Planning Commission Minutes 01-14-2015 Special MeetingMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING — MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 - Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Brad Fyle, Linda Buchmann, Sam Murdoff
Absent: Alan Heidemann
Others: Angela Schumann, Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller,
Charlotte Gabler (Council Liaison)
City Administrator Jeff O'Neill administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed members
Sam Murdoff and Linda Buchmann.
1. Call to order
Brad Fyle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He noted the absence of Alan
Heidemann and the appointment of Charlotte Gabler as Council representative.
2. Consideration to elect officers
Brad Fyle indicated that he would like to be considered for the Chair position and
invited other nominations. Commissioners was asked to elect the positions of Chair
and Vice Chair of the Commission for 2015.
Decision 1: Chair Position
LINDA BUCHMANN MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BRAD FYLE
AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2015. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
Brad Fyle noted that Alan Heidemann had indicated interest in serving as Vice Chair
if nominated. Fyle asked for any other nominations for the position.
Decision 2: Vice Chair Position
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER ALAN
HEIDEMANN AS VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2015.
LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
3. Citizen Comments None
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
• Truck Parking at Broadway Market (Gabler)
• Website /IT (Schumann)
• Vacant Planning Commissioner Position (Schumann)
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
5. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes
a. Special Meeting — December 2nd, 2014
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2014 SPECIAL
MEETING MINUTES. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
b. Regular Meeting — December 2nd, 2014
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2014 REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0.
6. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Sections 1— Use Table, Section 2 — Use - Specific
Standards and Section 3 — Accessory Use Standards and Chapter 8, Section 4 —
Defmitions as related to regulations for Solar Energy Systems (NAC)
Planning Case Number: 2014 -054
Steve Grittman explained that City staff had recently been asked questions related to
the concept of establishing a solar energy facility in Monticello's Orderly Annexation
Area. Preliminary consideration of this matter had led staff to review existing zoning
regulations and determine that the code is not clear regarding the classification of this
type of use.
The City Council established a land use moratorium on principal solar energy uses at
its November 24th, 2014 meeting, as had been recommended by the Planning
Commission. The City has 12 months to study the issue and consider changes to
development regulations.
Grittman noted that current land use regulations address solar panel installations on
existing properties as an accessory use. Accessory use of property is "subordinate and
incidental" to the activity or structure on the site. This type of use can be regulated by
size, location, design, building -mount or ground -mount and proportionality. These
type of installations are usually attached to an existing building and produce electrical
power that is consumed by the occupant of the property.
Principal use of property is the main, or primary, purpose for which land is intended
and developed. Principal uses are usually distinguished by size or extent and impact,
from accessory uses. This type of use can be regulated by land use regulation goals,
tax/service impacts, long range planning patterns and public finance issues.
Grittman pointed out that municipalities have the authority to regulate land uses with
certain limitations that are imposed by the state. The City can use its development
regulations to manage location, size, extent and intensity of various land uses, and
2
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
relegate certain land uses to specific districts. In most cases, the City can prohibit land
uses that are incompatible with land use objectives.
The current regulations specifically permit accessory solar facilities, with limited
definition as to how those facilities can be installed on a property. The zoning
regulations are silent on solar energy production as a principal use, but various
categories of use touch on electrical generation. Based on staff analysis of solar
energy production regulation options, staff recommended the following amendments:
Solar Energy as an Accessory Use
A. Retain the current requirements for Solar Energy Systems in the
Zoning Code, Chapter 5.3 (D)(29) for accessory use.
B. Amend the language in that section to add the requirements suggested
in this report, as follows:
1. Generally allow solar arrays as roof - mounted systems, and
create a maximum height extension.
2. Ensure that solar arrays are developed to minimize glare,
including adequate protective screening or coatings as
appropriate.
3. Limit solar arrays to locations that are not visible from the
public right of way in residential areas, or require that they are
integrated into the design and architecture of the home.
4. Allow ground- mounted solar arrays in the rear yards when
such arrays comprise an aggregate area no more than 20% of
the size of the principal structure.
5. Allow ground- mounted solar arrays on business and industrial
property by Conditional Use Permit, with size limitations
related to current accessory building allowances, and in such a
way that would not impede principal building or site use
expansion.
6. Require that business /industrial ground- mounted systems be
allowed only where applicants show that roof - mounted systems
are not practical due to building strength/support.
7. Require that accessory buildings related to solar arrays
constitute, or are included in, the allowed accessory building
construction on the subject property.
8. Include the existing requirements of the City's code, including
a requirement that all installations meet height and setback
requirements applicable to accessory uses in the underlying
zoning district.
C. Clarify the definition of Essential Services to specify that the identified
items are support facilities and structures, but not buildings for human
use or occupancy.
3
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
D. Clarify the definition of Utilities -Major to specify that the identified
uses listed at (A) Public infrastructure services include buildings or
structures that are intended to house human activity.
E. Clarify that solar energy generation is not allowed as a stand- alone,
principal use of property.
F. Amend the zoning use table (Table 5.1) to specify that Utilities -Major
are allowed by CUP only in the I -1, Light Industrial District, I -2,
Heavy Industrial District and the B -2, Limited Business District.
Sam Murdoff asked if the City was opposed to allowing solar as principal use because
of public funding issues. Grittman explained that the primary issue with allowing
solar as a principal use is that it is essentially a rural use.
Murdoff also asked if it might be an option to require that a principal solar use facility
take on extra taxes to compensate for the lack of employment and funding generated.
Grittman suggested that because the legislature has a lot to say about the public
regulated utility market such considerations may be beyond local control.
Fyle asked about what Xcel Energy would be allowed to do. Gritmman indicated
Xcel would be allowed to establish solar generation as an accessory use like any other
industrial facility.
Fyle opened the public hearing.
Dean Leischow, a solar energy developer with Sunrise Energy, 601 Carlson Parkway,
Minnetonka, pointed out that Sunrise had developed projects across the country. He
indicated that recent legislation prompted interest in developing a considerable
amount of solar production in Minnesota. He pointed out that one of the sites that
Sunrise is looking to develop is outside of the City's jurisdiction in the annexation
zone. He noted the importance of being a good corporate neighbor and explained that
solar energy would benefit the community. He suggested that solar plants do not
make any noise, can vary in size from half an acre to 100 acres, and generate
considerable tax revenue. Leischow suggested that, rather than establishing a blanket
moratorium on solar as a principal use, the city would be better served by establishing
some sort of a zoning overlay which allows solar as a principal use in commercial,
industrial, and agricultural areas on a case by case basis.
Dan Rogers, of 2728 Stevens Avenue, Minneapolis, stated that he is a solar developer
(at SunEdison), and also expressed interest in developing a facility within the
annexation area. He explained that such a facility would be enclosed, typically sit less
than 8 feet off the ground, and would not require water or sewer services. He
suggested that a large system would boost the local distribution infrastructure so that
the resiliency of the grid would be higher. He also pointed out that recent legislation
allows for the sale of power to anyone within distribution capacity.
rd
Planning Commission Minutes 1114115
Gabler asked why the developers were interested in Monticello. Leischow indicated
that this area is attractive because of the abundant flat land and proximity to the
power plant. Rogers also noted that there are willing landowners in the area.
Linda Buchmann asked if the land the developers are interested in would be
purchased or leased. Both developers indicated that they like to lease land from
farmers. Solar contracts are typically 20 -25 years in duration.
Brad Fyle expressed interest in learning about what such a facility would look like
and how it came to be developed in other areas. Leischow said that solar arrays would
be low to the ground and can be screened. He indicated that reflectivity would be less
than 2% or so. Both developers agreed to provide additional resources about actual
sites. Steve Grittman pointed out that the staff report listed numerous websites which
may provide useful as a reference in further exploring these issues.
Gabler asked if a solar facility would be similar to the Great River Energy facility in
Maple Grove. Leischow said that St. Johns has had a small single access tracker for 5
years.
Fyffe asked for clarification about who would determine if the land within the Orderly
Annexation Area would be acceptable for such a facility. Schumann explained that
the Monticello Orderly Annexation Board is responsible for the oversight and
implementation of the orderly annexation agreement that the City of Monticello has
with Monticello Township. The board is comprised of two City representatives, two
Township representatives and one Wright County representative. Mayor Brian
Stumpf and Council member Tom Perrault are the City's representatives. Schumann
noted that the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area is governed by Wright County's
zoning ordinance which does not allow solar energy systems as a principal use.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE ISSUE, CONTINUE
THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT
OF 1/14/15 FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
NEXT REGULAR MEETING. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
7. Consideration of a recommendation as related to Interim Ordinance #568 for
Temporary Signage
The interim ordinance regulating temporary signage expired on January 1, 2015.
Angela Schuman suggested that adopting a new interim ordinance for 2015 would
provide an opportunity for the recently appointed Planning Commission members to
become familiar with the history of the interim temporary sign ordinance and to
evaluate the most recent related data prior to recommending amendments.
Schumann briefly compared the parameters of the temporary sign ordinance with
those of the interim ordinance. She noted that the interim ordinance allows for a
5
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
slightly larger sign size, allows temporary signage for each business rather than per
parcel, and allows temporary signage to be utilized for an unlimited number of days.
Schumann pointed out that the interim ordinance includes provisions which relate to
enforcement but acknowledged that there tend to be enforcement issues with
temporary signs. Regulations stipulate that temporary signs may not be placed within
public rights of way or easements, require the permit holder to track the number of
days used, and require maintenance and durability for sign materials. Schumann
indicated that it has been difficult to obtain information as to the number of days
temporary signs had been in use and pointed out that there is no requirement that
businesses provide usage statistics prior to obtaining a new temporary sign permit.
Brad Fyle asked why the temporary sign ordinance would limit the number of days
per year for advertising and the electronic billboard is visible 24 -7. Schumann
pointed out that the electronic community message board is considered a permanent
sign.
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR TEMPORARY SIGNAGE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR INTERIM ORDINANCE AS
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED AND AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF
JANUARY 14, 2015. LINDA BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
Staff will provide information and recent data to support the Planning Commission's
review of temporary sign ordinance issues at its March meeting.
8. Consideration of recommendations regarding amendments to City Code, Title 2,
Chanter 1- Planning Commission
Angela Schumann asked that the Commissioners review proposed amendments to the
City Code guiding Planning Commission activities (Title 2, Chapter 1), for the
purposes of updating information where required, and for consideration of a
requirement relating to meeting attendance. She noted the importance of meeting
attendance in achieving a quorum to conduct business.
The proposed amendments provide for the following:
1. Consistency of sub - section headings with other City codes for boards and
commissions.
2. Reference to the duties of the Planning Commission as may be assigned by the
City Council and by state statutes.
3. Amendment of updated information relating to term of office.
4. Addition of information related to attendance requirements.
5. Additional clarification relating to the rescheduling of regular meetings of the
Commission should conflict arise.
Cl
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
6. Reference to fee schedule for compensation in order to maintain currency with
any future changes.
Brad Fyle suggested that the amendment also include a provision for three
commissioners to call for a special meeting.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE, TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1— PLANNING
COMMISSION AS STATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, INCLUDING
LANGUAGE ALLOWING 3 MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
9. Consideration to appoint a representative to the Transportation Advisory
Committee
Angela Schumann asked the Planning Commission to appoint a new representative to
the City's Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) to fill the vacant position
created as a result of Charlotte Gabler's election to the City Council. The TAC meets
on the second Thursday every other month at 7:30 AM. The next meeting is on
Thursday, January 22na
LINDA BUCHMANN MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT BRAD FYLE SERVE
AS INTERIM REPRESENTIVE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (TAC) UNTIL A PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE TAC HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPOINTMENT BY THE
FULL COMMISSION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED 3 -0.
10. Consideration to review for discussion the Land Use Application Process
Angela Schumann presented a broad overview of the land use application process in
an effort to provide the new commissioners a framework for understanding the work
of the Planning Commission. Schumann indicated that next month Steve Grittman
would conduct a Land Use 101 overview as well.
Schumann summarized that the Level 1 Pre - Design concept discussion stage of the
land use application process clarifies who would be involved, what would be needed
to accomplish the concept, and a general timeline. Staff also recommends a Level 2
Pre - Design meeting with development staff team for a detailed site discussion and
review ofthe essential components of the project prior to submitting an application.
Schumann cited examples of common land use applications. Those noted included
Comprehensive Plan amendment, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Conditional
Use Permit (CUP), variances, subdivisions, preliminary and final platting, map and
text amendments, and vacations of easements and rights of way.
VA
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
Schumann also briefly noted other types of administrative applications and permits.
Among those noted were sign permits, temporary use permits, special event permits,
home occupation permits, grading permits, and PUD adjustments and amendments.
Schumann reviewed the components of the land use application form. The form
requires information related to the property, the type of land use, fees and escrow and
a signature section. It also specifies the 60 day rule for taking action on a decision
once an application is complete. The timeline can be extended by another 60 days
with notification to the property owner. Upon receipt of a completed application staff
send a letter, checklist and calendar to the applicant to document submittal
requirements, approval criteria and review, hearing and expiration dates.
Schumann explained that the internal application review process includes plan
distribution, weekly staff site review, staff report preparation, an applicant review
meeting to discuss the staff report recommendation (including conditions of
approval), and distribution and posting of the agenda. Other city boards may
participate in the review process as appropriate.
Schumann pointed out that all public hearing notices require publication and some
also require mailed notice. Notice is published in the official newspaper once and
mailed ten days prior to the date of the hearing to the applicant, the property owner
and those property owners within 350 feet of the property. Staff produce an affidavit
of mailing and receive an affidavit of publication. Larger development project
applications may be posted to the Community Development page on the City's
website when time permits.
In summary, Schumann clarified that the Planning Commission is an advisory board
which holds public hearings and makes recommendations to the City Council. The
Planning Commission summarizes its decisions by adopting resolutions which
include findings of fact. The Planning Commission is the Board of Adjustment and
Appeals (decisionmaking body) for variances. The City Council is the
decisionmaking authority on many applications and holds hearings for vacations of
public easements or rights of way.
Proceedings, which serve as the City's official record, are recorded at Wright County.
All proceedings are public. A record plan set addressing all of the conditions of
approval related to the decision is required. Notices and minutes of the- decision are
provided to the applicant. Ordinance and map amendments are posted to the website.
11. Added items
• Truck Parking at Broadway Market (Gabler) — Gabler asked about posting notice
regarding no overnight parking in the lot at Broadway Market. Schumann
indicated that the issue must be addressed on a case by case basis because the lot
is private property. Schumann noted that the city had already spoken with the
property broker about this issue. She agreed to also contact the property owner.
E:3
Planning Commission Minutes 1/14/15
• Website/IT (Schumann) — Schumann demonstrated how to locate the Planning
Commission page and the City, zoning, and subdivision ordinances and invited
the commissioners to browse the City's website. She pointed out that staff email a
link to the upcoming Planning Commission agenda packet when it has been
posted online. Agenda packets are typically available to view online the Thursday
before the meeting. Schumann also agreed to revisit IT questions related to
contacting Planning Commissioners.
• Vacant Planning Commissioner Position (Schumann) — Schumann noted that one
application had been submitted for the position and she requested commission
direction related to continuing to post the position and scheduling interviews.
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FOR THE VACANT
PLANNING COMMISSIONER POSITION UP UNTIL ONE WEEK PRIOR TO
THE DATE OF INTERVIEW, ESTABLISHED FOR TUESDAY, FEBRUARY
3RD, 2015, AT 4:30 P.M. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
12. Adiournment
SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:28 P.M. LINDA
BUCHMANN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri �_ z Q
Approved: February, 201
Attest:
Angela Schumann, 6"Mity Development Director
N