Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-27 Planning Commission MinutesCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission June 27, 2016 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, June 27, 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. Members Present: Sam Awad, Justin Fox, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Derek Rasmussen, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi LTA ii1•Ta"MOTT iiM:ta'i11=01i Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Graf made a motion to approve the agenda. Rostad seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (8 -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, she 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 Myers Solar Garden — Case CUP2016-044 SEV MN 1, a subsidiary of Sunrise Energy Ventures, has applied for a conditional use per- mit to develop a 31 -acre community solar garden with a five -megawatt array of photovol- taic panels to be located at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Levitt summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. William Weber, Sunrise Energy Ventures, 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN, stated that the staff report was complete and accurate, and he will answer any questions. Graff opened the public hearing. David Steinberg, 10820 Manning Avenue South, stated that his property line is 45 feet from the solar array. He expressed concern that the solar panels are made from silicon and dan- gerous chemicals that could possibly be harmful to the environment and surrounding area. The land where the solar arrays will be located slopes down to his property and if the panels are damaged, contaminated water could enter his wells. He does not believe that the six-foot tall trees will be big enough to screen the six-foot high fence with three barbed wire strands. He stated that he moved to the country and does not want to live next to a power plant. He is also concerned that this could decrease his property values, and that there will be increased noise bouncing off the hard surfaces. The trees would only slightly obscure his property during the summer, and in the winter the trees would not have leaves; it could take years before the trees are large enough to conceal the solar garden. He does not believe this is a good location for this type of use, and that there are plenty of other places, including the property that was recently denied. Louise Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that their farm borders the property pro- posed for a community solar garden, and that she and her husband are in favor of this project and hopes that it moves forward. Dennis Galloway, 10670 Lehigh Avenue South, stated that he is opposed to the proposal as it will be an eyesore. He noted that his property is 65 feet away from the property line. He agreed with Steinberg's testimony. He asked how a solar garden would impact property val- ues. He also expressed concern about the proposed six-foot fence with three strands of barbed wire, which would make the property look like a commercial site. Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue South, stated that at the May Planning Commission meeting there was a hearing on a proposed community solar garden on the Wilson property along Highway 61, which the Commission denied due to the impact the panels would have on a future frontage road and commercial property. A month later, there is an application for an industrial site in the middle of residential properties. He expressed concern about how it would affect the residential area today, not in the future. He stated that this is rural agricultural prop- erty and he does not believe anybody moved out to the area to have a six-foot fence with razor wire on top of it. He pointed out the location of his property and stated that there would be solar panels on the north and west sides. The solar panels would be only 40 feet from his house, his detached garage would be 12 feet from them, and a pole barn that would be 16 feet away. He does not know how the Commission can justify approving a commercial devel- opment that close to residential properties. He believes that property values would go down. He stated that there is no room on the property for this business to go in. He expressed con- cern about allowing access to the property from Manning Avenue. He then stated that the City has approved a couple solar gardens farm fields near 70th Street, noting that those locations are away from residential properties. There was opposition to those projects but those solar Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 8 arrays would not be next a house as these will be. Mingo stated that his property is south of the solar panels and is concerned that there could issues from heat off the panels. He also stated that scientists are researching if solar gardens create hot spots on the planet. Mingo noted that there is other properties in the City that could accommodate solar gardens that would be away from residences. He realizes that there could be development in this area but anticipated it would be residential, not commercial. Most of the neighbors are opposed to this project. His property is higher up and will overlook the solar garden. He stated that his view of the area would be impacted by planting the trees proposed to help screen the panels. Darlene Lanners, 10747 Lehigh Road South, stated that the solar garden would not be visible from her property and that she supports solar energy but does not believe this project would fit in this area. She asked who would benefit from this community solar garden. She noted that Myers would receive revenue from leasing his property but he currently receives revenue from the crops that are grown on his property. Crops do not intrude on anybody's view. She ex- pressed concern about traffic impacts on Highway 95 from this project. She asked if the pro- posed road would be the only access. She stated that she lives on a private drive and does not want construction equipment coming down that road. Lanners stated that it is not fair to put this in a residential area and she opposes the proposed project. Ed Frandrup, 10795 Lehigh Road South, stated that his property is straight down the valley and there is a very good chance that they will be able to see the solar garden from their loca- tion. He is also concerned about traffic coming down the private road and the impact on their property value. This project would only benefit one person and would hurt the community. He stated that he is against the application. Chuck Lanners, 10747 Lehigh Road South, is concerned about Highway 95 at Lehigh with additional traffic from construction and maintenance vehicles. He believes there are better locations for a solar farm that are not close to residential properties. Weber provided clarification on some of the points brought up. He stated that there is no evi- dence that any hazardous material in the panels could get out, as it is a sealed system. He explained that the fence will be inside the line of new trees that will be planted. They selected tree planting locations that should minimize, mitigate, and soften the few views there are to this site. He displayed photos showing the existing hedgerows and natural screening on the various properties, which already help to screen the property, and explained their landscaping and screening plans for each of those properties. He noted that they are concentrating most of their plantings on the area adjacent to the Mingo property as it would have the best view of the site. Weber stated that before they receive a building permit they will go through the re- quired submittals for historic review, hazardous material on-site review, wetlands, and surface water drainage. They will apply for an access permit from MnDOT where the field access is currently. Traffic to the project site once construction is completed will be minimal, one or two pickup trucks per month to check the computers on the invertors and about every four to six weeks for grass mowing and trimming. There will be more access during the construction period, which will take about two to three months. They will instruct the suppliers to come in from the north. Their proposed access point would be the safest option due to site lines on Highway 95. Weber stated that there is no noise generated by solar panels, and there will be no reflection as they are designed to absorb sunlight, not reflect it. He then stated that there are no solid studies that they know of across the country about the impact to property values. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 8 Sunrise has a project near Indianapolis that is across the road from a suburban subdivision, and have asked those neighbors, after a couple years, about the impact of the project on their properties; the neighbors' responses were neutral or positive. Revenue to the landowner was misstated; this is a community solar garden meaning that anybody can get a free subscription to the solar garden. He explained that subscribers are buying your electricity through the grid indirectly from the solar garden. The effect to the subscriber is that there will be about a 10 percent reduction in the electricity bill for each meter. The Smallidges have nine meters and can have nine subscriptions. They spend about $10,000 per year on electricity and will get about a $1,000 discount on their electricity. He then noted that property taxes are paid to the City, County, and School District, and a production tax is paid to the City. The actual revenue to the City will go up slightly compared to agriculture use. He stated that the only traffic will be off of Highway 95; there will be no traffic whatsoever onto Lehigh Avenue and there is no access from Lehigh to this site. Weber noted that there may be better locations for a commu- nity solar garden, but this location is in the City's solar zone. The message they have heard consistently from the City is to find a site in the solar zone. This site and proposal meet or exceed all the requirements of the ordinance. They believe that they have mitigated the effects on the nearby properties and think this will be a good neighbor. Dave Heggen, 10753 Lehigh Avenue South, stated that his property is by the loop driveway. He bought his property to get out into the country. His house is at about a 10 -to -12 -foot eleva- tion above the property line where the solar panels would be installed, and the current tree line has bush maples that grow about 15 feet tall. His concern is that he has two bedrooms that will look right over the top of the trees and they will be able to see solar panels. He does not want to see the panels, and a tall barrier is needed to screen them from his house. Steinberg again expressed concern about contamination from the panels, even though they are sealed, which could be damaged from hale or vehicles sliding off the road. There may not be an issue now but there could be in the future because there is no research yet on whether or not solar panels are hazardous. He also stated that the plantings would be tall enough to screen the view of the panels. In addition, the fence will stop wildlife from crossing the property and could push them onto the roads. He does not want a commercial use on agricultural prop- erty. He then stated that Myers asked for his support for a variance to put up a large accessory structure with living space to house his family, and promised that he would continue the agri- cultural use as he wanted his kids to grow up in a rural farming area. He then asked if this proposal would affect that structure. Darlene Lanners stated that when Myers talked to them about putting up a pole barn structure for his in-laws, he told them that he wanted to be in the country and will keep it farmland. Galloway also was approached by Myers about the large structure and told him that he wanted the property to stay as farmland. He also stated that he just planted eight -foot high trees that will take at least ten years before they will be large enough to screen anything. He asked if the property is zoned agricultural and if a commercial project could be located in that zoning district. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 5 of 8 McCool stated that the property is zoned R-1, Rural Residential. Levitt noted that it is not being rezoned for commercial; the use is allowed in the ordinance as a conditional use within that zoning classification. Rasmussen stated that he does not feel it is appropriate to impose a utility scale solar project in a rural residential area without the full support of all the neighbors. He does not agree with any of the approved solar gardens and questions how well the ordinance was thought out. He agrees with the neighbors' concerns. These neighboring residents will be much closer to the solar panels than the neighbors of the approved projects. He does not agree with the six-foot high fence with barbed wire on top, which gives a very industrial feel, and does not believe there is anything dangerous about the project that would require the barbed wire. An agricul- tural -style fence would be more appropriate for this part of the community. Rostad stated that there is some discrepancy between the staff report and what the applicant has indicated for the new trees they are planning to plant. The applicant talked about six-foot tall trees but the staff report and the recommendations indicate trees that will be eight to ten feet tall. If this project is approved, he would like to ensure there is agreement on the trees and thinks the taller sizes would be more appropriate. His biggest concern regarding the solar gardens is their impact on neighboring property values, which is one of the ordinance criteria. Haagsman stated that while it is good to have the neighbors' opinions, which he does take seriously, a few months ago the Commission recommended approval of a restaurant that everyone in the neighborhood opposed because the proposal met the ordinance criteria. This proposal also meets all codes, and the property is in the solar zone. He understands the point that all the neighbors supported the previous application that failed all, and this proposal has engendered some resistance. He favors this project because it meets all the requirements the City has set forth. Rostad stated that he agrees they have met most of the requirements but he does not have any evidence that they have met the requirement regarding depreciation of values of neigh- boring properties. Even if the Planning Commission recommends approval, he would like evi- dence presented prior to the City Council meeting regarding the values of the surrounding properties. Rasmussen stated that relating to property values, this is a non -typical type of development and while he is not a real estate expert, he believes that would have a negative effect on property values. Fox stated that the property owner has rights, which are set forth by the ordinance. Most of the application does meet the criteria. He noted that the Planning Commission makes a rec- ommendation on applications, and the City Council makes the final decision. The Council will listen to the Commission's discussion and the public testimony to make that decision. He noted that this property is in the solar zone and would be allowed subject to conditions. The proposal does meet the ordinance criteria, and the applicant is adding more screening than is required. Fox made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 6 of 8 Rostad stated that to clarify his pending vote, he thinks the project has its merits but he would like to see some evidence presented to the Council regarding effects on property values. Motion passed on a 6 -to -2 vote (Graff, Rasmussen). Rasmussen explained that he feels for the neighbors who chose to move out to the country and rural neighborhoods and now will a utility -scale solar development in their backyard. Graff stated that she does support solar but the reasons she voted against this application were sections 2, 3, and 4 of the ordinance criteria. She is not sure this property is compatible for this size of a solar garden. She is not assured that it will not depreciate property values. She would like to see other site protections because of its unsightliness to the neighboring properties, including additional screening or different protections for those neighbors. 6.2 Hy -Vee Revised Site Plan — Cases SP2016-050 and CUP2016-051 Hy -Vee, Inc. has applied for an amendment to the approved site plan review and condi- tional use permit for the proposed Hy -Vee development at Grove Plaza to change the location of the proposed gas station and convenience store to the Merchants Bank parcel at 7200 East Point Douglas Road South McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Haagsman noted that the amount of parking has increased and asked where those extra spaces were generated from. McCool responded because the convenience store has moved to the northeast corner of the property, more land became available for additional parking, even though the buildings increased in size. He noted that he included the 16 parking spaces at each of the 16 gas pumping stations in the total. McCool then stated that the Engineering Department and the City's consultant's comments were incorporated in the conditions recommending approval of Hy-Vee's development plan. He pointed out the median and the access drive shared between the two properties is recom- mended to be closed and to be shifted to the south. The purpose for relocating this internal access is to prevent inbound traffic from stacking back into East Point Douglas Road because of motorists southbound attempting to make a left turn into the gas station. Graff asked if there would be improvements to the road driving in front of the bank and going towards Starbucks. McCool responded there are no changes planned for that shared access drive. Fox asked if the two east/west lanes that are being shifted will be controlled. Levitt stated that will be evaluated with applicant based on volume; if "STOP" signs are put in on that through movement, it can continue to back things up further. Also staff's recommendation is for a dual left turn into the property so there would be another drive aisle being able to make that left movement, so the intersection will get wider in regards to access to the property. Levitt ex- plained that staff is continuing to work with the applicant. The ultimate goal and objective is to ensure that motorists can get there safely, efficiently, and effectively. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 7 of 8 Phil Hoey, 2960 320th Street West, Northfield, Minnesota, stated that most of the project has not changed but moving the convenience store out of the parking lot is significant. He explained that they have spent a lot of time with the neighbor as they are the most impacted by this development, noting that the plan shows the fence in the wrong location and they are moving it to a location that the resident has approved. They will continue to work with that neighbor as construction continues. Hoey also noted that the plan is mislabeled and there are only two wind turbines. Regarding the interim conditional use permit, they are requesting that the use begin on April 1 and not May 1, to allow for set-up. He stated that they want to ensure that customers get on the site safely, navigate it efficiently, and find available parking stalls, and they will continue to work with staff on a configuration, whether that means adding a dual left or changing the way the signal works. Rasmussen asked what type of tenant will be in the convenience store. Hoey responded that typically their convenience stores have a national coffee user but they do not have anything agreed upon at this time. Rasmussen believes a coffee shop with a drive-through does not fit as there is very minimal parking at the convenience store, and even with the shared parking, customers would have to cross the access drives. He expressed concern about the lack of parking for the C -store. Hoey responded that parking for a convenience store is critical. As far as the coffee user, they are also going to look at whether there is sufficient parking. The City has a parking ordinance that they will follow but it is also in their best interests that their cus- tomers have a place to park. They looked at the drive-through configuration closely and de- signed something they believe functions but if there was a way to fit more spaces in there, they would look at doing that, which may be possible if the access point is closed. Graf asked how the parking for this proposed store compares to the Oakdale site. Hoey stated that the parking for that store is very similar to this proposal; the difference is that behind the convenience store there is additional parking, but some of that is used for employee parking. Graff opened the public hearing. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. Graf made a motion to approve the revised site plan, conditional use permit, variance for parking setbacks and landscaping, and the interim conditional use permit with a change to start date to April 1, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2016 A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the May 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of June City Council Meetings Thiede summarized the agendas from the June 1 and 15, 2016, City Council meetings. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 2016 Page 8 of 8 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries Solar Ordinance Follow -Up McCool summarized the memorandum in the Commission packet. Zopfi asked if staff could look into if there are any guidelines for commercial appraisals that could be referenced in the future. McCool stated that for Ecoplexus project, the applicant, who is from California, had done appraisals and found that there were no adverse impacts to property values. He does not believe that there are many comparables at this point. Graf stated that he now believes that the right decision was made regarding a CUP versus an ICUP. Rasmussen stated that some of his frustrations with the solar ordinance is that the boundaries are in rural residential neighborhoods with none in the commercial/industrial areas, and asked if that is because of the tax base. Residents in the rural areas are suffering the solar developments. He asked when the ordinance was drafted, how much feedback was received from the property owners in those areas. McCool responded that the Planning Commission's recommendations only pertained to not allowing solar in the MUSA and the Transition Planning Areas. When the recommendation went to the City Council, the Council asked to tighten up those areas, partic- ularly because they did not want solar gardens visible along the Highway 61 corridor. He does not recall specifically if there was any testimony about the map. Rasmussen stated that solar is so adaptable to existing structures and developments. His feeling is using raw land in the metro area becomes a lot less green when there are rooftops and green spaces in large in- dustrial developments. It seems like all the solar companies are taking the easiest route by utilizing farmland. He then commented that he would like to see more continuity within the solar developments, such as landscaping or fencing, to make them blend better into the com- munity. Graff stated that the Planning Commission spent four to six months working on this ordinance and held several public hearings and meetings. 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Fox made a motion to adjourn. Graf seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. (8 -to -0 vote).