Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-25 Planning Commission MinutesCity of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 25, 2016 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, April 25, 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. Members Present: Sam Awad, Ken Brittain, Justin Fox, Adam Graf, Kimberly Graff, Jake Haagsman, Derek Rasmussen, Jim Rostad, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: None 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 Graf made a motion to approve the agenda. Graff seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (9 -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 Zwakman Garage — Case V2016-033 Peter Zwakman has applied for a variance to allow an accessory structure on a residential property less than five acres to be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure at 7156 Granada Avenue South. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 2 of 9 Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions. Graff seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.2 Eastridge Woods Replat — Case PP2016-019 D.R. Horton, Inc. — Minnesota has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning classification for three acres of land at 9905 Military Road from AG -1, Agricultural, to R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), an amendment to the Eastridge Woods Planned Development Overlay Master Plan to add 8 single-family lots, and a preliminary plat to re -plat Eastridge Woods to add the three acres of land at 9905 Military Road to the Eastridge Woods residential subdivision and replatting the area as Eastridge Woods 5th Addition. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Graff asked if there are any structures that need to be removed from the property. McCool responded there is an existing accessory structure in the center of the property being added to the plat. Any other buildings in the photo would belong to Cedarhurst Mansion. Rasmussen asked about landscaping between the houses and the street on Military Road. McCool stated that landscaping is not required along the back of the properties. He noted that they are in compliance with the minimum landscaping requirements. Sometime in the future Military Road will become a trail corridor and the existing roadway would be abandoned. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning amendment to rezone the three -acre at 9905 Military Road from AG -1 to R-3/PDO, amend the Eastridge Woods PDO Plan to add 8 lots, and the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Graf seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). 6.3 Dominium Senior Housing — Cases ZA2016-035, PP2016-036, SP2016-037 BKV Group has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone property located at 7007 East Point Douglas Road South from B-2, Retail Business, to Planned Development Overlay with an underlying B-1, Limited Business District, and amend Ord. No. 811 to change the development on Block 2 in Frattalone's Southpoint Ridge Addition for senior housing; a Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 3 of 9 preliminary plat to create one lot for a senior housing development; and a site plan review and conditional use permit for the proposed 184 -unit senior housing development. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked for more information about sidewalks and trails. McCool responded that a side- walk will not be required to be constructed along East Point Douglas Road. There is an existing concrete sidewalk on the north side of East Point Douglas Road that ties in with White Pines Senior site, but the Technical Review Committee did not feel that it was necessary to have a sidewalk on the Dominium side of the road. Brittain asked if it was possible to connect the existing sidewalk all the way to Kohls. McCool stated that one of the conditions is that the developer is required to pay for the cost of a pedestrian crossing to get to the sidewalk. That sidewalk goes to that area but pedestrians will to have to cross back over in order to get to Culvers or Kohls. At the Kohls and Culvers locations there is a sloped embankment. To construct a walkway up there would require a stairway, and the property owners do not want the responsibility or liability of a stairway going up to their properties. Brittain thought this project is short on parking; however, with the type of use planned he does not see that as a large concern. He asked for information on the amount of parking that would be required for this type of use and why a lower number of parking spaces is proposed. Patrick Ostrum, Dominium, 2905 Northwest Boulevard, Plymouth, responded that they show a parking ration of 1.2 parking spaces for each apartment unit; typically other senior projects they have developed the parking ranges from 1.15 -to -1 to 1.25 -to -1, which is more than sufficient for an affordable senior housing project. The 1.5 recommended by the Cottage Grove is more than they typically do for a senior project. Brittain asked if they foresee residents using a sidewalk on that side of East Point Douglas Road versus crossing at a crosswalk. Ostrum responded that there is a proposed trail coming around the back that would tie into the crosswalk to provide access throughout that side of the site. They felt that a sidewalk that terminates at both ends was not necessary. There is also a retaining wall further down the road so the sidewalk could not be continued all the way to the City sidewalk. Providing the crosswalk and trail around the site should be sufficient. Graf asked if this was intended to be an independent living facility. Ostrum responded yes. Graf asked what they foresee for staffing on an average daily basis. Ostrum reported that they will have four full-time staff members, two in the office and two maintenance technicians. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Graf made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the zoning amend- ment, preliminary plat, site plan and conditional use permit for the proposed senior housing development, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Awad seconded. Rostad stated that he will abstain from voting as he was absent during the beginning of the discussion. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote, with one abstention). 6.4 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. (Public hearing continued from the March 28, 2016, Planning Commission meeting.) McCool summarized the staff report supplement dated April 23, 2016 and recommended denial of the zoning ordinance amendment, variance and conditional use permit applications based on the findings in the staff report. Bill Weber, Sunrise Energy Development, stated that they recognize that their proposed site is outside the solar zone, but noted that the property is adjacent to the zone. They believe they have a reasonable application and can accommodate all of the comprehensive planning inter- ests and aesthetic interests of the City. He explained that this is a temporary commercial land use. Sunrise would have a contract with Xcel Energy for 25 years; after that point, the solar collectors can be removed. Short-term commercial development could be accommodated through their site plan as the southern portion of the site can be kept open for short-term unsewered commercial development, as the solar collectors could be moved to the north. Likewise, the extension of 114th Street across the very southern edge of the property from Manning Avenue can be accommodated as well. The contract with Xcel will expire after 25 years at which point the collectors would be removed to allow for long-term commercial devel- opment. It is not likely that city sewer and water would be extended to this site for several decades. The site is two miles from the metropolitan urban service area, it is in sewer service Stage 5 as shown in the City's Comprehensive Plan with a planned rural residential land use and is currently zoned agricultural. By the time sewer gets to the site, the solar collectors would likely be gone. Weber stated that the solar panels would not be visible from Highway 61. He displayed photos of the current conditions, showing how the northern half of the frontage appears currently from the farm access road north. He noted the neighboring property owner on the southern half of the site, 61 Marine & Sports, owns a wedge of land between their site and the highway where they cleared out some trees and underbrush. However, the solar panels will still be well hidden from the highway because there are two large berms. In addition to the berms, Sunrise will supplement the screening with a double row of balsam firs and spruce that are six to eight feet tall. He displayed an illustration showing the proposed locations for the tree plantings. He then explained the additional landscaping they are planning to screen the panels from other neigh- boring residential properties. He reported that Sunrise met with several of the neighboring property owners last week and they are supportive of the plan. Weber stated that while Sunrise would be willing to keep the south end of the property open for commercial development, they don't believe that area is a very good commercial site. Like- wise, extending 114th Street across their site would be environmentally harmful, costly, and Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 5 of 9 require the landowner's cooperation. This 25 -year temporary commercial development would preserve other options for the long-term future without any city expense. The project would pay property taxes of about $20,000 per year and a production tax of about $10,000 per year. Sunrise would give first priority to the residents of Cottage Grove to subscribe to the project, which will provide about a 10 percent reduction in their electricity bills. Weber then noted that this will probably be the last application for a five megawatt community solar garden in Cottage Grove, because all applications had to be filed with Xcel last September. In addition, the two substations in Cottage Grove will probably not have capacity after this project, so any other solar applications in the City probably will be of the one megawatt variety, which can be ac- commodated on six to eight acres. He then stated that the vast majority of the acreage where solar gardens are allowed by the City's ordinance are not well suited for solar power develop- ment for either technical reasons or property ownership reasons. He stated that this project will provide clean electrical power for its lifetime without any carbon or other emissions, noise, or movement. They have letters of support from 31 Cottage Grove residents, including the active support of neighbors constituting more than 50 percent of the perimeter of the site. Sunrise believes this a reasonable proposal that accommodates all of the City's comprehen- sive planning and aesthetic interests, and has the support of the neighbors. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and variance. Rasmussen asked why they aren't relocating the southernmost section to the north. Weber responded out of consideration to the neighbors. He stated that if the Commission wants to make a condition of approval that they move the solar panels to the north, they would do so. Graf asked if the applicant is amenable to the decommission condition in 25 years. Weber stated that a condition of approval could be that Sunrise come back to the City after 25 years when the Xcel contract has expired and get the City's permission to continue beyond that point or the site could be decommissioned and removed. Graf then asked if they would be willing to post bond funds for that. Weber responded yes. Brittain opened the public hearing. Jim Pederson, 11300 Point Douglas Road, stated that he is the immediate neighbor to the west of the property. He believes that the solar panels would be good neighbors, taking into consideration the screening. He does not believe the property would be conducive to commer- cial development as only half of it abuts Highway 61 and the area that does is not buildable due to potential flooding issues. As far as seeing the solar panels from Highway 61, pontoons on the neighboring property are visible from the highway. He believes that this would be good for Cottage Grove and would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the appli- cations. John Myers, 10990 Manning Avenue South, stated that his property is to the northeast of the proposed solar garden. He is opposed to moving the array from the southern portion of the property to the north where it would be closer to his property. Moving the panels to the north would also move the panels farther from the electric lines that serve the site and the project would intrude more into the residential area. He also believes drivers on the highway probably would not even notice the panels as they drive past. As far as commercial development, there Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 6 of 9 are a lot of properties along Highway 61 that have been for sale for years. He believes the City should work with the applicant to add more tax base. Kevin McGrath, 11000 Manning Avenue South, stated that flooding occurs on that site from a creek bed that starts on the back of his parcel. Parts of this parcel are only suited for agricul- tural use or the proposal for a solar garden. They support the garden as proposed closer to the highway. He agrees with his neighbors that the recent brush clearing along Highway 61 has made the pontoon boats on the neighboring property more visible, but that is not a better view than solar panels. Where they have the arrays sited is a terrific compromise as the project won't be visible as visible from Highway 61 as the existing businesses. He noted that his prop- erty is in the solar zone, but it would be impossible to screen due to the topography. This proposed project would be mostly hidden from view. He believes that it is an unreasonable restriction on the current property owners to have to wait to develop their property until the City finishes the comprehensive plan update. He appreciates the opportunity the Commission provided for the neighbors to speak but nobody came to view the area from the adjoining properties as the developers did. Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive South, stated that his property borders the pro- posed site along both the west side and part of the north boundary. He stated that they support this project. As far as the areas in the City Code where solar farms are allowed, he believes that an arbitrary boundary line was created that could have been placed anywhere. A lot of the acreage within that allowable area is incompatible for solar farms. The allowable area for solar abuts this property on two sides. He noted that there are solar panels on the former city hall. He believes this proposal is truly the best short-term use of the property. The City has already approved other solar projects. He attended the public hearing on one of them and noted that there was considerable objection by the neighbors. He noted that the developers have 100 percent support of all adjoining property owners. He personally doesn't see what the problem is with somebody traveling on Highway 61 seeing solar panels in Cottage Grove. We should be proud to be thinking about the environment and being energy efficient. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing Awad asked what the due date is for the comprehensive plan. Levitt responded that the City is undertaking the comprehensive plan update and anticipate the steering committee will start meeting in June for an 18 -to -24 month process. Rasmussen stated that this property appears to be a good site for this use. He is impressed by the support of the neighbors. Unless solar fails as an industry, he believes that after the first 25 -year lease ends, it will be renewed, which is why the southern portion should be moved to the north to provide more buffer space between Highway 61 and the solar garden to allow for development, roadways, utilities, commercial lots, etc. on that southern portion. Haagsman stated that he thinks a solar garden would be a great use of the land. He is pro - solar. This site is adjacent to the area that has been allocated for solar. He also agrees that the applicant has done a very good job of communicating with the neighbors, and this has been the calmest presentation for any of these types of applications. Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Awad asked about maintenance and staffing for snow removal and vegetation, and where they are getting the panels from. Dean Leischow, Sunrise Energy, Minnetonka, responded that once the site is built, there is very little maintenance that needs to be done, except for lawn mowing, site clearing, and snow removal down the pathways to the inverters. There will be no full-time staff on site. Personnel will visit the site every week and when there are problems. The sites are remotely monitored so they know instantly if there is a problem. Leischow ex- plained that their investor partner is Solar City, which is the largest solar firm in the United States, and the panels will be coming from them. Graff stated that the City went through a long process to establish where solar panels would be allowed. This process included City staff, Planning and Environmental Commissions, and the City Council. She stated that she is wary about immediately changing the recently adopted ordinance. However, she does think that this property has some unique aspects that could allow for this change. She is also very reluctant to allow the panels on the southern edge because she thinks this could prevent any infrastructure improvements. Rostad asked about the setbacks from Highway 61. McCool responded that the City Code requires a minimum 100 -foot front yard setback, 50 -foot rear yard setback, and 20 -foot side yards. Rostad asked if the panels were behind the ridgeline, would that be in compliance. McCool responded that would exceed the minimum setback, noting that it was approximately 300 feet. Rostad stated the Planning Commission and City Council put a lot of thought into where we would allow this solar collection. He can understand this application better than others that have come in front of the Commission for areas that could see development hap- pening sooner. He agrees with the applicant that this particular location probably won't be development any time soon. Rasmussen noted that the aerial layout shows a 100 -foot setback from Highway 61, but if you scale that to the back portion of the yellow highlighted area, it would be almost 450 feet of clear space from the highway to solar panels, which should be enough room needed for many types of development. Fox stated that he does not believe it needs to be moved further away from Highway 61. Brittain stated that he looked at this based on the transitional planning area and the solar ordinance. Over the next 18 to 24 months, the City will be reviewing at the transitional planning areas as part of the comprehensive plan update. He sees this as a key puzzle piece along Highway 61 that needs to be evaluated. While the property may be a good fit for this type of application, limiting ourselves from looking at the entire stretch along Highway 61 could make things problematic for a proper comprehensive plan for the area. From his perspective, there are a lot of great points with this proposal, but the City will be making a big investment on the comprehensive plan update and has already spent a lot of time and effort on the solar ordi- nance. He does not see justification for not allowing ourselves an opportunity to plan for the best use of that property, which may end up being a solar garden, but at this time, he thinks we need to give the comprehensive plan the ability to assert itself to its best potential possible. Graf noted that this is on the outer edge of the transitional planning area and adjacent to the area allowed for solar gardens, and if an amendment was to be granted, he believes this would be the site. Brittain understands but his primary concern is that we don't know what linear Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 8 of 9 distance parallel to Highway 61 is needed to properly plan the Highway 61 corridor. The northerly portion would be more open to uses like this. Haagsman made a motion to approve the zoning amendment to allow a solar garden on the property at 11576 Point Douglas Road South. Awad seconded. Graff reiterated that without moving the southern portion of the solar garden to the north of the property, she does not feel she can vote in favor of the application. Graf offered an amendment to the motion to include a condition that would move the southerly portion as indicated in the staff report to the northern portion of the property. Levitt explained that the action being taken is the zoning text amendment; the proposed amendment to the motion pertains more to the conditional use permit and variance. Graf withdrew his amendment. Graff asked for clarification on approving the amendment and offering that condition as part of the CUP. Levitt stated that on the map, the two parcels in yellow would be added to the red shaded area to allow solar gardens on those two parcels. Motion passed on a 5 -to -4 vote (Brittain, Fox, Graff, Zopfi). McCool explained that the variance is for the side yard setback along the internal property line of the two adjoining parcels and the conditional use permit is to allow a solar collection system. He asked for the Commission for clarification on moving the southerly portion to the north. He also noted that their decommissioning plan does not comply with the City's ordinance require- ments. They had a different proposal about posting the financial guarantees. Staff would rec- ommend that they comply with the City's ordinance requirements for their decommissioning plan. In addition, staff would have other conditions but has not had the opportunity to provide a list of what the Commission could consider. He asked that any motion should specify what they need to do if the Commission recommends approval of the variance and conditional use permit. Graf asked if there is time within the original 60 -day period and the 60 -day extension requested by the applicant to continue the hearing on the variance and conditional use permit now that the zoning amendment has been recommended for approval so that the Commission can re- view any conditions of approval from for those applications. McCool responded that the exten- sion was granted to June 30, 2016. The next Planning Commission meeting is May 23. The Planning Commission's recommendations would be presented to the City Council at one of their meetings in June. Graf made a motion to continue the variance and conditional use permit applications to the May 23, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Zopfi seconded. Haagsman stated that it seems there are other issues the Commission is not aware of and this will provide the opportunity to review the applications further. Motion passed on an 8 -to -1 vote (Brittain). Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 2016 Page 9 of 9 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of March 28, 2016 Graff made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 28, 2016, Planning Com- mission meeting. Graf seconded. Motion passed unanimously (9 -to -0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of March City Council Meetings Thiede summarized the agendas from the April 6 and April 20, 2016, City Council meetings. Graff asked if short-term parking signs were going to be required at Almar Village. Burbank responded that the property owner will install short-term parking signs in the front few rows of the parking aisles. Rostad asked if the Planning Commission has representatives on the Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee. Thiede responded Brittain and Awad. Rostad asked about the timeframe for the construction on Jamaica Avenue north of 70th Street. Levitt responded that if the weather holds, that roadway will get its first lift of asphalt on Friday, April 29; otherwise it will be next week. She explained that neighborhood meetings have been held, mailings have been sent to 1,100 households with the construction schedule, the City's website provides detailed information about the project, residents can request weekly email updates, there is a camera above the intersection that can be accessed to watch the construction, and there are Facebook postings. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries None 8.3 Planning Commission Requests None Adjournment Graff made a motion to adjourn. Rostad seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. (9 -to -0 vote).