Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-07-24 PACKET 08.City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission May 22, 2017 A meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Park- way South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, May 22, 2017, 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: Jeff Abelson, Sam Awad, Ken Brittain, David Lutchen, Derek Rasmussen, Jennifer Raymer, Roger Zopfi Members Absent: Justin Fox, Kim Graff Staff Present: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner John M. Burbank Senior Planner Bridgit Nason, City Attorney David Thiede, City Councilmember Approval of Agenda Brittain announced that Item 7.2, Moody Lot Split, was removed from the agenda by request of the applicant. Zopfi made a motion to approve the agenda. Awad seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7 -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. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 2 of 15 Discussion Items 6.1 Comprehensive Plan Update — Phil Carlson, Stantec Phil Carlson, Senior Planner with Stantec Consulting, stated that the City of Cottage Grove retained his firm to help prepare the comprehensive plan update. He provided a brief over- view of the process and what has happened to date. Public Hearings and Applications 7.1 Cub Foods Fireworks — Case ICUP2017-012 TNT Fireworks has applied for an interim conditional use permit to allow the retail sale of Minnesota -approved fireworks in the Cub Foods parking lot at 8690 East Point Douglas Road South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Liz Perryman, on behalf of Rose of Sharon Lutheran Church, stated that they have been staffing the fireworks tent at Cub Foods for the past 10 years. All the fireworks they sell are legal and they don't sell explosives. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Lutchen seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.3 Pylkas Accessory Structure Setback — Case V2017-015 Bruce and Marcene Pylkas have applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-3-3C, Acces- sory Structure Setbacks, and Title 11-3-3E, Miscellaneous Requirements, to allow a 2,500 square foot accessory structure to be located closer to the front property line than the principal structure at 9744 Kimbro Avenue South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Bruce Pylkas, N7149 1275th Street, River Falls, Wisconsin, stated that he would answer any questions. Rasmussen asked for further information on the practical difficulties of making the property work to meet the ordinance and locate the accessory structure behind the principal structure. Pylkas stated that he does not want the house at the front of the property and there is quite a bit of rolling topography, so there are not a lot of options for locating both structures on the site. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 3 of 15 Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Awad made a motion to approve the variance based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Abelson seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.3 Panek Parking Pad Setback — V2017-016 George and Sandy Panek have applied for a variance to City Code Title 11-3-10C, Drive- ways: Location, and Title 11-3-3C, Setbacks, to allow a parking pad to be three feet from the side property line when six feet is required at 8527 85th Street South. Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended denial based on the lack of findings of fact. George Panek, 8527 85th Street South, explained that he applied for the variance so he can park his trailer on a concrete pad. If he stays to the six-foot setback, the trailer would be parked only a few inches from his garage eaves. He would also be able to then put gutters on the house to help channel water runoff. The neighbor has a six-foot privacy fence, which would provide screening. He stated that he spoke with that neighbor, who is okay with the parking pad location. Brittain opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi made a motion to deny the variance based on the lack of findings of fact. Rasmussen seconded. Motion for denial passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.5 Amundson Property Concept Plan — C2017-017 The Bancor Group, Inc. has applied for a concept plan review for a proposed single-family development with 139 home sites on 65 acres located north of 65th Street, south of the Woodbury border, east of Hadley Avenue, and west of the Silverwood development (Hearthstone Avenue). (Not a public hearing.) Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Paul Robinson, Development Manager for The Bancor Group, 5433 Dupont Avenue South, introduced Dave Newman, President and Owner of The Bancor Group. He provided back- ground information on their company. He explained the two main issues they had to work around is that the property is heavily forested and has extreme topography changes. He also identified that the property owner, Bill Amundson, planted two different tree plantation areas in the 1980s, and Bancor has applied for a harvest permit in accordance with ordinance re- quirements to harvest those areas prior to development and that there are some areas where the property had previously been farmed but have been fallow for years. He stated that their Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 4 of 15 ecologist walked the property and its wooded areas and noted that the forested areas are generally consistent. Based on the confluence of ecological conditions for the ravine, the wet- land, and the intermittent stream, the ravine seems to be the more important characteristic of the property, which is why Bancor focused on leaving that as the largest open greenway on the property. He explained the topography on the site. He noted that they are focused on try- ing to save as many trees on possible and still develop the property in a way that makes fi- nancial sense. Other considerations include locations for sewer and water connections. They do not yet have a phasing plan and asked for feedback. They are working with staff on if there should be islands in the cul-de-sacs. They believe the 40 percent open space is very significant, which translates into 70 percent of the homes abutting open space within the pro- ject. On an overall density basis, this project will be very close to the abutting Silverwood and Pinecliff developments even with the proposed smaller lot sizes. If the focus is to save trees, one of the ways is to shrink the lot sizes. He understands that there are concerns with the 40 - foot wide product, explaining that they have those lot sizes in another development and showed examples of that product. He noted that there is interest in that product from empty nesters, millennials, and people who want main floor living, maintenance free, and don't want to share walls with neighbors. He then stated that empty nesters also like their Villa products on 55 -foot wide lots. There will also be 65 -foot and 75 -foot wide single-family lots. Robinson noted that on Block 10 of the concept plan, they are proposing 40 -foot wide lots and staff has recommended no smaller than 55 feet wide. He explained why they would like the 40 -foot lots, including that they are seeking an R-4 zoning classification, which allows attached homes, such as town homes. There could be 33 townhome units in that same amount of space, but there would only be a total of 25 units if they were detached townhomes or small lot single family lots. He stated that these would be like a luxurious townhome and it is a product that is in demand. Robinson then noted that as part of the tree mitigation plan, they will have to plant trees and are proposing a site restoration plan. As a part of that plan, they are proposing to remove buckthorn and other invasive species, do some selective thinning and selective seeding, and in the red pine plantation area they would do selective reforestation, so as trees die out, other trees are growing to replace them. They will also do selective slope stabilization for the stream. In the areas that were previously farm fields, they will plant smaller trees to reforest that area. They are also planning to plant some native buffers around the ponding areas. Robinson stated that generally Bancor is in agreement with the staff comments, but there are a few things they feel they can work out as they move forward with the final application. He then referenced the 50 -foot versus 60 -foot right-of-way and the size of the streets. If they were able to get another 10 feet, it would help create some of the buffers and provides flexi- bility to increase them. Brittain invited anyone that wanted to speak on the application that the floor was open for a comment session. Henry Sandri, 6186 Hearthstone Avenue South, stated that his house would be adjacent to three new lots. He believes the density of the eastern third is beyond what should be consid- ered by the City. He noted that almost half of the houses would be built in the eastern third of the property, which is not a fair distribution. He realizes there are trees on the western side that should be preserved, but there are also areas on the eastern half that can be used for trees and open space as well. Another area of concern is the access from 61st Street, which Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 5 of 15 would be the prime entry on the eastern side until the development is fully open, and from 63rd Street at some future date. He noted that there are probably 30 to 50 kids in that imme- diate area and this would double the amount of vehicle traffic through there, including con- struction trucks. He is opposed to this development plan but not to future development of the property. He thinks there should be a more balanced approach that represents this portion of Cottage Grove. He would like to see what has been proposed for the western two-thirds of the property and to replicate that for the eastern third; that would cut out about 30 homes from the project but the plan would be more balanced. Tina Bednar, 6242 Hearthstone Avenue South, stated that her property backs up to the east- ern side of the proposed project. She stated the Sandri covered most of the concerns she has with the proposal. She reiterated concerns about traffic, noting that there is no sidewalk going into Pinecliff. She asked if the proposed trail could come up and buffer the two neigh- borhoods since the proposed homes on Lots 8 through 17 would be adjacent to their properties. Douglas Sandvox, 5956 Deer Trail Circle, Woodbury, stated that his property is on the north- ern border of the proposed development. He stated that they bought their property in that ar- ea for privacy. He does not believe this is a good plan for a rural setting where habitat will be displaced and the watershed will be affected. He explained that the high point of that property is above their property, and he is worried about flooding from developed areas. He also ex- pressed concern about the wildlife on the property. He stated that the property was zoned for estate lots and he expected in the future to possibly see one or two houses, but never antici- pated seeing a major development. He does not want to see the character of the neighbor- hood changed. Bruce Bunnell, 6411 Hedgecroft Avenue South, stated that he is on the board for the Pinecliff Homeowners Association and agrees with the testimony given. He has concerns about the lot sizes. He stated that he would like to see any development keep the character of the area, including the density and lot sizes. Nicole Calloway, 7582 61st Street South, stated that her biggest concern is the amount of traffic that amount of houses would generate on 61 st Street. Devon Dressley, 6255 Hadley Avenue South, stated that they are concerned about the pond that would be right by their driveway and that the trail would be very close to their property. When they moved to their property 22 years ago, that area was zoned for a three -acre mini- mum, so they would like to see it stay at the R-2 with the larger lot sizes, comparable to the development directly north in Woodbury. Jim Kennedy, 7509 63rd Street Circle South, expressed concerns about property values due to this type of development. Daryl Cranston, 5774 Woodlane Drive, Woodbury, stated that he moved to his property 25 years ago because of the big lots and more open land. He does not like the size of the lots and the traffic going through. He understands that development will happen, but believes this one is too big. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 6 of 15 Art Lathrop, 5899 Deer Trail Circle, stated that he agrees with what has been mentioned al- ready. Most of the lot sizes comparisons are being made to the neighborhood to the east, which are the smallest lots adjacent to this property. The lots to the north and west are 1.7 acres or larger with at least 200 feet of frontage. The other issue he sees is despite efforts to protect the watershed, when the other developments went in, a number of individuals in these areas had negative impacts in terms of the water flowing through their area and that was after mitigation. Just because they are going to try to correct for this, developing that much space is not going to be neutral. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the open comment session. Brittain stated that the West Draw Task Force slated this property for more rural develop- ment, and the last proposal for this area was a compromise between the rural estate lots and smaller lot sizes. The development to the east has lots that are smaller than rural estate lots but are not even close to 55 feet wide. With the rural character of this area, he does not see the fit. There are certain areas that are closer to larger roads that could handle the increased densities and have a combination of larger and smaller lots but he does not see that for this particular property. He would be more in favor of an average of 80 -foot wide lots versus 55 - foot lots. The smaller lots would definitely not integrate into this area. Lutchen stated that in reviewing the documentation, the applicant's concept narrative also in- cluded a graphic of the proposed lots standards and the largest is 75 feet and the smallest is 40 feet. He asked what the lot sizes are in the neighborhood to the east and if the largest of the proposed lots are comparable to those properties. Levitt responded that the lots in the Silverwood development are 85 feet wide at the front property line. Levitt stated that there are 29 recommended conditions of approval and noted that based upon the feedback the Planning Commission has given, condition #2 could be altered. Brittain made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report with an amendment to condition #2 to have a minimum lot size aver- age of 80 feet with a specified lot width of 85 feet, which is consistent with the develop- ment to the east of this concept plan. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.6 Summers Landing Small Lots Concept Plan — C2017-018 Summergate Development, LLC has applied for a concept plan review to modify the exist- ing master plan for the Summers Landing subdivision to include a mix of 50 and 60 foot wide lots in the northeast quadrant of the development. (Not a public hearing.) Burbank summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Casey Wollschlager, Summergate Development, 153 Surrey Trail, stated that one of the things they focused on when they looked at revising their current plan was to find a balance between their current product types are in the southern section of the project and other prod- uct types that customers have been requesting, which is more affordable new homes. He Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 7 of 15 then explained the new products would be built in the proposed location so that there would be natural separation utilizing the park and streets between the smaller and larger lots. He provided a detailed explanation of their proposed concept plan and the different products they would be offering. He asked for specific reasons why the City does not want 50 -foot wide lots versus 55 -foot wide lots. He provided examples and information supporting their request for lots with smaller widths. He stated that the only way they could get the home prices down is through more density. Steve Bono, Capstone Homes, 14015 Sunfish Lake Boulevard, Ramsey, stated that they are building the villa product in other areas of the Twin Cities and are getting a good response, noting that there is a high demand for it. Lutchen asked if there are any plans or ideas to get the house cost below $300,000 to open it up to more people. Wollschlager responded that they have worked in every city to get the price lower than $300,000 but it is almost impossible. The biggest component is land prices. Brittain noted in the upper northwest quadrant of this property, the east -west green space would divide the larger lots to the south and the proposed new development to the north and asked what they are proposing long-term in the northwest quadrant. Wollschlager responded that Mississippi Dunes is a collector road with no driveways and could be another dividing line for product type differentiation. They don't know if they would have the same product type in that area and won't guarantee that they are going to do smaller lots all the way across; it depends on how the market. Smaller lots are more prevalent outside the Minnesota market- place. He stated that if this is successful, they would like to continue that in the northwest section. He then discussed phasing, noting that the proposed project would be phase 1 of a different product type rather than phase 2 of the development. They anticipate next year building phases of the larger lots. They hope to be able to start building phase 1 of the small lots this year, but it may not happen until next year. Levitt advised the Commission that discussion of the development should not focus on home prices, but should be on lot sizes, lot dimensions, and setbacks and how that fits within the community and surrounding area. Brittain asked if anyone wanted to speak on the application. No one spoke. Raymer asked about the recommendation to approve the preliminary plat design with lot sizes of 55 to 75 feet wide noting that condition #13 says the side yard setback for the princi- pal structure must not be less than 7.5 feet, and the staff report shows the R-3 underlying zoning standards, the current planned development overlay, and the applicant's proposed plan for 5 -foot side yard setbacks. Levitt replied that the City's Fire Marshal reviewed the plan and is not comfortable with only 10 feet between structures, but is supportive of the 7.5 -foot setback that provides 15 feet between structures. Brittain stated that he is in favor of allowing this change but he is concerned with the long- term zoning of the entire parcel. He thinks maintaining the buffer region as the applicant discussed would be consistent with the surrounding homes as well as allowing for some diversity of product. He supports the staff recommendations, including the minimum 55 -foot lot widths. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 8 of 15 Rasmussen stated that he likes the idea of the smaller lots and introducing different products that buyers are interested in but he does worry that we will end up with total developments of smaller lot widths. He is in support of smaller lots only within approximately 20 percent of de- velopments. He expressed concern that this development is only in its beginning stages, and that they may ask for continuing development of the smaller lots in the rest of the subdivision. Brittain agrees with Rasmussen. He looks at this as an overall concept plan; the City has al- ready approved the development and looking at it as a whole, he sees a balance to the whole project by allowing some diversity in this smaller area. If other changes to the rest of the development were requested, they would have to come back to the City for approval. Zopfi stated that two of the important things for this particular corner is that it is buffered on the east border line by the school and the natural buffer we are requiring they put in to the south. That will buffer this area from the larger single-family homes that will be developed to the south. Given the location in this proposal, he thinks it makes sense. Lutchen asked about the impact between the 5 -foot setback and the 7.5 -foot setback. He hopes that requiring the additional 2.5 feet would not cause any issues. Brittain stated that staff has highlighted the fire marshal's desire to have 15 feet between homes, which is what is suggested by the staff report. They are not recommending allowing the 5 -foot setbacks. Awad made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.6 Bothe Property Residential Subdivision — PP2017-019 and ZA2017-020 Lennar Corporation has applied for a zoning amendment to change the zoning of property located north of 65th Street between Ideal Avenue and Inwood Avenue from AG -1, Agri- cultural Preservation, to R-3, Single Family Residential District, with a PDO, Planned De- velopment Overlay. Lennar also applied for a preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision that would consist of 142 residential lots for single-family homes, 3 common lots for 88 single-family units in 22 quad buildings, and 7 outlots. The property is generally described as 8180 and 8190 65th Street South. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Rasmussen stated that he likes the addition of the uniform fencing and landscaped buffer along Ravine Parkway and asked if that is something that will be standard throughout the dis- trict and along Ravine Parkway. McCool responded yes, explaining that the projects further to the east have that requirement along 70th Street. Paul Tabone, Entitlement Manager with Lennar, 16305 36th Avenue North, Plymouth, stated that they met with staff after the concept plan approval and understand the conditions. He explained that in addition to the floor plans that were shown in the staff report, they are de- signing new floor plans so there will be variation within the community. The single-family homes in this development will be similar to those in Cayden Glen. They have proposed two- Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 9 of 15 car and three -car villa homes that are either slab on grade or allow for a basement with finish- ing of the basement as an option. The villa product will appeal to all income and age groups. The quad product would appeal to more of an accelerated empty nester. Rasmussen asked if there is any information on the community building. Tabone responded that they are still researching the market. The options include a simple modified outdoor amenity that incorporates outdoor living space, a fire pit, a shelter, and sport courts or a club house with a gym feature. They want ensure that the facility is a good balance of use, func- tion, and affordability. It is their intention to build something that is nice and well thought out as it is a selling point for the development. Brittain opened the public hearing. Shane Nowicki, 8000 66th Street Court South, stated that right now his backyard is really quiet. He does not like the plan with the inclusion of quad homes and Next Gen homes, ex- pressing concern about those properties turning into rental homes. He would prefer that there only be single-family homes in the development. Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, asked what roads the new residents would use to access the development. She also noted that it looks like Inwood Avenue South is not going to be affected by the first part of this development and asked if they would come out to 65th Street to Hinton Avenue. McCool responded that there will be connections at 60th Street on the northwest corner of the property, at 63rd Street on Ideal Avenue, a new street connection onto Ideal Avenue that will be called 64th Street, and Idsen Avenue to 65th Street. As part of this project, the City is proposing changing the name of 65th Street to Ravine Parkway be- cause in the future Ravine Parkway transitions into a new road that will connect to Jamaica Avenue and continue extending east. In the future development of the easterly third of the site, 60th Street would connect to Inwood Avenue and the future connection of Ravine Park- way to Inwood Avenue. In the southeast corner of the project, the existing portion of 65th Street would be abandoned. The connection of Inwood Avenue would come down to the south and continue all the way to 70th Street. Matter asked if that would become a main road. McCool responded that it would be a collector street for the surrounding residential areas to go north to Military Road. Dan Fischer, 8414 66th Street South, stated that he does not see any buffer for this develop- ment and asked who gets the abandoned part of 65th Street. McCool responded that it would remain in City ownership, but could go to the property owners. There are multiple single- family lots on the south side of 65th Street; if for any reason the City did not need or want that abandoned roadway, technically it could be turned back to all the property owners that abuts it. Fischer asked how long it would be until the east side is developed. Levitt stated that the plat can be served by sanitary sewer by gravity. Unfortunately the element of land to the east is not serviceable at this time, so the City does know specifically when that would develop. There are other factors and pieces of land that need to develop first before sanitary sewer can be provided. Fischer expressed concern about pedestrian safety on the new Ravine Parkway. He stated that he is against this development. He decided to purchase his home because of the rural nature of the area around it. He thought that Lennar's other develop- ments had to be 80 percent completed before new development could be approved. He also thought that this area was guided for rural residential or low density in the 2030 Comprehen- sive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 10 of 15 Alice Young, 7930 65th Street South, stated that they purchased a five -acre parcel with a his- toric 120 -year old house that she has lived in for over 50 years. Being that she has lived there so long, she understands that things change, but it seems like zoning and platting is always being changed. She stated that the area where she lives, which is on the corner of 65th Street and Ideal Avenue, keeps changing including the streets and street names. She ex- pressed concern that her five -acre parcel will be surrounded by higher density development and that some of her property could be taken for widening of the road. She asked what will happen to her property regarding city sewer and water. Her property is right across from the quad homes. She doesn't understand why Lennar does not want her property. She is not happy that they have changed what they are planning to build across the street from her property. She asked for direction from the City on what she should do with their property. Levitt stated that she will discuss options and details with Young. Larry Casey, 8048 66th Street Court South, stated that he lives right across the street from the proposed quad homes. He asked what is meant by dense landscaping. Levitt stated that staff has not yet received the detailed landscaping plan from the developer. One of the re- quirements is that the developer will have to furnish that plan to the City prior to going to the City Council. Casey asked what the outlot would be for. McCool responded that it is a platted parcel of land that will be used for a stormwater basin for water to flow into and over time, it will either infiltrate into the ground or go into the storm sewer system. Casey asked if this is a pond, how the safety of children would be ensured. McCool responded that the City is not requiring any fencing around the pond. Casey stated that he is against this project. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Brittain asked about the expected depth of the stormwater basin and why there is no require- ment for fencing. Levitt responded that staff is still working with the developer on the grading plan related to the basin. She assured that the design standards for the basin includes a 1:10 slope for the maintenance bench, and the second tier as you get nearer to the water is called a safety bench that is also at a 1:10 slope, which provides protection in our design. The City's policy is not to install fencing along stormwater basins and our past practices have been very successful. Regarding the depth, they are still working on the specific grading plans and the design of the basins, which will need to be resolved before the application goes to the City Council. Lutchen asked about the past practices regarding ponds and does the City have a precedent regarding this for standards for basins. Levitt stated that the City has a very detailed policy related to the classifications of each of our stormwater basins, and that policy states the oper- ation and maintenance plan related to how that public open space and the basin are main- tained. Since the proposed stormwater basin would be deeded to the City as a public outlot, we would be able to maintain it to the standards in the City's policy. Brittain asked for clarification on the staff recommendation on the zoning amendment. McCool responded that the zoning amendment is to rezone the property from AG -1, Agricul- tural Preservation, to R-3, Single Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (PDO). Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 11 of 15 Awad made a motion to approve the rezoning and preliminary plat applications subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Zopfi seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. 7.7 Solar Ordinance Amendment — TA2017-021 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to amend City Code Title 11-4-10, Solar Collection Systems. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Brittain opened the public hearing. Peter Schmitt, U.S. Solar, 100 North Sixth Street, Minneapolis, stated that their letter dated May 5, 2017, addresses the concerns they have with the ordinance amendment as it is writ- ten. One of the main points is that if there is language that says that community solar gardens in the future have to abut distribution lines, there is no need for the solar zone because the distribution lines are dictating where future gardens can be. He pointed out on the map the few areas that are suitable for solar developments. He also noted that the proposed 300 -foot setback does not leave a lot of space on those parcels. He suggested just limiting the loca- tion to those areas adjacent to distribution access and not having a solar zone. He noted that they are in attendance at this meeting with a local property owner interested in solar whose land is on the southeastern border of the MUSA, noting that it is screened on three sides. In his letter, he emphasized that instead of limiting where solar can be located, to put extra con- ditions on the application. He proposed allowing it on the exterior border of the MUSA at the time of application, meaning that as the MUSA expands, the area for solar development is pushed out. He reiterated that instead of a solar zone, there is opportunity to open it up to more areas with more restrictions on it. Schmitt then brought up screening versus setbacks. He stated that if there is 100 percent opacity with screening, there would not be a need for a 300 -foot setback. He stated that the panels are typically about nine feet tall and will be quiet neighbors. He believes the proposed ordinance amendment needs more work and offered to assist in coming up with an ordinance that better fits both the City and project development prospective. Duane Hebert, Novel Energy Solutions, 1628 2nd Avenue SE, Rochester, supported what Schmitt testified with regard to the ground mounts. His company primarily works with the businesses interested in roof mounts. He stated there is a difference between a community solar garden and roof -mounted systems, which are known as behind the meter, so when you put solar on the roof, it goes right into the existing meter to the building. If you put up a com- munity solar garden, it connects to the grid. Hebert then stated that the proposed ordinance requires community solar gardens to be screened. He displayed a solar panel to the Com- mission, noting that one of the biggest issues he sees in the staff report has to do with glare. He explained that panels, other than the 10k model, have an anti -glare coating and stippling to diffuse the light. There is a solar glare analysis that is accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration. He stated that on top of the parking lot at the Minneapolis -St. Paul Airport is a three -megawatt solar system right between the two major runways, and if there was a glare issue, the FAA would not have allowed that to occur. Because there aren't glare issues, screening becomes more of an aesthetic issue. He does not believe there is much of a differ- Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 12 of 15 ence looking at HVAC units on top of buildings than looking at solar panels. Requiring the construction of a parapet could make the installation of solar panels not financially viable. Hebert questioned the requirement of a signed interconnection agreement, explaining that in the community solar garden program, Xcel usually waits awhile before they sign off on it. He suggested that it should suffice once Xcel provides the interconnection agreement with the cost and proof of application because interconnection cannot occur for a community solar garden program unless it meets all the criteria of the Public Utilities Commission and ap- proved tariffs. Hebert then suggested requiring a solar glare analysis to verify there will not be glare related to the project. He had questions related to accessory structures, such as if an addition onto a building is for different uses, are the new use accessory or does it refer to a separate building. He stated that the City should be cautious of restricting the ability to put so- lar on roof tops based on the usage of the building. The other question he has is what the definition is of a distribution line; such as is it a three-phase line or a single-phase. McCool stated that the ordinance refers to a detached accessory structure separate from the main building; if an addition is built onto a principal structure, that addition is part of the principal structure. Regarding distribution lines, the City would want confirmation from Xcel Energy as to what lines could accommodate additional electricity from solar devices. Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue South, stated that solar energy is the most expensive energy. In this area, a solar farm is only 30 percent efficient, and that is why the State of Minnesota is spending over $15 million to subsidize solar projects. He expressed concern about agricultural land being taken out of production and if there is a return on these solar projects. If the ordinance is pretty tight and an applicant can meet the criteria, that is fine. He believes there are issues with the ones that have already been approved. He stated that Xcel is not jumping on board with these solar farms as they are looking at wind because they can produce their electricity with a constant flow. Schmitt stated that if rooftop community solar is going to be allowed in the MUSA, it doesn't make sense to not allow ground -mounted community solar gardens, especially with screen- ing and setback requirements. He reiterated that new applications will be for one megawatt or less, which means 6.5 to 7 acres of panels, which is significantly smaller than the ones that have been approved. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Zopfi asked if the text amendments the Commission is looking at incorporate being adjacent to a distribution line, the 300 -foot setbacks, and the quarter mile distance between projects. McCool responded yes. Zopfi asked if the Commission has to decide whether to keep that as proposed or make revisions. McCool responded that was correct, noting that all three require- ments noted effectively make it very difficult to find a property that would allow for some type of solar garden system. If requirement adjacent to a distribution line is too restrictive, that part could be omitted. Rasmussen stated that he is not too concerned about requiring them to be adjacent to exist- ing distribution lines as long as the undergrounding requirements from their source to the lines be maintained. He agrees with the quarter mile rule. He questions the accessory struc- ture solar restriction; he sees solar as being very versatile and adaptable to existing build- ings. He noted that he is working on a new convenience store in St. Louis with solar on the gas station canopy, which is considered an accessory structure. He feels that is a very Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 13 of 15 appropriate placement and use. He would also like to see more text in the amendment re- garding architectural standards for utility buildings for electrical switch gear and maintenance equipment and for the fencing. Zopfi asked if we approve the interim conditional use permit pathway, those items can be conditioned as each application comes in. McCool responded that reasonable conditions can be applied. Zopfi stated that because of that, the Commission does not need to rehash spe- cific requirements if we can make reasonable conditions. McCool stated that for the utility structures, we don't know what needs to be done to impose design requirements but that can be looked at during review of the ICUP when there is more detail. Awad asked what the reason is for the accessory structure language. McCool stated that the structures would not be very big, and it is where the energy from the panels go to a substa- tion before it goes to the distribution line. Brittain stated that it is his understanding that the small accessory structures are going to be energy conversion buildings that won't be bigger than the solar panels themselves and if the solar panels are screened, then the building wouldn't be visible. Hebert explained that in those circumstances where there is already ser- vice, for example, an industrial park area where it is all underground, you are not connecting overhead until the underground connects to either a three-phase line or directly to the substa- tion but that is all on the Xcel side of things. A community solar garden on a rooftop, whether it is on the primary building and/or an accessory building, the conduit would go down the side of the building and connect to underground wiring. Raymer expressed concerns about requiring parapets for existing buildings. Brittain asked if the city currently requires screening for HVAC equipment on top of buildings. McCool re- sponded that the City Code requires screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. Brittain asked if there is anything mechanical on the rooftop, screening is required. McCool clarified from public view; if units on a large building are centrally located on the roof, there is no reason for the parapet but if the HVAC is close to the edge of the roof, then screening is re- quired. Brittain asked if there would be any synergy with having this similar non -requirement for centrally located solar panels. McCool stated that would be looked at from a public view basis. Raymer asked about looking down on a building, such as from a hill. McCool stated that if it is in public view, it would have to be screened. Raymer noted that if a building is be- low a hill and screening would be required, that could potentially eliminate options for busi- nesses that want to utilize solar. She asked if the reason for screening is to reduce glare and also how buildings are screening HVAC units from public view above a building. Nason stated that she can't speak about HVAC equipment but the Commission can provide direction to modify the proposed language that instead of mandatory screening, the ordinance could say that screening shall be provided to prevent any glare from being observed from adjacent properties or other similar language. Zopfi asked if the Commission could direct staff to add language about a screening plan and a glare study as conditions for the interim conditional use permit. McCool answered that could be incorporated. Zopfi asked that since there are still many questions about the pro- posed ordinance, that the Commission could either not put the ordinance forward tonight or make amendments and bring it back to next month's meeting. McCool stated that if the Plan- ning Commission wants to table this hearing to the June meeting, there would only be one Council meeting available for Council to address it prior to the moratorium ending on July 20. Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 14 of 15 Raymer stated that there have been discussions about screening, glare, and principal struc- ture versus accessory structure. Zopfi stated that the concern wasn't about principal versus accessory, it was about screening the substation building, which could be covered during the ICUP process. Rasmussen stated that he wants to see consistency among all projects within our community. He does not understand why solar panels cannot be on accessory structures. Brittain stated that his concern with the consistency of accessory structures is that we don't know enough about the different accessory structures to define tonight what that consistency would be. He would rather have that addressed during the ICUP process. Raymer stated that there are two different points about accessory structures that have been raised. The first has to do with the large scale community solar operations outside of the MUSA where there would be a structure on site for electrical equipment, which could be handled by the ICUP. The other was allowing solar panels on accessory structures, such as gas station canopies. The way the ordinance is written, it only allows solar on the roof of principal structures. She asked from a policy standpoint if the City wishes to put forward an ordinance that prohibits solar panels on top of accessory structures as drafted now or broaden it to allow them on both types of structures. McCool pointed out when the Planning Commission adopted the current ordinance, solar was prohibited on accessory structures for residential uses, such as single family homes with a detached garage. The proposed ordinance would on solar all flat - roof principal structures in commercial and industrial districts. He stated that the Commission could change the ordinance to allow for solar on non-residential accessory structures as well. Rasmussen stated that he would like to see solar allowed on commercial accessory struc- tures. He does not believe the proposed ordinance is clear or straight forward. Lutchen stated that experts had testified about the justification for not needing screening due to anti -glare panels, but he stated that the original concerns came from the citizens having to see the panels. He does not believe anti -glare panels resolve citizens' complaints about visi- bility. Brittain stated that the options for the Commission tonight on the proposed ordinance are amending the proposed ordinance, and then making a motion to approve the amended ordi- nance, or making a motion to amend the proposed ordinance, directing staff to draft the changes to the ordinance and continuing it to the next Commission for recommendation. Rasmussen stated that he would like to see solar panels allowed on accessory structures on non-residential properties. Raymer would like to modify the language regarding rooftop screening. Nason stated that the language as drafted right now requires screening from public view. She suggested alternative language, including "Reflection angles shall be oriented away from structures and windows located on adjacent property;" "Glare from solar energy systems shall not be reflected onto adjacent properties or buildings;" or "Solar energy systems shall be screened if necessary so glare from the solar energy system shall not be visible by adjacent properties." A requirement could also be added that a glare study be completed. Raymer asked if that would allow for a business to have solar panels on their roof even the building is below a hill. Nason responded yes, as the language is focusing on the glare component as opposed to "visibility of the col- lectors" language, which is what is drafted now. Raymer asked if that would then negate the need for a glare study. Nason stated that the City could require some type of a study or add a condition that there can't be glare and panels must be screened adequately to prevent glare Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017 Page 15 of 15 being visible by adjacent properties. Thiede asked if there is a certain measurement that it has to be within for the glare. Brittain stated that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation tonight and staff could iron out the language prior to the City Council meeting. Zopfi asked if solar energy systems have to be adjacent to a distribution line or because they have to go underground all the way to the line would accomplish that same thing. He would like to pull out the requirement that it has to be adjacent to a distribution line because if they want to go to the expense of going a mile underground to get to a distribution line, that is within their rights. He agreed with the other two provisions. Brittain noted the three suggested changes to the ordinance amendment are to allow solar on accessory structures in nonresidential districts, modify the language regarding roof top screening to only reference prevention of glare, and not require that being adjacent to distri- bution lines. Brittain made a motion to approve the solar ordinance amendment with the three changes as described above. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously on a 7 -to -0 vote. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 2017 Awad made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2017, Planning Com- mission meeting. Raymer seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports 9.1 Recap of May 2017 City Council Meetings Thiede summarized the actions taken by the City Council at their meetings in May 2017. 9.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries �W 9.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain thanked Commissioner Graff, who is not in attendance this evening, for her service on the Planning Commission as she has resigned from the Commission due to additional work and personal life commitments. Adjournment Zopfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Lutchen seconded. The meeting was ad- journed at 11:30 p.m. (7 -to -0 vote).