Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Equal Opportunity Employer 2897 -458-Fax 651 2800 -458-651 grove.org -www.cottage Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 12800 Ravine Parkway  MINUTES COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL February 21, 2018 COUNCIL CHAMBER 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a regular meeting on February 21, 2018, at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience, staff, Mayor, and City Council Members recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL The following were present: Council Member Steve Dennis, Council Member Wayne Johnson, and Council Member La Rae Mills. Council Member Thiede was not present. Also present were: Charlene Stevens, City Administrator; Korine Land, City Attorney- LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Ryan Burfeind, Assistant City Engineer; Les Burshten, Public Works Director; Christine Costello, Director of Economic Development; Joe Fischbach/HR Manager/City Clerk; Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer; Sharon Madsen, Communications Coordinator; John McCool, Senior Planner; John Burbank, Senior Planner; Robin Roland, Finance Director; Craig Woolery, Director of Public Safety; Pete Koerner, Police Captain. 4. OPEN FORUM Mayor Bailey opened the open forum and asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Council on any item that was not on the agenda. As no one wished to address the Council, Mayor Bailey closed the open forum. 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion by Council Member Dennis to adopt the agenda; second by Council Member Johnson. Motion carried: 4-0. City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 2 6. PRESENTATIONS A. Retirement Recognition: Public Safety Director Craig Woolery Mayor Bailey invited Public Safety Director Craig Woolery and his family to step forward. Former Council Member Justin Olsen stated he wanted to honor Director Woolery, who had done a wonderful job in serving the citizens of Cottage Grove for many years. Justin Olsen presented a $500 check to the City of Cottage Grove, along with a promise that each year at this time he will present a check for $500 or more in Director Woolery’s honor; he felt it could be used for the Public Safety Department to “grow the next Craig Woolery,” from the ranks of Reserve Officers or C.S.O.s who wanted to become a Public Safety professional. If the Council is inclined, it could be the start of a Craig Woolery Memorial Fund, a scholarship given each year for somebody on the Cottage Grove Public Safety team to take that next step until they get their badge. Justin thanked Craig for all he’d done for the City as a citizen, volunteer, and as the Public Safety Director. Director Woolery thanked Justin for being a mentor for him over the years. Mayor Bailey stated that Cottage Grove’s Crime Prevention Board will take control of setting up the scholarship fund; the public will also be able to provide funds to that dedicated, specific use under Craig Woolery’s name in the future. Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry and Chief Deputy Brian Mueller were present. Sheriff Starry stated it was his honor to recognize Director Woolery with a plaque from the Sheriff’s Office. He stated Craig has served the citizens well for 34 years, including on the Washington County S.W.A.T. Team, and created lifelong relationships with all law enforcement agencies within Washington County. Director Woolery stated he was honored to receive the plaque; he thanked the Sheriff and the Sheriff’s Department. Senator Karla Bigham stated as the immediate past County Commissioner, she wanted to present Director Woolery with a Commissioner Service Award. On behalf of a grateful County, upon the recommendation of leading citizens, she extended recognition and appreciation to Director Woolery to thank him for his years of service in Cottage Grove Public Safety. She congratulated him and thanked him for his outstanding service and support of Washington County’s Mission. Director Woolery thanked Senator Bigham for her kind words. Representative Jurgens and Representative Franke wished Director Woolery well in his retirement. Representative Franke stated Director Woolery had done great work for the City in building such a quality group of Officers that serve Cottage Grove so well and speak to his character. Representative Franke said there was a Minnesota House of Representatives Resolution drafted in Craig’s honor, which he read aloud; it delineated all of his roles with the Public Safety Department, the City of Cottage Grove, the Washington County Special Response Team, as well as community organizations. He City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 3 thanked Director Woolery for everything he’d done. Director Woolery thanked both Representatives. Council Member Dennis stated it was wonderful to recognize Director Woolery for his 35 years of service to Cottage Grove and highlighted accomplishments of his career. He thanked Director Woolery’s family for supporting him as he has worked to protect us as a paramedic, a police officer, and a management leader, where he built a fantastic team of dedicated professionals, who, together with Director Woolery, have created a Public Safety Organization that is truly world class. Director Woolery leaves our department poised for an incredible future, which will no doubt continue to have his fingerprints attached. Council Member Dennis read a quote, “True service cannot be properly performed unless humbly given.” He thanked Director Woolery for all he’d done. Mayor Bailey read a City of Cottage Grove Proclamation for Director Woolery, which proclaimed February 23, 2018, as “Craig Woolery Day” in the City of Cottage Grove, Minnesota; he urged all Cottage Grove officials, staff, and residents to recognize the contributions of Craig Woolery to the Cottage Grove community and express to him the gratitude and appreciation for over 34 years of dedicated service. Mayor Bailey stated that Craig’s been the calm voice in the room over the years, so it was a simple choice to ask him to also be the interim City Administrator. Mayor Bailey stated it’s been an honor and a privilege for him to know Craig, personally and professionally; he thanked him and told him to enjoy his time off, as it was well deserved. He invited him to stop in occasionally and offer his opinions to the Council. Council Member Dennis and newly-appointed Director of Public Safety Pete Koerner presented a gift to Director Woolery. Council Member Dennis stated it was something that a number of people had worked on to make happen and hopes it will be something that his whole family can enjoy and will be passed on through the years. They presented a large shadow box, which included various items (including badges, patches, etc.) that Director Woolery obtained throughout his career. Mayor Bailey again thanked him for his service to the community. Director Woolery stated the shadow box was beautiful, and he thanked everyone for their kind words. He stated he’s just the sum of everybody tonight, those here, those on the road, those who had previously retired, the firefighters, all City staff, his wife, Katie, and his boys. This job does a lot but it also gives a lot, and you give a lot of yourself. He stated he was just a figure to represent the department, and he’s so proud of that. Pete will be an awesome Chief. The City is in amazing hands with its leadership; the new Central Fire station is being built. Police, Firefighters, Fire Medics, EMS, and staff all work together as an awesome team. He was proud to be a part of that and thanked everyone. B. Internet Survey Results City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 4 Christine Costello, Director of Economic Development, stated, in 2017, the City under its Business Retention & Expansion Program interviewed 41 businesses. One of the key findings that came out of that meeting was the lack of Internet service and reliability, specifically in our Business Park. The City Council, EDA, and the BR & E Task Force decided to survey the entire community to determine if there were other areas where Internet service wasn’t up to standards. An online survey was available; 95 people completed the survey. Ultimately, the survey told us the community wants increased Internet competition with more options for speed, reliability, and pricing. Staff wanted to: 1) Reach out to CenturyLink to discuss their market expansion and availability of increased Internet speeds. They met with CenturyLink on February 8, who felt they had widespread coverage in the community and had an excellent grasp of projects going on here. They are placing fiber in all new housing project developments; in the older projects, they’re doing that through copper phone lines, so the speed is much slower. CenturyLink informed us that people were using their phone service to stream their television and using their phone service more, but they were receptive to working with the City to ensure we have an open line of communication. 2) Discuss with the SWCTC and City IT staff what other Internet Service Providers were available. With the SWCTC and the City IT staff, they have a meeting scheduled to work with the Cable Commission. They want to learn the additional Internet options in the community and getting the word out so residents are aware of those. 3) Explore the creation of a City-wide wireless Internet service, for both residents and businesses. A City-wide Internet service will be discussed, but we need to do some research on that, including reviewing what other cities have done; we need to know the benefits, the challenges, infrastructure needs, and cost to the community. That information will be brought back to the City Council, the EDA, and the Cable Commission to share those findings. 4) Continue to work with providers on areas of growth, and assist with future Capital Improvement Projects. In terms of future capital investment, the City of Cottage Grove holds an annual utility provider meeting, which took place a couple weeks ago. They talked about current and proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects in Cottage Grove. Another option is to start more marketing online in terms of developing marketing materials so people and our providers know what projects are going on in Cottage Grove. Mayor Bailey thanked Director Costello for the information. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the February 7, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. B. Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting on December 18, 2017. C. Authorize issuance of a single-occasion gambling permit to Cottage Grove Area Strawberry Festival, Inc. to conduct a raffle at Park High School on June 18, 2018. D. Adopt Resolution 2018-016 amending the Personnel Policy. City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 5 E. Reappoint Commissioners as detailed in Joe Fischbach’s memo dated February 16, 2018. F. Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties in the attached table. G. Adopt Resolution 2018-018, approving the 2018 amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement for the Red Rock Corridor Commission. H. Appoint Sheree Schuler to a term on the Planning Commission effective March 1, 2018, and ending February 28, 2021. I. Adopt Resolution 2018-020 to allow an 8-foot by 24-foot banner to be displayed on the exterior wall of the Legends of Cottage Grove building at 6999 East Point Douglas Road South. J. Adopt Resolution 2018-021 approving Aggregate Industries’ 2018 mining permit to allow their ongoing excavation and processing of aggregate materials in the Nelson Mine on Lower Grey Cloud Island. K. Adopt Resolution 2018-022 writing off Accounts Receivable balances (both mandatory and discretionary) for 2017 in the ambulance (EMS) fund. L. 1) Authorize purchase of 2018 Dodge 5500 Ultramedic Type 1 Ambulance from Everest Emergency Vehicles at a cost of $221,000. 2) Authorize the City to sell or trade in the current 2018 Chevrolet Ambulance. M. Authorize staff to proceed with the purchase and implementation of the EnerGov software for building permits, licensing, and regulatory management, as described. Council Member Dennis wished to pull Item H for further comment and/or discussion. Council Member Dennis stated there’s currently a vacancy on the Planning Commission as one of the Commission Members decided not to seek reappointment to a second term. He recommended Sheree Schuler to fill the open Commission seat; she’d been previously interviewed when they were looking at the EDA candidates. She’s a very good, qualified candidate so he hopes the Council will approve this appointment tonight. Motion by Council Member Mills to approve the agenda; second by Council Member Johnson. Motion carried: 4-0. 8. APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS A. Approve payments for the period of 2/07/2018 through 2/22/2018 for the amount of $1,243,398.85. Motion by Council Member Dennis to approve disbursements; second by Council Member Mills. Motion carried: 4-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Ravine Parkway Project City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 6 Staff Recommendation: 1) Hold the public hearing on the Ravine Parkway Project. 2) Adopt Resolution 2018-019 ordering the Ravine Parkway Project from Hinton Avenue (CSAH 13) to Idsen Avenue and Jamaica Avenue to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19). Community Development Director/City Engineer Jennifer Levitt stated this Ravine Parkway Project has been over 15 years in the making. Tonight’s public hearing is to order the project; it is not the assessment hearing, as that will be held in the fall. She went on to explain the two construction phases, in 2018 and 2019. All of the new properties need the Ravine Parkway to develop and move forward. Military Road will be turned to the City; in exchange, the City will give Jamaica Avenue to Washington County, as this will be necessary for us to further the project. Assessment waivers are provided for property owners to defer the assessment until the time of development, not at the time of construction. Properties will be assessed on their gross acreage basis, and the proposed assessment is $9,130.34 per acre; she explained how that amount was calculated. The total project cost that we’re seeking to be ordered tonight is for the $9,000,000 project. The anticipated construction start date would be in early spring, and it would be substantially complete by this fall. Per Minnesota State Statute 429.031, the Resolution must be adopted by 4/5 vote for the project to be ordered; tonight, because a Council Member is absent, all four members must vote unanimously for the project to be ordered. Council Member Dennis asked if the development of the land was when the assessment would be made if that meant when that property owner decided to sell their land. Engineer Levitt stated they could still sell it as a single-family home and not have to pay; it’s only when the owner subdivided or platted it and had a closing with the developer was when the City would collect the assessment. If it’s transferred to another single-family use, the assessment would not be collected. Council Member Johnson confirmed that there would also be no interest; Engineer Levitt stated that was correct as long as there was not a default on the assessment terms. In the Assessment Waiver, there are terms that are outlined; as long as they’re not in default of those conditions, there would be no interest. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on this issue. The following individuals spoke: Jacob Steen, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, 8300 Norman Center Drive, Bloomington, Minnesota, stated they represent several property owners, who own nearly 250 acres in the project area, mostly agricultural. They are impacted by this proposed Special Assessment, totaling more that $2.25 million. Many clients have had this property in their families for several generations. A letter provided identified their clients’ names and the parcels affected, which will serve as formal written objection to the proposed City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 7 project and the proposed Special Assessments. He specified the reasons they were objecting. Regarding the Waiver that had been sent to their clients, they’d strongly advised their clients to not sign this Waiver, as the Waiver effectively absolves the City of any obligation to demonstrate a Special Benefit, and that’s inconsistent with the law. He went on to request and strongly encourage the City Council to delay this project to ensure it is consistent with City policy and with State law and work with their clients to reevaluate the assessments. Council Member Johnson stated if their property is never developed, they will not be assessed the fee, and asked Mr. Steen if he had just said that that was not true. Mr. Steen stated under Minnesota law, you can defer a Special Assessment for 15 years; after that 15 years, it has to be paid. He stated he’d check, but under Minnesota law Special Assessment deferral can be deferred for 15 years. Mayor Bailey asked City Attorney Korine Land to clarify that. Attorney Land stated this was not a deferral for a Special Assessment; it is a contract between the property owner and the City. The City is obligated to follow the terms of the contract, which are that we will not assess until the property is developed. So, if the property owner chooses never to develop, it will never be assessed. It’s a contractual term, not a deferral. Mr. Steen stated they disagreed with that interpretation; if their clients sign the Waiver, they give up the opportunity to contest that this is a valid Special Assessment and that there is indeed a Special Benefit of $9,000 an acre on these properties. Robert McHattie, 1412 Almond Avenue, St. Paul, is a trustee on 20 acres of land on Military Road, which is held in a trust; his mom, Phyllis McHattie Gridley, owns the 25 acres behind that, which is in Cottage Grove but borders on Woodbury. His family has owned this land for about 200 years. It troubles him that land that previously had a significant value is now worth half of what it had been. There’s a $9,000 road charge that they’re dealing with right now. The City is also taking Military Road, which has very historical significance, and making it so the road can’t be used any more. Military Road is the main way in and out of their land, but they’ll need to use the Parkway. He’s not so sure the Parkway adds any benefit to their land, but instead it hurts them. He stated they were very frustrated landowners; they’re quickly losing the value of their land and Cottage Grove was taking it directly from them. He felt the City was taking money and assets from the landowners. John Stechcon, 9263 Military Road, Cottage Grove, stated the back of his property butts up to the Ravine Parkway and provided photos of his property; now there will be no access to the road for his property. He told the engineer this was probably not going to happen. He stated he’s lived here over 28 years and knows how the water flows; most of the time the water runs down the field and out behind his yard. The latest design runs all the groundwater through his yard; the plowed snow will mound up in his yard. The City wants to assess him $35,000 for this project. He’d spoken with Engineer Levitt to find out how the City was increasing his property value; he was told they did not have to show him. In the Assessment Waiver, it states the City’s increasing the value at or above; he feels they might be negatively impacting his property. According to State City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 8 Statute 429, the City will need to prove the assessment to his property and increase his property value at or above the assessment amount. The City wants to charge him $35,000, but only wants to pay him $2,186 for a temporary easement. As of now, he will not agree to the easement because he did not agree with the drainage across his yard. As of today, he will appeal the Assessment; $9,130 per acre for all property owners does not work. As no one else wished to address the City Council on this item, Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing. Mayor Bailey asked staff if they wanted to speak on any comments that were made. Engineer Levitt stated that perhaps Attorney Land could comment regarding some of the statements made regarding the City policy. Attorney Land stated that this is a Minnesota Statute 429 assessment process. The first step is to hold the public hearing to order the project. She wanted to remind everyone that this is a preliminary assessment; this is not the assessment hearing. All property owners will have an opportunity to come before the Council to voice their objection prior to the actual assessment hearing. They’ll be given notice of the hearing; they will be given the actual assessments at that time. Mr. Steen is correct; the City must prove a Special Benefit, but we’re not at that stage yet. We’re at the preliminary assessment stage. The City did not in this case follow the policy; policies are intended to be guides, they’re ideal situations. When we have a typical routine street project every year, we follow the policy and are able to get a Special Benefit Appraisal before the Council orders the project. As Engineer Levitt pointed out, this project is 15 years in the making. It is a unique project, so the guideline was looked at, it was reviewed, and it was determined in this particular situation it didn’t fit, so we didn’t follow the typical process of ordering a Special Benefit Appraisal before we brought it to the Council to order the project. It’s a unique situation, unique circumstances, and we deviated from the guideline or the policy. It’s not an ordinance, it’s not a law that you follow; it is the City’s policy. Once in 15 years we didn’t follow the policy, but typically we do. Because of the situation, we didn’t. Again, all property owners will have the ability to appeal their Special Assessment at the time of the public hearing. Engineer Levitt showed Mr. Stechcon’s property on the map reference some storm sewer that he had indicated would potentially drain through his property. There’s been some misunderstanding as there will actually be a storm pipe that will provide conveyance to a regional system; it will actually pick up the drainage that was shown in his back yard. The City had provided various options to him on how we could slope from the actual trail to his property line, as he had mowing concerns. As with any of our projects and policies, we provided an opportunity for compensation for the easement. If the resident is unwilling to grant it, then the City would move forward without an easement necessary to construct on his property. She said they had asked the adjacent developing properties through their developers and engineers to provide us the concept of how the road alignments in the area could actually connect. The underlying City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 9 ghost plats that Mr. Stechcon referenced were conducted by another developer and their engineer to show how the roadway connection would feed into the development and how those connections would be made with Military Road not in existence in the future. Engineer Levitt stated there were also comments made regarding various developer- related fees with area charges and park dedication; Council has seen the comparisons between Cottage Grove and our peer communities, and we’re very comparable, in some cases even lower than adjacent communities on the costs for development. Mayor Bailey asked Engineer Levitt if we don’t move ahead with Ravine Parkway, if that means we don’t do any future development in that area. Engineer Levitt confirmed that. Mayor Bailey stated regarding land values, he can’t do anything as it relates to what’s going on with that. Someone made the comment that the value of their land was significantly less than it had been; Mayor Bailey stated that person was correct, but that’s not just happening in Cottage Grove; it’s happening everywhere. Mayor Bailey stated we do not force people to sell their land to facilitate a project. Council Member Johnson asked how this project differed from others where they had the development and then said they needed other roads; Engineer Levitt stated it’s how and why development is staged. It’s staged based upon where utilities are located. Any development in this area needs the Ravine Parkway to provide the connectivity, and the sanitary sewer to provide connections into the trunk water main. Right now sanitary sewer and water main do not exist, so it would come in as part of this project. None of the land can develop without those trunk utilities. Development can’t leapfrog so it systematically has to work from where utilities are located. With Ravine Parkway, we’re providing the transportation connection to the developments and we’re providing all of the trunk utilities to ensure that development can happen and then stage off of it, to the north. Council Member Dennis wished to clarify: 1) We are 100% consistent with Minnesota law, not violating any premise, not taking the City into any direction of liability, or doing anything that would be contrary to good process. Attorney Land confirmed that and stated we’re exactly following Minnesota Statute 429. 2) Regarding the Benefit Appraisal, this is a special project; normally we would have that, but in this case we don’t. He asked if he wanted to see that Benefit Appraisal how that would set us back or impede the process. Attorney Land stated the Council can ask for Special Benefit Appraisals at any point prior to the assessment hearing, or even after. At the conclusion of the project, there would be an assessment hearing; that’s the point where the Council will say these are the amounts assessed for these properties. Prior to that process, the Council can say we want to see Special Benefit Appraisals and those would be ordered. There would be a cost associated with that, but it might be money well spent to determine what the actual Special Benefit is for each and every property. If someone appeals their Special Assessment, which they have the right to do, the Council can order a Special Benefit Appraisal at that point, before it goes to court. The City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 10 courtroom is where we need to prove our Special Benefit. So, until we’re in the courtroom, the Council can order a Special Benefit Appraisal at any time. It doesn’t set the project back at all. 3) He stated he wanted to make sure that if we got that Special Benefit Appraisal, and we thought it just doesn’t make sense, it didn’t feel right or didn’t add up, that we’d have the ability to change it and put a different number on that. Attorney Land stated that’s absolutely correct. At the time of the assessment hearing, the Council can modify, amend, adjust, or throw out any assessment. Council Member Dennis confirmed with Engineer Levitt if we put the brakes on this right now and stop it, what we’re doing is in essence bringing an end to all of the progress upstream; she stated that was correct. Council Member Johnson asked if a fair assessment of the situation was this had been planned for 15 years, and it’s the final plan for the whole Ravine Parkway. We’d been waiting for possible interest by developers to keep moving; if we said no now, we’d basically be turning away from a plan that’d been in the works for years, saying we don’t want to do it. Engineer Levitt confirmed that; investments that had been made and engagements with landowners by developers would probably not move forward because they wouldn’t have necessary utilities or road connections. Motion by Council Member Johnson to adopt Resolution 2018-019 ordering the Ravine Parkway Project from Hinton Avenue (CSAH 13) to Idsen Avenue, and Jamaica Avenue to Keats Avenue (CSAH 19); second by Mayor Bailey. Motion carried: 4-0. 10. BID AWARDS A. Summers Landing 2nd Addition - Utility, Street, & Lighting Improvements Project Staff Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2018-017 awarding the bid for the Summers Landing 2nd Addition - Utility, Street, & Lighting Improvements Project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. in the amount of $1,946,423.90. Assistant City Engineer Ryan Burfeind stated the City received bids for this project. There were 14 bids received; the low bid was from Northwest Asphalt, Inc. at $1,946,423.90, which is approximately 13% less than the engineer’s estimate amount of $2.24 million. City staff is recommending the project be awarded to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Council Members had no questions for Engineer Burfeind. Motion by Council Member Dennis to adopt Resolution 2018-017 awarding the bid for the Summers Landing 2nd Addition - Utility, Street, & Lighting Improvements Project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc., in the amount of $1,946,423.90; second by Council Member Mills. Motion carried: 4-0. 11. REGULAR AGENDA City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 11 A. Kingston Fields - Zoning Amendment and Preliminary Plat Staff Recommendation: Pass Ordinance 991 rezoning 59.2 acres of land located east of Jamaica Avenue and north of Rose of Sharon Lutheran Church, 6875 Jamaica Avenue, from Agricultural Preservation (AG-1) to Single Family Residential (R-3) with a Planned Development Overlay. Senior Planner John McCool stated this application was filed by D.R. Horton, proposing to develop approximately 59 acres of land to the east of Jamaica Avenue and to the north of the Rose of Sharon property. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Preservation, AG-1; the request is to rezone the property to an R-3, single-family residential district. D.R. Horton has provided the City with a development plan; that was presented to the Planning Commission, with an initial public hearing held in November, 2017, for the development of the 59 acres. The Planning Commission had a public hearing on February 15, 2018; they recommended approval for all three applications. There’s a preliminary plat application for the Kingston Fields; the subdivision plat of this property is proposing 121 lots, with widths of 65 feet and 70 feet. The City Council is asked to approve D.R. Horton’s request to rezone the property with a Planned Development Overlay and approve the preliminary plat for development of the 121 lots, as described. Council Members had no questions. The applicant, Mike Suel, D.R. Horton Homes, 20860 Kenbridge Court, Lakeville, Minnesota, stated they’re excited to continue work in the Ravine Parkway area. They got good feedback from the Planning Commission when they first met, D.R. Horton responded, and hopes they’re happy with what they’ve proposed and will continue to move forward. Mayor Bailey stated they did a great job of meeting concerns that were raised about lot sizes; Mr. Suel stated with the City staff they were able to figure out the right mix of lot sizes. Motion by Council Member Mills to pass Ordinance 991 rezoning 59.2 acres of land, located east of Jamaica Avenue and north of Rose of Sharon Lutheran Church, 6875 Jamaica Avenue, from Agricultural Preservation (AG-1) to Single-Family Residential (R- 3), with a Planned Development Overlay; second by Council Member Dennis. Motion carried: 4-0. Motion by Council Member Dennis to approve the Kingston Fields Planned Development Overlay as shown on the revised preliminary plat that was received by the City on January 15, 2018; second by Council Member Johnson. Motion carried: 4-0. Motion by Council Member Johnson to Adopt Resolution 2018-023 approving the Kingston Fields preliminary plat for the development of 121 lots for detached single- family residential homes; second by Council Member Mills. Motion carried: 4-0. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 12 Council Member Mills stated she wanted to make mention of Craig Woolery for all of his service to the City and acknowledged his leadership. He’s built a strong team and the culture will continue for years to come. She wanted to wish him all the best. Council Member Dennis stated that on February 24 there will be Coffee with a Cop, at Starbucks on East Point Douglas Road. This was just another extension of how public safety officers reach out to the community to connect and partner with them. Council Member Johnson stated he received a phone call from a resident about housing and the direction of the City and working with My Future Cottage Grove. Council Member Johnson suggested that everyone get involved with a Housing Focus Group open house on February 26 at City Hall if you want to learn more, get some questions answered, and provide input. Mayor Bailey stated on February 26, at City Hall, will be the rescheduled event for Toastmasters; Mayor Bailey is the featured speaker on My Future Cottage Grove. Mayor Bailey stated he had used Facebook to talk about new developments happening in the City, with the different housing types and the values, and received various responses. If there are questions, reach out to Council Members or staff. There are focus groups as part of My Future Cottage Grove; they’re there to listen and get feedback on a variety of topics. There is a single-family housing panel that will be here on March 15, so that’s another opportunity to provide feedback. Mayor Bailey stated yesterday there was a Settlement Agreement reached between 3M and the State of Minnesota; Cottage Grove’s stance has been firm and there’s a consent decree with 3M and the State of Minnesota to pay for the temporary water treatment facilities so the taxpayers in Cottage Grove will not be paying for it. The next phase is Cottage Grove is expecting to obtain funding necessary to provide water treatment facilities in Cottage Grove. He stated he was very encouraged by what he’s hearing from the State, and Cottage Grove will be made whole and will get through this, but not at the cost of the local taxpayers. Down the road, they hope to have an open house to get more information out to the community about where we’re at with the municipal water system and any concerns that exist. 13. WORKSHOPS – OPEN TO PUBLIC A. Solar Ordinance Amendment Senior Planner John McCool stated the Planning Commission spent about a year working on items that should be in the Solar Ordinance. It came to the Planning Commission because the City received a building permit application in August or September, 2017, where a resident wanted to put a solar system on a detached accessory garage. The ordinance then, and now, states that solar systems on detached or accessory structures are prohibited, so the building permit could not be City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 13 issued. The property owner was interested in discussing this with the Planning Commission, and we were asked to report back with direction as to what we should do. There was interest by the Planning Commission to consider solar systems on accessory structures; from that discussion, there were other things that were added to the Ordinance Amendment. In the current ordinance, there’s a limitation of 6 square feet of total solar devices that you can have on your property that would not require a building permit. As part of the discussion, the Planning Commission thought there should probably be something a bit bigger than just 6 square feet. Questions arose as to if we’re going to regulate solar systems placed in back yards of residential properties, at what point do we require a building permit when solar panels start to get a little bit bigger, or on carports that would have solar structures above them. Initially, the Planning Commission did not want to have solar on those types of accessory structures. We simply said you could have solar on your accessory structure, but your accessory structure had to be a minimum of 200 square feet (e.g., a detached garage). If there’s an attached garage and they had a 200 square foot pergola, we’d issue a building permit for solar on the pergola. There are hobby-type kits you can buy for solar; 13” wide x 36” long, almost 3.5 square feet in area, and if those show up in back yards with three, four, or five panels, the size of that panel structure will grow a little bit. They surveyed 13 other communities in the metropolitan area. They all required building permits for solar systems, but they didn’t require anything special with the exception of Northfield, where if you can see it from the street, a conditional use permit is required; Cottage Grove does not do that, it’s allowed. Most communities also allow them to be facing a public roadway. The Planning Commission held a public hearing in December, 2017; they made a recommendation to strike the provision about prohibiting them on accessory structures. It’s proposed to allow them on accessory structures with certain performance standards: The structure has to be a minimum of 200 square feet; the solar system needs to be flat on the roof of the accessory structure and it cannot be a raised panel on the structure itself; up to a cumulative area of 20 square feet of solar panels would be allowed on a property. Council Member Johnson asked if 20 square feet or less was allowed without a permit, and he was told that was correct, but he was advised that those panels did not need to be conjoined and could be spread out throughout the property. Anything on the roof of a house would not be counted as being part of the 20 square feet. Mayor Bailey asked if there was something in the ordinance that says you can’t have a ground-mounted system; Planner McCool stated that was correct. It’s difficult to draw the line as to what’s freestanding. The concern about freestanding is wind loads; we don’t want them toppling over. Anything 20 square feet or less they’re not going to worry about. Council Member Johnson asked what the definition of freestanding was; City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 14 Planner McCool stated it would be anything above grade. Accent lighting is freestanding. A property owner could ask for a freestanding solar, greater than 20 square feet, and it would be allowed on a residential lot. They’d be able to have a series of panels in their back yard to sell back to Xcel; that’s not what the City wanted in the original Ordinance. Council Member Mills asked if they had to be five-acre lots. A contractor in attendance at the workshop stated she was working with the resident who originally sent in that building permit and she works with other cities on their ordinances and their zoning. She often sees with something like this the definition of temporary, usually freestanding, means it’s attached to the ground with footings, it has to go through inspection, so perhaps having something along those lines, that’s it’s temporary and could be easily taken down, so that it would apply to building code requirements. Mayor Bailey stated our intention was never to stop a detached garage or accessory structure of 200 square feet from having solar panels. We’re saying we’re not going to allow ground-mounted systems in the ordinance, but we’re also saying we’d allow some of this. He had concerns about seeing solar panels in the front of a house that didn’t get a permit, as there’s nothing to prevent that. He felt the extra changes the Planning Commission added pushed it too far. He thought we had to correct the issue so that people who want to put flat solar panels on accessory structures or accessory lighting wouldn’t be bothered. If they want to do something that’s not in the ordinance, they need to obtain a permit. Planner McCool stated if it’s freestanding, per the ordinance they would not be able to have it. If someone wanted a conditional use permit, they could try to get it and have that denied, but if somebody wanted to pursue it, they could. He was informed they’d have to request the ordinance to change, and he would not recommend a variance. Mayor Bailey thought there were options, but he felt he was being told that no, there weren’t options. Mayor Bailey feared if someone wanted to put a pole on the back of their yard and put up a panel that’s not flush, but angled, we had talked about panels being flush on the roof, and it’s freestanding, so that would be prohibited by the ordinance. The ordinance currently says no freestanding in the urban lots. Mayor Bailey asked if exceptions could be written into the ordinance, such as solar lighting, etc. Attorney Land stated they wanted to allow them without a building permit but not be ground mounted. Engineer Levitt stated she thought 20 square feet was the issue, as clearly those little lights are not 20 square feet. The 20 square feet came from the Planning Commission when they wanted to have hobby kits allowed, and the hobby kits was what drove the 20 square feet. The original ordinance had 6 square feet without a permit, so that was the intent for things not to be a nuisance. The Planning Commission’s intent was to allow the hobby kits, which then caused other issues in the ordinance with where are they attached and where they’re put on the property as hobby solar projects. City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 15 Planner McCool stated the Planning Commission’s recommendation was 16 square feet; examples were accent lighting, powering water pumps for water gardens, telecommunication backup systems, etc. Mayor Bailey stated let’s allow the accessory structure as currently deemed, up to 200 square feet. Take that number and go back to 6 square feet, and leave it alone. Attorney Land stated for the under 6 feet, you might want to make an exception in ground mountings that if they meet the permit exception, then they don’t fall within the ground-mounting rule, so we’d add more language in there to make it clear. Planner McCool stated that as you get the bigger panels, your average wattage is getting bigger, and that’s when it should probably be involved with permits. Council Member Mills stated she had a question about the swimming pool solar panels; she asked if those are fairly popular and how big do they have to be with the pool. She was just curious because there are a lot of pools in Cottage Grove. She was told an average panel is about 15 square feet, which would be sufficient to heat a normal size above-ground pool. Underground pools are a bit different, as integrated with the house panel and the utility and it requires utility agreements, etc. In the case of a water pump or solar thermal or heating your pool, it’s going to be one single panel that’s needed; the wattage is about 300 watts and the voltage is limited at 600, so the shock concern is kept to a minimum. Council Member Mills asked with what they’re talking about right now, it would eliminate that option; that was confirmed. Council Member Mills proposed that an addition be adding to the ordinance for heating swimming pools where solar panels could be placed on top of sheds, larger than 6 feet but less than 200 feet, and above-ground swimming pools already require a building permit. Engineer Levitt stated a building permit fee for that would need to include some structural design to ensure that it’s not going to have issues and would also need electrical; it’s probably better to put the solar panel on a nearby shed, garage, or a house to heat the pool versus trying to do something freestanding, as there could be additional challenges encountered with that. Council Member Mills stated most people wouldn’t have a 200-foot shed, which was why she was proposing something else. Council Member Dennis stated we’ve been dealing with the solar panel ordinance for a long time, and it just keeps coming back over and over. It’s frustrating for residents, staff, and the City Council; he’d like to see that we get this ordinance finalized so we won’t have to revisit it for a long time. Council Member Dennis supported putting solar panels on a garage; if the square footage is 6 or 10, whatever number, he just wanted to get something locked down for the future. Mayor Bailey stated as long as citizens were given options, including panels on a roof, on an attached or detached garage or shed, and heating a pool could be facilitated with solar panels on a roof if the shed is constructed of proper materials. He felt the Council made a mistake on the accessory use structure piece of the ordinance, for which he City Council Meeting Minutes February 21, 2018 Page 16 apologized. He felt we should not allow ground mounts, keep it a 6 feet width, and be done with it. Planner McCool stated the other thing is there are a lot of detached accessory structures in the City; Mayor Bailey stated his concern was people are going to be plopping solar panels on sheds in their back yard without obtaining a permit, which raises safety concerns. Planner McCool confirmed that the Council wanted to leave it at 6 square feet, provide some language regarding ground mounts, including access lighting, and reenforce the examples, 200 square feet remains unchanged, and the enforcement is no freestanding; if it’s above ground, they’re prohibited, which is already in the ordinance, in residential. Residential urban lots need to be 5 acres minimum before they can start putting them above the ground. It will go back to the Planning Commission for input and review and then come back before the Council for a motion. 14. WORKSHOPS – CLOSED TO PUBLIC – None. 15. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council Member Dennis, second by Council Member Johnson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried: 4-0. Minutes prepared by Judy Graf and reviewed by Joe Fischbach, HR Manager/City Clerk.