Laserfiche WebLink
Council Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2024 <br />Page 8 of 13 <br /> <br />with townhomes and single-family developments surrounding them. In 2006, these larger <br />parcels were removed from the MUSA, so they were not eligible for sewer and water. Those <br />parcels were zoned Agricultural and identified in the 2040 Land Use Plan as Large Lot <br />Residential. <br /> <br />He explained the request was for Site Plan approval and an Interim Use Permit. No variances <br />were requested. He presented the site plan that showed solar panels overlayed on it and the <br />landscape plan being proposed by the applicant to provide screening from adjacent properties. <br />Gort reviewed the performance standards required in the ordinance for an IUP for a solar farm <br />and explained how the applicant had met all the performance standards and criteria necessary for <br />approval. He focused on two of the criteria. First, the construction of the solar farm could not <br />impede the City’s ability to implement its own Comprehensive Plan. He explained the parcel <br />was not in the MUSA and could not be subdivided because zoning required a ten-acre minimum <br />lot size; therefore, it would not impede on implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, the <br />solar farm would need to be compatible with the character of the area. Gort described the <br />surrounding Agricultural uses and explained how the solar farm would have a low impact on <br />adjacent properties. He said it was staff’s opinion that the proposal was compatible with the <br />character of the surrounding area. Staff had also reviewed the site plan requirements saying most <br />of them overlapped the IUP requirements except ones relating to stormwater management and <br />wetlands. Staff found that solar panels would not affect overall drainage patterns. There were <br />3.6 acres of wetlands on the site, and the solar array would be constructed in a portion of it, as <br />was permitted by ordinance. The applicant had received a no-loss exemption from the Technical <br />Evaluation Panel for the construction. <br /> <br />Gort concluded his presentation by saying staff had found the proposal met all requirements of <br />City Code. The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval to the <br />Council with the two added conditions. He explained that based on feedback from the public <br />hearing and recent correspondence from neighboring residents relating to the character of the <br />area, staff drafted a resolution with findings of fact for denial for the Council to also consider. <br /> <br />Strub asked about barbed wire on the top of the fence that was mentioned during the Planning <br />Commission public hearing. Gort responded that the Planning Commission did not recommend <br />it being changed, and it is still on the plan. <br /> <br />Petryk asked if the applicant was the property owner or if it would be a long-term lease. Gort <br />replied that the applicant had a purchase agreement with the owner. <br /> <br />Weidt noted there were a lot of attendees that may want to speak, even though this was not a <br />public hearing. He asked the developer to speak first. <br /> <br />Evan Carlson from Enterprise Energy, 2925 Dean Parkway in Minneapolis, explained he was the <br />owner of the company and had the purchase agreement on the property. He said that about a <br />year and half ago, he started working on this project. He said he has a lot in it, and it is an <br />important project for him, and he intends to own it long term. He said he knew it was not popular <br />with surrounding landowners, so he wanted it to be done well. Carlson indicated he followed all <br />the requirements of the ordinance, which he found to be very robust, and they were using an area <br />that was not suited for anything else. Carlson said his wife was a veterinarian and has respect for <br />people who rehab animals. He said he understood their concerns and wanted to do his best to