditions in the report that all electric utility lines must be underground and will convey that to Xcel Energy. If they can't meet the conditions of approval, the project won't happen or they will need to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the conditions of their conditional use permit. Zopfi asked where the Kohls' property is located. McCool pointed out their 80 acres of land on the map. Brittain noted that there is a large area without solar panels on the property and asked if the system could expand. McCool responded that they would need to apply for a conditional use permit for any expansion. Brittain noted that with cellular towers there is typically an equipment building for electro -mechanical infrastructure and asked if that is a city requirement. McCool responded that the city ordinance does not require those buildings; the developers of the com- munication systems have always proposed it, so it is part of the conditional use permit review. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 8 of 14 Nathan Rogers, 650 Townsend Street, Suite 315, San Francisco, California, 94103, stated that he is also joined by Mary Matze of Landform Professional Services, who has been helping with the site plan and surveying. He gave information on Ecoplexus and provided a slideshow presentation on solar gardens. He explained the difference between solar gardens, where there are subscribers who sign a 25 -year lease to purchase power from the garden, and solar farms, which are power plants where the utility is buying the power at wholesale cost. He stated that he spoke with Mrs. Kohls last week and she asked for evergreen landscaping on the east side of this property and they are amenable to that. He then stated that as an alter- native to chain link fencing, they are looking at agricultural or deer fencing. He noted that if fencing is required by city code, then their fencing will comply with that code requirement. He displayed pictures of the type of fencing they are proposing. Rogers explained that the panels are wired, and the wires run under the panels and are connected at the combiner boxes at the end of each row. They run to the inverters and transformers and then run underground until they meet with Xcel's existing distribution infrastructure on 72nd Street. He also stated that the facility conforms to the valuation standards. He then explained the benefits of solar energy gardens. Johnson asked if he is confident that Xcel will be able to bury these lines as required, but it is just a matter of cost. Rogers stated that is correct. Zopfi asked what the percentage of renewable energy that Xcel is required to put on line by 2020. Rogers responded 31.5 percent with an additional 1.5 percent specifically for solar. Brittain asked about the coverage on this particular acreage and if there is an intention to expand. Rogers responded that the output of the solar garden is limited by program regula- tions. There were debates about that at the Public Utilities Commission, because there were proposals for 10 to 50 megawatt solar farms, which is not in the spirit of the legislation, so the agreement that was reached between the industry, Xcel, and the Commission was five megawatts. Five megawatt solar farms require about 30 acres; this proposal is for about 37 acres, which could shrink. Brittain asked as the efficiency of solar panels goes up over time, will fewer solar panels be needed or will they allow the same footprint to output more energy. Rogers responded that while solar panels have grown incrementally more efficient over time, he does not see that happening. He also stated that they have in place with the landowner to lease 40 acres, and they are limited under the law from exporting more than five megawatts of capacity at any one time. Brittain asked why the setback shows zero feet on the north side. McCool stated that the fencing can go right up to the property line, but the solar collector panels are required to setback 20 -feet for a side property line and 50 -feet from the rear lot line. The applicant's site plan shows that the solar collector field complies with the minimum setback requirements. Fox asked about feeder lines. Rogers stated that they believe they are near enough to a sub- station, noting that theoretically, you can build anything anywhere. In Minnesota the program rules require that there can't be more than a million dollars' worth of upgrades. This project is currently undergoing an interconnection study by Xcel and they are looking at the conditions of the local grid to determine what kind of equipment is needed to safely accommodate this facility and how much it would cost. He noted that if they find out there is a single-phase line going down 72nd Street, they would have to rebuild it all the way to 70th Street, which could cost over a million dollars, and that would kill the project. Brittain opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 9 of 14 David Hieserich, 7545 Laverne Avenue South, commented that this would be five megawatts when the sun is shining and there hasn't been much sun lately. He asked how much noise the transformers generate. He also expressed concern about reflections, as he lives southwest of the proposed solar garden. He asked if the panels are moveable and track the sun or do they just stay in the position in which they were installed. Rogers replied that the inverters are the noisiest component of the facility and make an electrical hum that can be heard from about a hundred foot radius but they are located in the interior of the facility so are about 100 feet from the property line. From the perimeter of the facility, it should be completely silent. He stated that this most likely will be a fixed tilt system as tracking systems are more expensive and generally there is not enough sun to warrant the added expense. He then stated that the glare from the panels is similar to what comes off a body of water. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive South, asked what types of vegetation they plant and how is it maintained to keep the property weed free. Mary Matze, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Minneapolis, responded that they have proposed a MnDOT native species mix to go under- neath the panels. It is a shade -tolerant mix and will probably not grow much higher than the bottom of the panel height, which is about two feet. Ecoplexus comes in to maintain the site throughout the year to ensure that vegetation does not grow above the height of the panels so the site looks nice and the panels aren't shaded. Rogers stated that there is an economic interest for them to keep the site tidy because the panels are very shade sensitive. He explained that they subcontract for mowing services. Beverly Moreland, 8679 Greystone Avenue South, stated that she does not live in that area but has a friend with children whose house is backed up to the field. She asked if the fence would completely encircle the area. She also stated that the big white containers and the solar panels would be an eyesore. Rogers stated that the fence will go all around the facility itself and the boxes and transformers are locked. Brittain noted their amenability to additional land- scaping on the eastern portion of the site and asked if that could be done for other areas. Rogers responded that they are not opposed to that but during the growing season the western and southern portions of the property will be obscured by crops. Victor Pruesser, 7540 Laverne Avenue South, asked how the solar garden would affect their property values. Rogers stated that he has worked with property appraisers in other states and has learned that the main elements that drive down property values are nuisances such as odors, noise, toxic emissions, pollutants, and adult business; solar energy does not feature any of those with the exception of a noise that would not be audible beyond the property line. In North Carolina where there are lots of these facilities, they have commissioned a number of match -pair analyses, which look at identical properties with only difference being that one is near a solar farm, and in each of those cases they did not discover any discernible difference in property values. Jim Hunter, 11200 Upper 74th Street South, stated that his house is about 20 feet from the property line of the 80 -acre parcel. He is opposed to having the solar garden next to his prop- erty. He stated that Old Cottage Grove is an historic area, was the original community of Cottage Grove, features farmland and historic buildings, and he would like to preserve that. The residents in the area are worried about the impact on their property values. He stated that this also does not conform to the City's current comprehensive plan, which says "maintain small town character" and "what people like best about Cottage Grove, the residents have Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 10 of 14 repeatedly stated that they value the small town feel. A key challenge will be to retain the small town character. As the city grows, the ability of residents to identify with individual neighbor- hoods will increase in importance." He stated that he has lived there for 28 years. He expressed concerned about increased traffic on 72nd Street. He does not want to look at solar panels. He requested that if something this passes, that there be something in writing stating that the rest of the 80 acres cannot be developed in the same way. He does not believe this matches what Cottage Grove wants. He noted that this 80 acres is highly productive cropland and during the growing season removes 640 tons of carbon dioxide from the air and produces enough oxygen to supply a year's breathing for 10,400 people. He stated that there are other areas in the city to put solar gardens that aren't on prime agricultural land, such as the gravel pits on Grey Cloud Island, buffer areas between industrial and residential areas, and by 3M. The federal government put this solar garden initiative together and envisioned small commu- nity-based solar gardens with up to one megawatt on less than five acres to serve just the local community and the developers are trying to make more money by turning agricultural land into a power plant without rezoning to industrial. Rogers responded that they would be amenable to a condition that states that the facility shall not exceed 40 or 45 acres in size so there is assurance in writing that the facility would not grow in the future. Regarding traffic to and from the site, after construction there will effectively be none. The site would be accessed site a few times a year for maintenance by a local landscape company. He then stated that the community solar program is a state program, not federal. Hieserich asked how this site was chosen, noting that there are better locations. He thinks the panels should be on the top of buildings or over a parking lot but not on prime land. Teri Hunter, 11200 Upper 74th Street South, stated that a conditional use permit allows the city to consider uses which could be essential or desirable but residents can challenge a con- ditional use permit. She questions whether this is essential and stated that it is not desirable. She noted that their house is 20 feet from the fields and she does not want to look at solar panels. She also stated that they own three other buildable lots that border this property. She believes this will cause the loss of good agricultural land. She stated that in Monticello they were going to do a solar garden and got turned down by the Public Utilities Commission be- cause it was too close to a residential area. She also does not see how the City is going to benefit from this. On a tax basis, there are better returns on almost every other development that could occur there. A solar garden would provide only 5 to 12 percent of the revenue that we receive from any other development option. The best option for most communities when planning solar gardens is to put them on the worst land like brownfields, former gravel opera- tions, and buffer zones between industrial and residential areas. What communities do not want is a solar farm separating built up and expanding areas and causing leapfrog develop- ment and increasing the cost of infrastructure. Since solar farms pay little compared to other developments, those costs would have to be picked up by the taxpayers. Mike Roberts, 7559 Laverne Avenue South, asked about the useful life of the panels and the decommissioning plan. He also asked if there is a plan if it gets abandoned or does not pay out. He would personally rather see a 37 -acre solar farm than 80 acres of residential develop- ment. McCool stated that the applicant provided a copy of the decommissioning plan, which was included as part of the Planning Commission packet. He explained that if a community solar garden discontinued its operation, it is required that they remove all facilities and im- provements on the property and return it to its original state. As part of that, the City would require a financial guarantee that would cover the costs of removal. Rogers stated that they Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 11 of 14 model half a percent of degradation per year so at the end of 25 to 30 years, the panels are still roughly 80 percent efficient. Derek Rasmussen, 7243 Langly Avenue South, stated that his property abuts 72nd Street, which would be the access to the solar farm. He asked about the feeder wires servicing this project. Looking at the site plan, it looks like the most logical place to tie in the electrical from the solar field is on the corner of 72nd Street and believes that is single-phase power from Lamar up to that point. He understands that it is going to be underground to the existing over- head lines but he is afraid that Xcel is going to want to upgrade the lines on that street to a large power pole with three-phase power. He asked if they can tie into a single-phase utility line with Xcel. Rogers stated that the single-phase would most likely need to be upgraded to three-phase but it is in the city's ordinances that all electrical lines have to be underground. It is possible to put three-phase underground. He noted that if they find out that the costs of upgrading to a three-phase system to underground do not warrant this project, they would have to jettison this project. Brittain asked if Xcel had to upgrade from that connection point at 72nd Street, would that entire run be required to go underground. McCool responded that is staff's opinion. We are interested in understanding what their system is and how it connects. John Anderson, 11206 72nd Street South, stated that he has lived in Old Cottage Grove for 49 years. He stated that this will be in Old Cottage Grove and not in the urban area where there are curb and gutter on both sides of the roads. These roads are very narrow, the drive- ways are very short, and the property lines are really close to the road. He asked whose yards would be affected by the buried power lines. He expressed concern about having his driveway torn up to bury power lines. He is opposed to this application and feels it would be a negative to the community. The East Ravine is planned for development within the 25 -year life expec- tancy of this solar farm. He asked that the Planning Commission follow suit with the same ruling they did with 100th Street. Brittain asked for clarification on the utility easements. McCool stated that he would need to look at the plat for the area to determine the right-of-way widths and if any drainage and utility easements exist. Brittain asked where Xcel would bury lines. McCool stated that the roadways are narrow, about 24 feet wide, but there is a boulevard area from the roadway edge to the property line. McCool thought maybe the public right-of- way widths in Old Cottage Grove might be 66 feet in width. Brittain asked if Xcel would be responsible for repairing and replacing whatever they disturb in order to bury the lines. McCool said that was correct. Jim Rice, 7363 Langly Avenue South, stated that Laverne Avenue borders their property to the east and Laverne is a non -maintained road at that point. He agrees that we need to look at this type of energy, however, there are few families that will be directly affected. He thinks that the impact on property values should be taken into consideration, as was taken into con- sideration on 100th Street. Matze pointed out that the major difference between this application and the application dis- cussed earlier this evening is that this is in the area that has been identified where solar gar- dens would be allowed by the City Code. She stated that they proceeded with this application because it is consistent with the current comprehensive plan, zoning, and city code. They really look at what communities are doing and try to understand what ordinances allow and Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 12 of 14 what the comprehensive plan plans for. They want to work with communities to address con- cerns, such as through landscaping or screening. This is in a location that was identified as a solar development area and that is why they proceeded with the application. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox stated that his response about the property that could be completely surrounded by solar panels, that area was excluded by the ordinance intentionally for future development. His prop- erty specifically the setback was 20 feet from his property line; this one is setback over 700 feet back from the property lines, so there would be an approximate 800 -foot buffer from the edge of those properties. He believes that would probably impact the other property values more than this proposal will. He does not see a buffer of almost a thousand feet having much of an effect on values. Brittain stated that one thing to keep in mind is that the Planning Commission is bound by our zoning ordinances and the application that was heard earlier tonight was for a zoning amend- ment, not a conditional use permit. The Commission's decision on this application has to be based upon whether it is consistent with the city code and comprehensive plan. The public comment is very useful in attempting to understand how different developments will affect a surrounding community and any type of mitigating factors that can be done to help with that. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Awad seconded. Johnson stated that there are still some unknown factors such as the Xcel lines and the project costs, so he still believes it is still too early to vote on this. Brittain responded that there are conditions of approval for this application that would fully meet all city ordinances and the applicant has agreed to meet those conditions. Many times the expense to go through the extra design phases isn't warranted if the applicant cannot get the conditional use permits needed to proceed. The City Council has different types of leeway than the Planning Commis- sion, but from a zoning perspective, if this meets our zoning ordinances and the conditions set within them, it is up to the applicant to make it work and if they can't make, then the project cannot be done. Graf commented that this goes exactly in line with his earlier questions about opening up the transitional planning area, that if we were given other applications that met the criteria in that area, we would be bound to recommend those for approval. The reason he made the motion to not open the transitional planning area is the same reason why this should be approved, because it does meet the requirements as set forth in the ordinance. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.6 Capital Improvement Program 2016-2020 — Case CP2015-048 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment to amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2016-2020. Continued from November 23, 2015" Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 13 of 14 Roland summarized the staff report. Olsen explained why the improvements to 80th Street are being done in a piecemeal fashion, which is to reconstruct the portions of 80th Street that will be impacted by ongoing development later to prevent damage from heavy truck traffic and to be cognizant of the debt load. Roland recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. Rostad asked how much of the HERO Center funding would the City bonded for. Roland re- sponded thatthe majority of the funding forthe HERO Centerwill come from the State because it is a regional facility. She stated that the $3.2 million in the CIP is a placeholder and is based on a percentage of the estimated project cost. Cottage Grove will share the cost of the center with the City of Woodbury, Inver Hills Community College, and Regions Hospital. Olsen stated that the HERO Center will be a profit center for the City. Roland noted that as a revenue center, it will be a potential source of the bond repayment. Fox asked if 80th Street is a county road. Roland responded no. Brittain noted that there is an area on the road improvement project map that was constructed in 1995 and is scheduled for reconstruction in 2028, and asked about plans to maintain that roadway over the next 13 years. Roland stated that the general operating budget should have funds to cover the costs of thin overlays for those delayed projects. The City has the manpower and machinery in the budget to do thin overlays on those roadways to heighten the level of maintenance and sustainability until they are part of a pavement management project. Brittain asked if there would be any assessments involved with the thin overlay. Roland answered no. Olsen provided information on the thin overlay process. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to approve the amendment to the CIP 2016-2020. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2015 Fox made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 23, 2015, Planning Com- mission meeting. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of December City Council Meetings McCool reported that there were no Planning Commission recommendations on the agendas for either City Council meeting in December. Olsen reported that the Police Department estimated that there were 10,000 to 12,000 at- tendees at the Holiday Train and approximately $80,000 was raised for the Friends in Need food shelf. He stated that one of the initial Village of Cottage Grove councilmembers, Ralph McHattie, passed away. He provided information on the Hotel RFP, which is seeking a hotel for the property next to Ruby Tuesday. Olsen then talked about how priorities are set for the Planning Commission Minutes December 21, 2015 Page 14 of 14 Capital Improvement Program and noted that in January the City Council and staff will hold their annual planning meeting. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries �m 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked if staff could check on the pavement maintenance that is going to occur between now and 2028 on the road sections of Joliet Avenue, 78th Street, and 77th Street in the north- west corner of County Road 19 and 80th Street. Olsen stated that he will follow up on that with the Public Works Director. Adjournment Graf made a motion to adjourn. Haagsman seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m. (8 -to -0 vote).