Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-07-06 PACKET 07.D. Cottage J Grove ��er� Pride and Qro�P�rity Me�t Clt�/ COUI'1CII CONSENTAGENDA Acfion Request Form �'D' Meeting Date 7/6/2016 Department Community Development Title of Request Approve 5/23/2016 Planning Commission Minutes Staff Recommendation Approve the minutes from the May 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. ATTACH MENTS: Description Type Upload Date 5/23/16 PC Minutes Cover Memo 7/1/2016 City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 23, 2016 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, May 23, 2016, 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. Roll Call Members Present: Sam Awad, Ken Brittain, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Derek Rasmussen, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Justin Fox Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John M. Burbank, Senior Planner John McCool, Senior Planner Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Graff made a motion to approve the agenda. Graf 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 Salmon Driveway Access — Case V2016-042 John Salmon has applied for a variance to allow a second driveway and curb cut at 8614 Hyde Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page2of9 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Rasmussen asked if there are design standards for accessory structures. Burbank responded that the City Code requires that detached accessory structures within this zoning district need to meet the architectural design and color palette of the principal structure. Rostad noted that the staff report stated that parking on the property is limited to four vehicles outside and asked if the ordinance defines what a vehicle is. Burbank stated that the City Code includes the definition of vehicles. He explained that information was included for clarification because of the additional parking surface. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Rostad made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions. Awad seconded. Motion passed unanimously(8-to-0 vote). 6.2 Sunrise Solar Garden — Cases CUP2016-028 and V2016-029 Sunrise Development, LLC has applied for 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. (Continued from April 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.) McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. William Weber, Sunrise Energy Development, stated that they can accommodate both the interests of the City and the interests of the neighbors by locating the solar arrays in the center of the site. Leaving the southern part of the site open 435 to 900 feet back from the highway provides numerous options for future roadway alignment and placement of buildings. They are proposing a 25-year project; after that point the solar arrays can be moved from the site. Their proposal also leaves some of the northern and western parts of the property open to accommodate the neighbors. Their landscaping plan supplements what is currently on the site. He also noted that the arrays would be behind the natural berm that is about 300 feet into the site. They are proposing spruce and fir conifers that are 8 to 12 feet tall planted in a double row in the northeast corner of the site and near Highway 61. Sunrise has been in contact with the neighbors, who are all very supportive of the proposal. He displayed images of the current views of the property and the existing landscaping and proposed plantings. Weber stated that they have reviewed the nine conditions for approval and accept them. Brittain noted that this property is in a transition planning area, which will be evaluated during the comprehensive plan update process, so this proposal is early. His main concern is the disruption of future utilities and MUSA extensions that might go along a frontage road. He thinks one of the conditions should be that easements be granted so the City's ability to Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page3of9 install infrastructure in the future is not hindered. Weber stated that if the City did a study and mapped a collector road through that property, he is sure that Sunrise would be cooperative and grant or sell easements across the property south of the solar collectors. He believes the trunk line would come down Highway 61, which would be unimpeded by this project. He stated that they can provide easements once that road has been officially mapped. They don't want to impede commercial or residential development near Highway 61. Awad asked if the conifers they are planting would replace the one acre of trees being re- moved. Weber responded that based on the City's tree ordinance, they are not required to do a replacement because they are well below the threshold requiring replacement, which is 50 percent, and they are leaving 95 percent of the trees on site. Levitt clarified that the City's trunk utilities, as they are currently designed, flow down the frontage roads on East Point Douglas Road, and the DOT does not permit the City to run trunk facilities in the DOT's right-of-way. Just as was done on East Point Douglas Road by Walmart and as planned in 2017, the City will be extending those trunk utilities down East Point Douglas Road. She stated that typically as development happens with a project, the City, through the development process, acquires the necessary right-of-ways and easements without fee. Brittain asked if there should be a condition regarding those easements. Levitt responded that currently the Commission is not in a platting position with the parcels for development so that doesn't trigger that necessity immediately in these discussions. Brittain asked if this is not something we can take into consideration at this time. Levitt responded that if the Commission feels that the information that staff has presented is creating a negative effect on the property or the adjacent properties, then it would be differing from the findings of fact that are within the staff report for approval. That is a discussion the Planning Commission must take up in regards to understanding the findings of fact. Brittain stated that the Commission has added conditions in previous applications. Levitt responded that the Commission can make whatever recommendations they feel are necessary. McCool stated that while Sunrise would have a 25-year contract with Xcel Energy, the condi- tional use permit does not have an expiration date; it runs with the property, so at the end of the 25-year period, if the applicant decided to continue to operate the solar collection system, they can do so without the City's approval. There is no guarantee that the solar panels would go away. The only way to specify an expiration date would be if this was an interim conditional use permit application, but that is not the way the ordinance is structured. Brittain opened the public hearing. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, reiterated his support for this project. Instead of getting too hung up on what could happen in the future, the City should get the hundreds of acres along Highway 61 that have been for sale for many years sold, and let Sunrise proceed with their project. No one e/se spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Weber stated that Sunrise would be happy to add a condition to the CUP that they would come back at the end of its contract with Xcel Energy and request permission to continue, and if it wasn't granted, the project would be removed from the site. Levitt stated that the Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page4of9 Commission could add a condition indicating that the CUP would terminate after a 25-year time period and they must come back before the City Council for continuation. Assistant City Attorney Bridget Nason, 633 South Concord Street, South St. Paul, explained that the conditional use permit runs with the land and cannot be have a termination date. Graf noted that while Sunrise is currently in favor of allowing a termination date that could change in the future. Nason stated that while they say they agree with it now, the CUP runs with the land, what happens if the ownership changes and the new owners are not open to that. Graf stated that the solar ordinance requires a conditional use permit to allow a commu- nity solar garden and asked if an ICUP would not be sufficient to meet the ordinance require- ment. Nason stated that a solar garden is only allowed with a conditional use permit. Graf asked if the Planning Commission could request a code change to allow this by an interim conditional use permit instead of a conditional use permit. Nason responded that there is a submitted application for a conditional use permit. Graff stated that there is no precedent set to allow for the requested variance and there is no substantiation to show that there are no other suitable properties that could be used for solar gardens that are within the allowed area in the adopted ordinance. This would limit business development in that area. She also believes this sets a dangerous precedent to immediately amend an ordinance that was just adopted, so every property that borders Exhibit A of the adopted ordinance could request a zoning amendment. Haagsman stated that how this was handled by the applicant shows a willingness to work with the City to accommodate future development. He asked if language could be crafted regarding future easements and a termination date to avoid potential issues in the future. He feels very passionate about solar energy, this location is adjacent to the approved area, and he wants the City to be on the right side of history regarding alternative energy. He noted that this might be the last solar garden of this size in the city. Brittain stated that the City has been very supportive of solar energy and has approved multiple community solar gardens. There is plenty of space allowed in the City to implement a solar farm. The CUP and variance applications are dependent on the zoning text amendment, which was recommended for approval at the April Planning Commission meeting. Brittain stated that regardless of how he feels about the zoning amendment, he views the conditional use permit and variance on their own merits, and he would be more comfortable if language was added about easements and a sunset date. Graff noted that this application has been extended for two months and asked if adding a condition to the zoning text amendment regarding easements and a sunset could be done tonight. Levitt responded that there is a challenge regarding the sunset date as the current owner is agreeing to that, but if the ownership changes, the condition may not be enforceable. Staff could work with the applicant and legal counsel to tighten that up prior to the City Council meeting but there is no guarantee on that condition. In regards to the easements, the landowner must dedicate the necessary easements for public infrastructure to take place along that corridor per the City's comprehensive plan. Brittain asked if the solar panels are on that easement, would they have to be removed. Levitt responded that was correct. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page5of9 Graf stated that he voted for the zoning text amendment and wanted to hear what moving this forward would look like. His main support was that this is an interim property use to fill a vacant space until development could occur. He agrees that solar is very important for our future. He is conflicted and wishes that the ordinance allowed for an interim conditional use permit, which would provide full authority to review this in 25 years. Zopfi asked if by restrictive covenant, the current owner could put something of record to limit solar gardens on this property to the next 25 or 30 years that would bind any future purchasers. Levitt responded that the underlying authority of the CUP grants the use and runs with the property, and inquired if there could be a deed restriction placed on the property. Nason stated that if the Commission wants to add this as a condition, staff and their attorney could try to craft language but cannot guarantee that it would be legally binding. The issue is the statute as written runs with the land and is not an interim use. Zopfi asked if we could set the restrictive covenant to begin 25 years from now. Nason replied no. Weber stated that his reading of the state statute is that the City cannot impose on an applicant a sunset clause on a conditional use, but if the applicant proposes and agrees to a time limitation that might be acceptable, which they are willing to do. The condition can be written so it passes on to any future owner of the property. He stated that is typically what they do. The area south of the solar arrays would be about nine to ten acres, which should be large enough for any variety of commercial development. He noted that there will probably not be another five megawatt project in the foreseeable future because all applications were due to Xcel last September, and the two substations in Cottage Grove that can accept this power could be virtually full if this project is developed. He stated that there were not many locations for them to choose from. He believes that they can work to preserve to the City's satisfaction the opportunity for road access and commercial development on the south side of the property. Awad stated that his concern is for more variance and zoning text amendment applications for solar collection projects. He asked if today's recommendation could affect future applications. Levitt responded that there was one other solar ordinance amendment application for which the Commission did not recommend approval, which was in the area just south of the Business Park south of 100th Street by Ideal Avenue, so the Commission already indicated as a body to uphold the ordinance as adopted. The City has approved three other solar projects that are compliant with the ordinance, so this is the fifth solar application to come before the Planning Commission. Brittain asked if the best course of action would have been for the City Council to have acted on the zoning text amendment. Levitt responded that the Planning Commission's recommen- dation to approve the zoning amendment to Exhibit "A" as recommended in April will be for- warded to the City Council unless that action is overturned. Graf asked if the one denied zoning amendment application involved property in the MUSA. Levitt responded that it was outside the MUSA and was in a transition planning zone like Sunrise Development's proposed site. Haagsman made a motion to approve the conditional use permit and variance subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with added conditions for future easement Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page6of9 requirements and an agreement with the applicant for a 25-year sunset. Zopfi seconded. Graff stated that we still have to look at what our role is in approving a variance. She agrees that when the zoning text amendment was recommended for approval last month, it took some of our decision making power away, but we still have to approve a variance with findings. Graff said she is firmly opposed as she has not seen a case for approval, even with the additional information that was presented tonight. She does not believe a case has been made as to why a variance is needed. Graf appreciates staff's input on the past precedence of this body, and based on that, along with the fact that we cannot grant an ICUP and remain within the ordinance, he will not be able to support this motion. Brittain stated that he does not support the applications. Zopfi asked if it is within the power of the Commission to deny the applications after approving the zoning amendment. Rostad believes that the previous zoning text amendment that the Commission denied south of the Business Park was disjointed from the approved areas for solar gardens. He stated that this is a solid application with support from the neighbors. He does not object to anything in this application, and he is not as worried as other Commissioners about what happens after the 25 years. He supports adding or extending the area allowed for solar gardens, and since we already voted to extend that area, he feels that the conditional use permit and variance should be approved. He does not see any issues with approving the setback variance for a common boundary line. Haagsman stated that he does not see any negatives to this proposal. Looking at all the solar applications that came through, he feels this is one of the better sites. The 400-foot buffer from the highway provides options for future utility projects and commercial development. Awad asked what happens when another application is received for an amendment in an area adjacent to but not in the allowed area because we granted this amendment, would that hold the City to approving those amendments. Levitt responded that this same process would have to be followed, the ordinance would have to be amended to allow that area to be included, and at this point, a precedent hasn't been set. Awad stated that when he voted for approval of the amendment he thought that it would be for just one but if others could apply, he believes in fairness. Motion fails on a 5-to-3 vote (Yeas: Haagsman, Rasmussen, Rostad) (Nays: Awad, Brittain, Graf, Graff, Zopfi). Graf inquired about making a motion to withdraw the recommendation for approval of the zoning text amendment that was made at the April Planning Commission meeting. Brittain asked for clarification from the City Attorney. Nason stated that a motion to reconsider a previous action can only be made by a Commissioner who voted with the majority on that previous action, there must be a discussion, and it must carry by a simple majority. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page7of9 Graf made a motion to reconsider the action as it re/ates to the zoning text amendment that was made at the April 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Awad seconded. Motion passed on a 7-to-1 vote to reconsider the action taken on the zoning text amendment. Nason stated that the motion, which passed, is to reconsider the approval of the zoning text amendment. Now that the Commission is reconsidering it, the motion should be to deny the zoning text amendment to allow the proposed property to be included in the area where solar panel arrays are allowed by conditional use permit. Brittain asked if the Commission is re- voting on the original motion. Nason stated yes. Brittain clarified that the original motion was to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. Weber asked if that motion would be allowed as the public hearing is on the conditional use permit and variance applications. Nason responded that public hearing is needed on a zoning ordinance amendment, but her understanding of Roberts Rules is that a motion can be made to reconsider a motion that was previously taken at the next meeting without a public hearing. Graff stated that the purpose and role of this body is an advisory committee, which means that any decisions or motions advance to the City Council. She asked if the Council may opt for their meeting to be a public hearing on this matter. Nason stated that the public hearing is held at the Planning Commission level for these types of amendments. Rostad stated that he does not believe that would be the case because if the City Council returned it to the Commission to hold a public hearing, the review period would run out. Nason stated that she does not have all the details before her, but the Commission can make the motion to reconsider, which was done, and then make a motion to approve or deny the proposed text amendment. It would then go to the Council for final action. With respect to the 60-day deadline, she will have to check into where things fall as far as the timing is concerned. Levitt responded that the 60-day deadline was extended by the applicant to June 30. Graf made a motion to deny the zoning text amendment to City Code 11-4-10D to not include the 101 acres of land in Exhibit A. Awad seconded. Haagsman expressed concern about putting the City into legal jeopardy as we have already denied the conditional use permit and variance. He asked if we should hold a public hearing to reverse the approval of the zoning amendment. McCool responded that in April, the Plan- ning Commission held the public hearing for the zoning text amendment and made a recom- mendation of approval. However, that recommendation never went to the City Council and they have not taken final action on that text amendment. The continued public hearings on the applications for Sunrise was continued to tonight's meeting. The public hearing for that text amendment is still open. Brittain stated that it is his understanding that this is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page8of9 Weber stated that one of the concerns he heard tonight was whether or not this sets a prece- dent for any future requests for zoning text amendments to the solar collection ordinance, and it is his understanding that it would not set a precedent. Every application is considered on its own merits individually. He reiterated that this project accommodates both the city and the neighbors, it is environmentally sound, it makes good business sense, and it leaves the City's options open. They will work to accommodate the City's needs for extending 114th Street and providing for commercial development and utilities across the site. Motion to deny the zoning text amendment passed on a 5-to-3 vote (Yeas: Haagsman, Rasmussen, Rostad) (Nays:Awad, Brittain, Graf, Gratf, Zopfi). Nason summarized that the Commission's motion to approve the conditional use permit and variance applications failed, the Commission revisited its decision on the zoning text amend- ment, and they voted to deny the zoning text amendment. Brittain stated that because the zoning amendment was denied, the conditional use permit cannot be granted. Rostad pointed out that these are still active applications. Nason stated that the application still has to work through the process. Graff asked if the Commission has to make a motion on the conditional use permit and variance. Levitt stated that when the Commission took the first action to deny the conditional use permit and variance it was with the understanding that the property was within the zoning text amendment, but under the last motion, this property is no longer permitted to have a solar use on it, so the Commission wants to know if the conditional use permit and variance applications are pertinent now that the use is not allowed on this parcel. Graff made a motion to deny the conditional use permit and variance applications based on findings of fact and the Commission's decision on the zoning amendment. Graf seconded. Motion passed on a 5-to-3 vote (Nays: Haagsman, Rasmussen, Rostad) (Yeas: Awad, Brittain, Graf, Graff, Zopfi). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2016 Haagsman made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 25, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously(8-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of March City Council Meetings Thiede summarized the agendas from the May 4 and May 18, 2016, City Council meetings. Graff provided positive feedback that she has received about how nice the new storage facility on the former Rush property looks. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Planning Commission Minutes May 23, 2016 Page9of9 None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Graf asked about adopting a code amendment to allow similar curb cuts to what proposed in agenda item 6.1. He also asked why conditional permits are required for community solar gardens rather than interim conditional use permits. Rostad asked if the locations of the main Xcel lines were taken into consideration during the City's discussions on the boundaries where community solar gardens would be allowed. Graff thanked Nason for being in attendance at this meeting and for her legal guidance. Adjournment Graf made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting. Rostad seconded. The regular meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m. (8-to-0 vote). The Planning Commission reconvened in the Training Room for their workshop discussion on a possible zoning amendment regarding food trucks.