Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-25 PACKET 07. City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission March 28, 2016 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, March 28, 2016, in the Council Chambers and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Vice Chair Graff called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She welcomed Derek Rasmussen to the Commission. Roll Call Members Present: Sam Awad, Justin Fox, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Derek Rasmussen, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Ken Brittain, Jim Rostad Staff Present: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Robin Roland, Finance Director Steve Dennis, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Graf made a motion to approve the agenda. Haagsman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Open Forum Graff 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 Graff 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 TIF District No. 1-17 (Dominium) – Case CP2016-032 TIF District 1-17 (Dominium) is proposed for the construction of a senior housing develop- ment at 7003-7007 East Point Douglas Road South. Not a public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 2 of 13 Roland summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Awad made a motion to adopt Resolution No. PC2016-001 for TIF District 1-17. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Summerhill Crossing 4th Addition – Case PP2016-021 Mike Rygh has applied for a preliminary plat to re-plat Outlot A in Summerhill Crossing 3rd Addition. The proposed Summerhill Crossing 4th Addition preliminary plat subdivides Out- lot A in Summerhill Crossing 3rd Addition into two lots and two outlots on the northwest corner of 70th Street (CSAH 22) and Hinton Avenue (CSAH 13). McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graf asked if the accesses on Pine Arbor Lane are already in place as it relates to Condition #3. McCool pointed out the two existing accesses on Pine Arbor Drive and reported that there are no accesses on Pine Arbor Lane. Additional access onto Pine Arbor Lane and 70th Street are prohibited. Awad asked if the Junction 70 Grille would be located within this proposed plat. McCool stated that the next agenda item is a development proposal for Lot 1, Block 1, Summerhill Crossing 4th Addition. Zopfi asked why the adjoining property line for the two proposed lots has a jog in it. McCool responded that the shared driveway will provide access to both parcels. Rasmussen noted that the access onto 70th Street is right-in/right-out only, which he believes makes it cumbersome to get into and out of that development, and asked if there would be any changes to that in the future. McCool responded that Washington County will not allow for a left-turn exit onto 70th Street. Graff opened the public hearing. Steve Cavalluzzi, 6840 Pine Arbor Lane South, stated that he has direct access and line of sight to those two parcels. His only concern is if the plat is approved and the restaurant doesn’t get approved, there would be two individual lots that would only be available for some type of smaller of retail business. He asked if there would be opportunity for a senior housing devel- opment if the proposed project does not proceed. McCool stated that the applicant is creating two buildable parcels, and other commercial uses could locate on one or both of those lots in the future or the property could be replatted for a larger use. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Fox made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Summerhill Cross- ing 4th Addition preliminary plat subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graf seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 3 of 13 6.3 Junction 70 Grille – Cases ZA2016-023, CUP2016-024, SP2016-025 HAF Group has applied for a zoning amendment to amend the Planned Unit Development for Summerhill Crossing, located on the northwest corner of 70th Street South (CSAH 22) and Hinton Avenue South; a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with liquor; and a site plan review of a 4,926 square foot 180-seat restaurant, a 40-seat outdoor patio, and a 61-stall parking lot. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rasmussen asked if the restaurant would have its own monument sign. McCool responded that no information was provided regarding freestanding signs; they did provide on the building elevations potential wall sign locations on the exterior of the building and would probably have some type of signage on the front of the building facing 70th Street. The conditions of approval require that signage be proportional to the building size. He noted that they would be allowed by City ordinance to have a freestanding monument sign. The conditions of approval prohibit pylon and directional signs. Matt Hoefler, 233 Main Street South, Stillwater, stated that the building elevations show differ- ent areas along the building per each façade for signs and provide the approximate square footage. Since it is a local restaurant and not a franchise, there is no set sign package for the building. The owner is still in the process of creating the logo, which is why they only provided square footage for the signs. Rasmussen asked if the garage doors on the south elevation would be able to be opened. Hoefler responded that there are two nine-foot garage doors in the front, which will be insu- lated, and are designed to open to the covered patio on the south side of the building. Heaters could be built into the underside of the roof structure. Graff opened the public hearing. Craig Slaikeu, 6867 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that he has been a resident in the Pine Arbor neighborhood for nine years. He believes this proposal sounds more like a bar than a restaurant. He stated that public hearing notices should have been sent to more than the re- quired 500-foot radius. He is opposed to the rezoning of the property to accommodate any establishment that would serve alcohol because of traffic at 70th and Hinton and on Pine Arbor Boulevard, impaired drivers, lack of parking, and noise from the outdoor patio. He noted that there are several neighboring residents who are currently out of town that are also concerned about this proposed project. Steve Cavalluzzi, 6840 Pine Arbor Lane South, stated that he is adamantly opposed to the proposed restaurant. There is a lot of undeveloped land and vacant lots in the City that could better accommodate this facility. He does not believe this would be a family restaurant but a sports bar that serves liquor. His concerns include traffic, lights, limited landscaping for buff- ering, and property values and taxes. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 4 of 13 Mary Ann Slaikeu, 6867 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that based on the March 9 article in the South Washington County Bulletin it seems like the approval has already been made. The residents of Pine Arbor homes who are immediate neighbors to this proposal were told that there would be a senior living facility in that area. She expressed concern that a bar would be located across the street from a church with a preschool. She stated that the area has a lot of traffic congestion and adding a bar along with another business on the adjoining lot will make it worse. She is also concerned about noise after the bar closes. She does not believe the property value of any home has gone up in value from being next to a bar. Sharon Hansen, 6857 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that the Pine Arbor Twin Homes devel- opment is a very desirable neighborhood. She believes this type of business would change the whole perception of that area, making it less valuable and desirable. She expressed con- cern about noise, traffic, and inadequate parking. Jim Gullixson, 6841 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that his major concern is traffic, and the possibility of a roundabout at Hinton and 70th could make it more difficult to exit onto Hinton Avenue. He expressed concern about the size of the development. He noted that extending the retaining wall will create a big chunk of cement with bushes on the top. He is also con- cerned about the lack of parking, which could cause patrons to park on the residential streets. Jill Stevens, 6801 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that she can see the Holiday gas station from her deck and cannot sleep with the windows open due to the noise. She is concerned about lots of vehicles leaving the area at the same time. She asked if a liquor license could be issued within 300 feet of a church. She does not believe that a conditional use permit should be issued for this residential area. McCool stated that there is a 300-foot setback requirement from churches but the City Council can consider other buffers, in this case it would be the right- of-way of 70th Street that would separate the two uses. He stated that he would include the distance from the church in the City Council packet. David Brown, 6861 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that there is already a lot of traffic and noise from the Holiday station. He expressed concern about putting this kind of a facility in a resi- dential neighborhood. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the application. Debbie Foster, 6875 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that she thinks the building looks nice, but it does not belong in a residential neighborhood. She expressed concern about alcohol being served, bar closing time, activities that could happen, impaired drivers in a roundabout, accidents, the value of her home, and that there are no other bars in residential areas in the City. She asked that the applications be denied. Pat McDonough, 6908 Homestead Avenue South, stated that she is bothered by all of the traffic in the area. On the east side of where the bar will be located she hears a lot of noise, especially from the car wash. She asked Hoefler if there are plans for live music inside and outside the building. Hoefler responded there will be no live music; there are no accommoda- tions in the plans for a stage or sound system. McDonough asked if there would be bullhorns or amplifiers in the outdoor area and if so, what would be the purpose. Hoefler stated no, but there will be speakers in the covered patio area for music. McDonough stated that the garage doors would open up and allow for the indoor noise to go out. She is really frustrated about possible noise issues and believes that the noise won’t be able to be contained within the lot. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 5 of 13 She also does not consider that a family-friendly place serves liquor. She stated that this is not a restaurant but a sports bar. Dick Hansen, 6918 Homestead Avenue South, stated that when the Summerhill project was initially proposed, the residents in the area had the same concerns as expressed at this hear- ing. He stated that when they bought their properties, the residents knew that it was going to be developed somehow. He provided some history on the development, noting that one of the biggest concerns was a bar in the area. He stated that when the Planning Commission is considering this proposal, they are weighing the rights of the residents and the rights of the people to develop. He believes that the City needs to take into consideration the residents that are closest to it. He stated that this can be dealt with in terms of the liquor license and hours of operation. He asked that the Commission find some common ground and have some restrictions. Mark Wilde, 6837 Pine Arbor Court South, reiterated that there are traffic issues in the area, including delivery trucks, tanker trucks, and passenger vehicles going to the gas station, and the only full access is onto Hinton Avenue. Joan Axdal, 6719 Ideal Avenue South, asked how many total seats will be in the facility, including the restaurant, bar, and patio. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, stated that he does not live in the neighborhood, but he has been before the Commission with applications to allow him to use his property the way he felt was best. He stated that while he respects people’s opinions on this proposal, in this country we have rights to use our private property as we see fit without intruding on other people. If you don’t want a bar in your neighborhood, don’t move into an area that is already zoned for commercial development. Craig Slaikeu, 6867 Pine Arbor Court South, stated that it is not just one family opposed to this proposal; there are 64 units in that area. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Fox asked if the parking is consistent with City ordinance requirements. McCool responded that the parking requirements for this site would be 102 spaces based on 180 seats inside plus 40 on the patio for a total of 220 seats. There are 61 spaces on the property; the additional parking spaces needed would be shared parking from the three other parcels that abut this property, so it would be in compliance. He reiterated that Summerhill Crossing has a Planned Unit Development Overlay so all the parking within the development is evaluated. Graf stated that original plan showed shared parking as well when the development was first approved. He asked what the total parking area is for the whole site. McCool stated that num- ber will be provided to the City Council. Zopfi noted that there are 18 spaces across Pine Arbor Drive that is part of the calculations, but he does not believe those will be used. He would like to add a condition that at least 20 spaces be dedicated from the parcel to the east when it develops. He also wants to ensure that the future owner of the vacant parcel is aware that there is shared parking with the res- taurant. McCool responded that the applicant noted that those spaces across Pine Arbor Drive Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 6 of 13 are intended for employee parking. Zopfi asked if any traffic studies have been done for that area. McCool stated that a traffic study was done in 2004, when 21,000 square feet of retail plus the 5,000 square feet of restaurant use were proposed. The study did not flag any traffic issues. Rasmussen asked for more details on the noise ordinance in relation to the proposed busi- ness. McCool responded that the noise ordinance is not based on decibels; it is based on a reasonable noise that could be heard at the property lines. A police officer responding to a noise complaint would go to the restaurant’s property line to listen to noise being created. They have the ability to request that the owner mitigate any noise issues. If they do not comply, they could be cited. Rasmussen asked if there is a certain food to liquor ratio that businesses in Cottage Grove have to meet. Graf noted that falls under the liquor license and not the purview of the Planning Commission. She asked the applicant if they have figured out that percentage. Councilmember Dennis responded that the City does not have a ratio for liquor to food sales. Hoefler stated that he is with the architectural firm for the project, so he does not know the projected ratio of food to liquor sales. He addressed some of the comments made by the residents. He stated that this will not be a sports bar. There is a bar in the restaurant; there are also bars in Applebee’s and Ruby Tuesday. Graff noted that Carbone’s will be expanding into a full bar and restaurant and is very close to a residential area. Hoefler stated that the zoning for this property allows for a restaurant, senior housing, gas station; the whole devel- opment has been planned for years and the houses around the commercial area were built after the ordinances were created. He then explained how seats are calculated for patio spaces, which is to multiply the number of seats by .25, noting that at most those seats are used about four months per year. In this case, the calculation is 10 seats. He summarized that the proposed use conforms to the zoning. He reiterated that this will not be a sports bar but a restaurant with a bar, noting the owner lives in Cottage Grove and this would provide families, including his, somewhere locally to go after youth sports events instead of going to Woodbury. Fox asked if the master plan from 2004 that references retail and restaurant uses allowed for liquor licenses. McCool responded that in 2000, when the original master plan was adopted and also in the 2004 plan, the ordinance for this eight-acre development had a list of commer- cial uses that would be allowed, which included restaurants and bars. Fox asked if the master plan was public at that time. McCool responded yes. Fox noted that anybody who purchased property after 2004 could have seen this information that referenced a potential restaurant with a liquor license. Graf commented that the Planning Commission looks at land use and zoning matters based on the City Code to rule on whether or not any proposed development meets the zoning ordi- nances. Haagsman made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and site plan for the proposed Junction 70 Grille, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Graff called for a break at 8:30 p.m. Graff called the meeting back to order at 8:35 p.m. 6.4 Rahn Home Services – Case CUP2016-020 Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 7 of 13 Rahn Home Services, Inc. has applied for a conditional use permit to operate heating and air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical businesses with outdoor parking of commercial vehicles at 11825 West Point Douglas Road South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graff opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Graf made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.5 Cottage Grove Tank Farm Exterior Storage – Case ICUP2016-026 St. Paul Park Refining Company, LLC has applied for interim conditional use permit to utilize the Cottage Grove Petroleum Tank Farm at 6483 85th Street South as a temporary outdoor storage area for piping and structural steel materials that will be used for a construction project at the St. Paul Park Refinery. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graff opened the public hearing. Eileen Thompson, 8489 Grafton Avenue South, asked what kind of materials, how much, and how often and what type of truck traffic would be going through the neighborhood. Burbank responded that the materials include pipes and metal. He was not given the information on the truck traffic, but staff will research that information prior to the City Council meeting. Greg Schafer, Project Manager with St. Paul Park Refinery, 301 St. Paul Park Road, St. Paul Park, MN, explained that this area would be used laying down piping and structural steel of random lengths that would be put on a third-party carrier. The hours of operation would be during the day shift only, which is 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He stated that based on road re- strictions for vehicle weight, they will utilize a route that has nine ton roads with only three blocks to get to the driveway on 85th Street. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Zopfi asked if there would be truck traffic every day. Schafer responded that the deliveries would probably be once or twice a week. When they start removing the materials from the site to take to the refinery, they will probably use smaller trucks, such as pick-ups with a fifth wheel, so it would probably be more frequent, but he does not know how many times per week. They are limited with space at the refinery so moving the materials off the property probably would not occur daily. It would be sporadic and smaller loads. Zopfi made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the interim condi- tional use permit to allow exterior storage, subject to the conditions listed in the staff Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 8 of 13 report. Graf offered an amendment to add a condition that hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. Zopfi agreed to the amendment. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.6 Minnesota Pipe Line Parking Lot Expansion – Case CUP2016-031 Minnesota Pipe Line Company, LLC has applied for a conditional use permit to expand their nonconforming parking lot at 6483 85th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graf asked why the parking lot is nonconforming. Burbank responded that the current parking lot does not meet the front yard setback criteria and front yard parking is not allowed. Mercedes Mallinger, Minnesota Pipe Line Company, 400 Selby Avenue, St. Paul, MN, ex- plained that this project is an expansion and upgrade of the existing parking lot at their terminal site to better accommodate and outfit their existing employees in the office building. The addi- tion of concrete skirting on the secondary or third access point was not in their initial plans, so they requested time to accommodate that. This expansion should decrease traffic and on- street parking in the area. Graff opened the public hearing. Eileen Thompson, 8489 Grafton Avenue South, stated that she lives right across from the parking lot. She stated that she never sees enough cars in the parking lot to need an expansion and does not understand why she has to look at more parking lot. She also noted that the current landscaping is an eyesore, and now trees will be removed. She expressed concern that they may park company vehicles there on a permanent basis. Kason Lauber, 1734 Fallbrook Drive, Hastings, MN, stated that they are not always at full capacity but during times when they have training or meetings at the site, vehicles have to park on the road or grassy areas. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Zopfi asked if screening would be required. Burbank responded that staff will work with the applicant to provide additional landscape screening, replace the trees that will be lost to the expansion, and making sure the parking lot meets ADA requirements through the building permit process. He stated one of the issues discussed was whether to require curb and gutter on the site, and Engineering determined that would not be required for this minimal expansion; however, they do need to treat stormwater runoff and are working with City Engineers on that. Zopfi asked if the new landscaping will screen Thompson’s view. Burbank answered that any time there is an application, staff works with the property owners to improve their current land- scaping as well as any additional need for screening. Graf made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 9 of 13 Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Burbank noted that as part of the City Council packet, language will be included in the resolu- tion for an extension to add concrete skirting, as requested by the applicant. 6.7 Renewal by Andersen Sign Package – Case CUP2016-030 Lawrence Sign has applied for a conditional use permit for a comprehensive sign package for Renewal by Andersen at 9900 Jamaica Avenue South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graff asked for clarification on the size of the existing signs and if they were noncompliant with the current code. McCool responded that the current signs are four feet by six feet and the signage they are proposing will have the same sign area; the existing directional signs exceed the maximum size allowed for directional signs. They are looking to replace the directional signs that are proposed to display “Renewal by Andersen.” Because of the business name on the sign, they are no longer directional signs but advertising signs; this is the reason for the conditional use permit. Rasmussen asked if the proposed directional signs would be identified and permitted as mon- ument signs instead of the directional sign language. McCool stated that was correct. Dave Peltier, 1387 Clipper Ship Alcove, Woodbury, with Lawrence Sign, clarified that Sign D is an existing sign, so it will be a replacement and not a new sign. Graff opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve conditional use per- mit for a comprehensive sign package for Renewal by Andersen subject to the condi- tions listed in the staff report. Awad seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.8 Sunrise Solar Garden – Cases ZA2016-027, CUP2016-028, V2016-029 Sunrise Development, LLC applied for a zoning amendment to City Code Title 11-4-10D, Solar Collection Systems, to add approximately 101 acres of land to Exhibit A to allow a solar collection system on property at 11576 Point Douglas Road South; a conditional use permit to allow a community solar garden on 101 acres of land at 11576 Point Douglas Road South; and a variance to the setback requirements along an internal property line between two parcels under the same ownership. McCool reported that the applicant submitted a letter requesting a 60-day continuance of their applications; however, the public hearing will be opened this evening to accommodate those who are in attendance to speak on these applications. McCool summarized the staff report and requested that the public hearing be continued to the April 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 10 of 13 Graff asked if the City identified any sight line issues for the panels proposed to be close to Highway 61, if the panels could be seen from Highway 61, and issues with glare onto the highway. McCool responded that travelers on Highway 61 will be able to see some of the solar panels in the distance, but there should not be any glare issues. Graf asked if that area is in the MUSA. McCool answered no. Haagsman asked what the vision is for the Highway 61 corridor. McCool stated that the City is initiating an update to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The current comp plan does not iden- tify this property for any commercial use but as part of that plan update over the next two years, the city will take a look at the land use designations for that corridor, which is one of the reasons that staff recommended denial of the applications. Rasmussen stated that the site plan shows that the proposed fence and solar garden would be more than 100 feet from Highway 61, and if the southern portion were moved to the north, there would be 400 to 500 feet between the freeway and the solar panels, which should allow for any future development of utilities. McCool agreed that if the southern portion was relo- cated, it probably is 400 feet away from the Highway 61 corridor. William Weber, Weber Community Planning, representing Sunrise Development, stated that they would like to introduce the proposal tonight and then come back in April for the Commis- sion’s decision. They recognize that the area is outside the solar collection area but believe it is a very good site for a community solar garden for several reasons. A community solar gar- den is an interim commercial use with a life span of about 25 to 30 years. Sunrise would be willing to have a condition of approval that they would have to come back to the City when the lease with Xcel expires if they decide to continue the project. In the meantime, they could keep the southern part of the site open so it could be split off and sold to another party for other developments. This site is not likely to undergo sewer development for several decades, and this would be a good interim use prior to future residential or commercial development. This property is almost two miles from the edge of the MUSA, it is in utility staging area 5, it is not under imminent development pressure, and it is guided rural residential and zoned agricultural. If the City wishes to keep the Highway 61 frontage open for retail or commercial development and extend 114th Street, they could accommodate that. They can move some or all of the collectors southeast of the farm buildings to the north end of the property. Weber stated that the site is well hidden from Highway 61. He pointed out on the site map a natural berm with trees and shrubs on it along the Highway 61 frontage that encompasses almost the full width of the site. There are trees around the perimeter of the site. Where there are gaps in those perimeter trees, especially in the northeast area, they will plant some larger conifers to screen those views. There is a wooded area on the western part of the site, which will be untouched. The houses along Manning Avenue will not be able to see the site due to the large number of trees and shrubs. Weber reported that they held a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors seemed to support and accept this proposal based upon promises for screening. He displayed photos of the site taken from several neighboring residential sites. He stated that Sunrise can accommodate interim and long-term development on the site and the extension of 114th Street across the southern portion of the site. He noted that there are other areas better suited for commercial development. Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 11 of 13 Weber stated that the project would pay property taxes and production tax. Xcel customers can subscribe to this community solar garden and have part of the power assigned to their use, which would reduce their electricity bill. Sunrise would be willing to give first priority to Cottage Grove residents. He stated that this project over its lifetime would provide clean power with no carbon emissions. This is likely to be the last five megawatt project in Cottage Grove. The deadline for applying to Xcel for permission to build these projects was last September. In addition, there are two substations in Cottage Grove that the power would go to and with the three other projects that were approved, the capacity of those substations would probably be exhausted and could not take any more power. Weber stated that they met with the property owners and will continue to work with them to do whatever it takes to mitigate views. He then addressed the issue of solar glare. They don’t believe that will be a problem because there is fixed screening along Highway 61, the topography on the site includes a berm and a secondary natural ridge, the setback of the panels, and that solar glare tends to go upward. They do recognize that this property is outside the area where solar gardens are allowed but they think it is a suitable, sensible interim commercial development that can accommodate short-term and longer-term development for other uses. Weber asked that the Planning Commission hold off on their decision so Sunrise can come back to the April meeting to discuss this further with staff and neighbors. Graff opened the public hearing. Louise Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that they own a farm close to this pro- posed community solar garden. She appreciated that the company held a neighborhood meet- ing. At that meeting they told the neighbors how to subscribe to their service. It was her understanding that there is no charge to sign on to the project if you have a residential electric service from Xcel Energy. She asked if their seven electrical meters would all be eligible and if there is a fee. Dean Leischow, President of Sunrise Energy, 2995 Deer Run Trail, Orono, MN, responded that there are numerous other developers and most of them only provide sub- scriptions to large commercial or industrial facilities. Sunrise’s entire focus is the residential marketplace. Their partner and investor, Solar City, is the largest residential solar provider in the world. He explained how their process works. Subscribers do not own any of the facilities; they simply subscribe to the facility for a period of time. There is no fee. There was a question about how long someone would have to subscribe. Leischow responded that they are still working out the details but it will be for at least a couple years minimum. Jim Pederson, 11300 Point Douglas Road, stated that he does not believe that most people would see the solar garden from Highway 61. He does not think that there will be commercial development on that property due to the topography and flooding risks. He stated that this is an ideal location for this use due to the screening. The company will add more screening for the neighboring properties. He asked that the Commission approve the application. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that this is probably the most ideal site for a community solar garden because of natural screening. Even though it is not in the original zone set up for solar farms, it is adjacent to it. The property is totally screened on most sides. There was a little concern at the neighborhood meeting that some of the people near Manning Avenue might be able to see the panels, but additional screening should mitigate that. He owns property to both the west and the north of this 100-acre site and supports development Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 12 of 13 of this solar farm. He believes it would be one of the best interim uses for this property and asked that the Commission approve the applications. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, displayed views from his accessory dwelling and back deck. He stated that what someone does with their property within normal use should be supported by the City. They have the right to develop their property as long as it does not create a hazard for anyone else. He commented on the potential for keeping the frontage road for potential future development based on the review of the comprehensive plan. He does not believe that the area will be developed any time soon. He stated that they should be allowed to have the solar panels closer to Highway 61 rather than moving them to the north where it will impact residents more. He believe this is probably one of the better land uses for that property as it is well screened with a hilly terrain, which makes the area not suited for com- mercial development. No one else spoke. Graff asked if the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing or could action be taken on the applications. McCool stated that other property owners in the area were informed that the hearing would be continued at the April 25 Planning Commission meeting and that the applicant has requested that the Commission not take action at tonight’s meeting. Awad made a motion to continue the public hearing to the April 25, 2016, Planning Com- mission meeting. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 22, 2016 Awad made a motion to approve the minutes for the February 22, 2016, Planning Com- mission meeting. Fox seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of March City Council Meetings McCool summarized the agendas from the March 2 and March 16, 2016, City Council meet- ings. Dennis thanked the Planning Commission for all their hard work and time commitment in service to the City. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None 8.4 Annual Organizational Meeting Accept 2016 Planning Commission Rules Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2016 Page 13 of 13 Graf made a motion to accept the 2016 Planning Commission Rules. Awad seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Election of Officers Graf made a motion to elect Kim Graff as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Zopfi seconded. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously (6-to-0 vote). Fox nominated himself to serve as Secretary of the Planning Commission. Zopfi seconded. There were no other nominations. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Adjournment Graf made a motion to adjourn. Awad seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. (7-to-0 vote).