Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC PACKET 07.11.2024 � �V Agenda EST.w06 Hugo Planning Commission Thursday, July 11, 2024 Hugo City Hall 7:00 PM A. ROLL CALL: Andress, Arcand, Derr, Granger, Kelly, Kleissler, Lessard, Petty B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 9, 2024 D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Ordinance Amendment—Solar farms E. NEW BUSINESS F. OLD BUSINESS G. ADJOURNMENT If you need accommodations for the Planning Commission meeting please contact Rachel Juba at (651)762-6304 or riuba@ci.hugo.mn.us,thank you. Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Thursday, May 9, 2024 Chair Kleissler called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. PRESENT: Andress, Arcand, Derr, Kelly, Kleissler, Petty ABSENT: Granger, Lessard STAFF: Rachel Juba, Community Development Director Max Gort, Associate Planner Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of April 11, 2024 Commissioner Derr made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Andress, to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 2024. All ayes. Motion carried. Public Hearing: M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC. —Request for an amendment to the PUD for "The Shores of Oneka Lake 0 Addition" to create 25 single-family detached lots,from the previously approved 24 twin home lots. Associate Planner Gort presented background on the request to amend the Planned Unit Development (PUD) General Plan for the Shores of Oneka Lake development. The PUD General Plan was approved with the Preliminary Plat in 2022, allowing for 218 lots with a net density of 2.2 units per acre. The development received flexibility on lot size, lot width, setbacks, impervious surface coverage, and shoreland overlay district rules. In exchange for the flexibility, the developer designed a more sensitive proposal with extensive trails, landscaping, and stormwater reuse for irrigation. The proposed amendment to the PUD would change the 24 twin home lots in the 4t" phase into 25 detached single- family lots, that are built on narrower lots with narrower homes than typical single-family lots. The applicant is marketing these products with the name "carriage homes." Staff reviewed the request and concluded that the proposed amendment was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Shores of Oneka Lake PUD. Staff recommended approval of the PUD Amendment to the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Petty asked if there were any carriage homes in the original PUD. Community Development Director Juba said that there were not. Emily Becker of M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC. addressed the Planning Commission. Becker stated that the requested amendment was due to market conditions, and that twin homes have not been popular in any of the company's developments in the Twin Cities area. Becker stated that the May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 2 carriage homes will be slightly taller than the villa products seen elsewhere in the development, and that they've had market success with the product type in their other developments within the metro area. Commissioner Arcand asked about the difference between carriage homes and other products. Becker stated that carriage homes are slightly more expensive than twin homes, but that customers tend to prefer the detached product. Commissioner Petty asked if they've received any complaints from residents in the carriage home product, Becker said that they haven't. Chair Kleissler opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 PM. No one spoke. Chair Kleissler closed the Public Hearing at 7:10 PM. Commissioner Derr said that the proposed amendment does not change the overall feel of the neighborhood. Commissioner Petty made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Andress, to approve the PUD Amendment for M/I Homes of Minneapolis/St. Paul, LLC. subject to the conditions in the resolution. All ayes. Motion carried. The request will be reviewed by the City Council on May 20t", 2024. Public Hearing: Liberty Classical Academy— Requests for a Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit (UP)to construct a 33,590 square foot addition to the existing school building and associated parking lots. Community Development Director Juba presented background on the requests for a site plan and CUP to construct an addition to the existing school building and associated parking lots at 10158 122nd Street North. Liberty Classical Academy owns approximately 82 acres of property that is split between the City of Hugo and May Township. The Hugo property is zoned Agricultural (AG) and guided Public/Quasi-Public (PQ) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. The school building on site was previously used by the Stillwater Area School District as Withrow Elementary School, which was closed in 2018 and purchased by Liberty Classical Academy within the past few years. Currently, Liberty uses the school to teach Pre-K through 2nd grade. The proposal at this meeting included a site plan and CUP for an addition to the existing school building and associated parking lots. The applicant is proposing a new access point on Keller Avenue, also known as County Road 57, and the two existing access points on 122nd Street would be closed and relocated. The proposal includes a stormwater pond and septic system to be constructed on the portion of property in May Township. Staff has reviewed the requests and determined they meet all building, parking, and impervious surface requirements. Staff has been working closely with Washington County on the proposed access points and requirements for May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 3 improvements, such as the construction of a northbound right turn late and southbound left turn lane on Keller Avenue. The applicant is proposed a gravel driveway to access the septic system which has been reviewed and approved by Washington County. The applicant will need to obtain necessary permits for future access points and hold a financial security to construct the improvements. The applicant is proposing less than the required amount of parking, and staff is requiring the applicant to show proof of parking in the event that additional parking becomes necessary. The applicant is proposing landscaping on the northern end of the property and around the parking area, and staff is requiring that the applicant revise their landscape plan to propose additional landscaping around the parking area and driveways. The lighting plan generally met the ordinance standards, but staff is recommending that some pole lighting be removed and dimmers be installed to mitigate impact on surrounding properties. The proposed building materials generally match those of the existing building. The majority of the building will be 18 feet tall, with the gymnasium reaching a height of 31.5 feet, which will still below the maximum allowed height of 35 feet in the AG zoning district. The Browns Creek Watershed District (BCWD) reviews and approves grading and drainage plans for the project, and have outlined some technical restrictions in the engineer's memo. The existing school and addition will be served by well water, and the size of the proposed septic system requires review from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) which will likely be completed in October of 2024. Staff is of the opinion that the requests meet the criteria of approval for a site plan and a conditional use permit. Staff recommended approval of the requests to the Planning Commission, subject to conditions in the resolution. Commissioner Andress asked if staff has received plans for the additional landscaping on the south end of the parking lot. Juba said no but that revised plans are a condition in the resolution that must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit. Rebekah Hagstrom, headmaster of Liberty Classical Academy, addressed the Planning Commission and displayed their own presentation. Hagstrom stated that the property was chosen because they wanted the school to be in a rural setting giving students access to nature. Melanie Zahler, of the family who previously owned and farmed the property, discussed the sale of the 80 acres to Liberty and stated that the family is happy to see a school on the property. Hagstrom described two neighborhood meetings that were held in late 2022 and early 2023 at which roughly 50 neighbors had attended. Hagstrom listed some community amenities that the school would provide and stated that they wanted to be good neighbors and welcomed by the community. Elise Kelly, architect with Pope Design Group, spoke about the design changes that were implemented in their plans following feedback from the neighbors and City staff, including additional green space and using building materials that would be complimentary to the existing school building. Kelly displayed some concepts for future expansion of the school, comparing its projected size to the entire Mahtomedi School District and Stillwater Area High School, both of which have higher student populations than Liberty projects for their full future campus. Commissioner Petty asked how many students would be attending the school with the first phase expansion, and which grade levels will be included. Hagstrom stated that there are currently 150 May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 4 students, and that the addition will add another 100 to 150 students. Hagstrom stated that the school currently serves Pre-K through second grade, and that the addition will create space for the upper school students, with grades 3-8 remaining at the existing White Bear Lake campus. Chair Kleissler opened the Public Hearing at 7:46 PM Bill Wright, 12388 Keller Ave N, stated that his house is adjacent to the property, and felt that the community input wasn't received during the planning process. Wright stated that he enjoys the existing school as a neighbor, but is concerned with the proposed access and associated traffic onto Keller Avenue, and requests that the access be relocated to 122nd Street. Weight stated that he's concerned about the additional lighting proposed with the first addition and with a potential future expansion. David Truax, 10123 Kerry Court N, stated that he objects to the CUP request and prefers that the existing building remain in use exclusively as an elementary school. Truax stated that he had a petition objecting to the request with 120 signatures and expecting more, although no signatures were presented. Court Jerome, 12444 Keller Ave N, stated that he was concerned about the stormwater pond being built anticipating runoff from the entire future campus while the first phase is being proposed, and asked that the pond's size be reduced to accommodate only the proposed phase of development. Jerome asked that the pond be fenced to keep kids and snowmobiles out, and that the pond be relocated to the Hugo portion of the property. Jerome said that the student population of 850 was too large. Vickie Fuhr, 12539 Manning Trl N, stated concerns with the size of the septic system and if there are long-term impacts that have not been discussed. Forr requested that the septic system be located on the Hugo portion of the property and not in May Township. Forr stated that she is also concerned about potential traffic. David Latham, 12575 Keller Ave N, stated that he is concerned about traffic and possible impacts to Goggins Lake due to the septic system's proposed location. Greg Kramer, 13744 Keystone Ave N, stated that he was in support of the school and that he has grandchildren enrolled at Liberty. Kramer stated that he is confident in regulations and procedures that government agencies use to address unknown concerns. Mark Aschenbrener, 13520 Keystone Ave N, stated that he was concerned about increased traffic, teenage drivers being unsafe, and the long response time for emergency services due to the rural location. David Truax spoke again asking if there had been any soil testing for pesticides, herbicides, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and asked if there would be an increase in phosphorous in the soil from the septic system. May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 5 Sheryl Ferguson, 10244 122nd Street N, stated that she lives at the house closest to the existing school, and that she is concerned about the lighting, heat, and noise that would be generated from a parking lot immediately to the rear of her property. Steve Corteau, 12545 Keller Ave N, stated that he was concerned about the groundwater use of the school and whether it'll affect neighboring wells. Taryn Sirianni, 10152 119t" Street N, stated that she has children attending Liberty and supports the school's long-term vision, that three would only be about 20 students of driving age at the school, and that she's happy that the property wasn't sold to a developer proposing a use with greater impact. Beth Jerome, 12444 Keller Ave N, stated that she is concerned about the potential campus development, that she doesn't like the sizing of the pond and septic system, and that the proposal does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Abigail Johnson, 12115 Heather Ave N, stated that she has children attending Liberty and supports the project, and stated that the families who live in Hugo would appreciate a school location closer to where they live. Terry Poirier, 10284 122nd Street N, stated that his property backs up to the location of the proposed parking lot, and is concerned about the potential lighting and traffic. Poirier described an accident that occurred in the past involving a parent leaving the current school and a truck on 122nd Street. Chris O'Connell, 11115 122nd Street, stated that he was concerned about noise impact from sporting events, taxes and property values, and the impact on adjacent wells. Karen Ukura, 12969 Keller Ave N, stated that she is concerned about the size of the pond and septic system, noise, and all other items that other neighbors have brought up. Matt Fritze, 10909 Joliet Ave N, stated that he has children at Liberty and supports the project. Fritze stated that he is the chair of the City of Grant Planning Commission, and encouraged the Hugo Planning Commission to use tools at their disposal to make appropriate recommendations and reasonable conditions. Mary Rice, 12743 Keller Ave N, stated that she thought there was a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and that she is concerned about the potential future buildout, traffic, and the number of parents who will be dropping off and picking up students. Chair Kleissler paused the comments for staff to answer questions. Juba, referencing the traffic concerns, stated that the applicant has completed a traffic study which has been reviewed and approved by Washington County, who are requiring improvements including the addition of turn lanes to mitigate traffic. Juba stated that a recommended condition in the draft resolution and CUP is to require a revised lighting plan, but that the Planning Commission can recommend additional conditions related to lighting. Juba stated that the pond is sized for site balance purposes, and that the septic May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 6 system is only being constructed to serve the proposed addition. Juba stated that the MPCA is currently reviewing the septic design which includes the projected phosphorus discharge into neighboring water bodies. Juba stated that the parking lot will be located approximately 17 feet from property lines, and that the Planning Commission can make additional recommendations related to the location of the parking lot. Juba stated that it is unknown whether property values will be affected, but Washington County does not assess property owners for projects on county highways. Elise Kelly stated that the development team had originally considered incorporating the full capacity of the eventual campus into one building, but that the large building would exceed City zoning standards and felt that the campus layout would better fit the rural character of the area. Mike Brandt of Kimley Horn and civil engineer for the project, stated that a number of soil tests were conducted on site, and there are currently three wells being monitored which have thus far been found to have no contaminants. Brandt stated that groundwater has been determined to flow away from Goggins Lake, with a layer of clay directing water away from the lake. Brandt stated that the review from the MPCA for septic systems of this size gives it extra scrutiny, and that the system is designed to treat runoff to remove nitrogen before it enters the groundwater. Brandt stated that the stormwater pond is sized for site balance and located based on existing drainage patterns. Kelly stated that they will work with staff on the lighting plan, and said they were open to reducing the number of light poles or adding dimmers. Kelly stated that there is room to shift the parking lot further north, and that they would prefer to have kept the existing access points but Washington County encouraged the move off of 122nd Street. Rebekah Hagstrom stated that there wouldn't be a football team having night games at the stadium, and that soccer, track and field, and baseball were the only athletic events to be taking place, all of which are unlikely to have night games and produce associated lighting. Commissioner Petty asked for a comparison of the lighting that Liberty has at the school now versus what was at the old Withrow School. Kelly stated that one additional light pole was added with the Liberty conversion of the school. Chair Kleissler closed the Public Hearing at 9:00 PM. Commissioner Petty asked if Washington County is paying for the new turn lanes, Juba stated that Liberty will be paying for the improvements. Commissioner Petty asked to clarify that the full campus buildout was not guaranteed, and that the Planning Commission was only to consider the building addition being proposed. Juba stated that the only guarantee would be what is being presented with this phase. Commissioner Petty asked about the conditions for involving the surrounding community members in the planning process. Juba explained the development review that happens internally with staff before the public is notified. Juba stated that the notification process was larger than usual with this proposal May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 7 since residents in May Township were also notified. Juba stated that the Planning Commission doesn't see a staff report or full plans until the meeting packet is distributed the week before the public hearing. Chair Kleissler asked about long-term traffic control plans and whether the intersection could have a signal, and stated that the direction of traffic on Keller Avenue is already busy. Juba stated that Washington County did not indicate that there would need to be a traffic signal. Chair Kleissler asked if school zone speed signs would be installed, and Juba stated that the school wants to place them but that Washington County had a reason not to include school zone signage. Chair Kleissler stated that she would prefer a school speed zone sign be placed. Commissioner Arcand asked if there is an ordinance requirement for the height of the light poles, and that there have been examples throughout the city of downcast lighting with little reflectivity. Juba stated that the lighting plan currently meets the ordinance standards, but there are ways to recommend additional lighting requirements based on community feedback. Commissioner Arcand asked if the architect could provide more context on her comment about having room to move the parking lot. Kelly stated that the parking lot could me moved 5-10 feet to the north, but that they prefer to keep it as close to the school as possible to minimize walking distance. Commissioner Arcand asked what kind of landscaping was being proposed for the parking lot. Kelly stated that the landscaping is designed to minimize glare from headlights. Juba stated that the Planning Commission cane make appropriate recommendations if they have concerns about the parking lot. Commissioner Derr asked how many students attended the former Withrow Elementary School. A resident said roughly 150 students. Steve Corteau, 12545 Keller Ave N, expressed concerns about lighting for athletic fields and asked if properties to the north will drain to the proposed stormwater pond. Mike Brandt stated that drainage from properties to the north will drain to the stormwater pond, with the volume being reclaimed to irrigate the school property and will be treated through the pond. Commissioner asked to clarify that there are three uncapped wells on the property, Brandt replied that there are three monitoring wells, and three additional wells are proposed. Commissioner Arcand asked if the wells will eventually be capped, Brandt stated that they will be eventually capped and relocated. Elise Kelly stated that there are currently no plans for any athletic fields, but if they were to come in the future the development team will work with staff to ensure they meet ordinance standards. Beth Jerome, 12444 Keller Ave N, stated she was concerned with traffic and drop off on Keller Avenue. Juba stated that drop-off is part of the reason that the plans have a long queuing driveway, and that traffic will circulate through the parking lot. Bill Wright, 12388 Keller Ave N, stated that the traffic design most affects the neighboring residents. May 9, 2024 PC Minutes Page 8 Vickie Fuhr, 12539 Manning Trl N, stated that there should be some form of controlled access with the intersection of Keller Ave N and Keystone Ave N. Juba stated that a 4-way stop would not be the best option. Mary Jo Cody, 12567 Keller Ave N, expressed concerns about the septic system, and visibility with the proposed access, stating that there would be better visibility in the winter time. Bill Wright stated that visibility is worse in the winter. Juba stated that staff has discussed the access point at length with Washington County, but that the Planning Commission could recommend having another discussion about the access. No further discussion. Commissioner Petty made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arcand, to recommend approval of the applications with additional recommended conditions of shifting the parking lot further north, revising landscaping and lighting plans, and have an additional discussion with Washington County staff about locating the access point on 122nd Street. All ayes. Motion carried. The applications will be reviewed by the May Township Planning Commission on May 30, 2024, the Hugo City Council on June 3, 2024, and the May Town Board on June 6, 2024. New Business None. Old Business None. Adjournment Commissioner Derr made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Arcand, to adjourn at 9:31 PM. All ayes. Motion Carried. Respectfully Submitted, Max Gort, Associate Planner CITY OF D.1 EST.1905 ---:--- Memorandum To: Hugo Planning Commission From: Max Gort, Associate Planner Date: July 3, 2024, for the Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2024 Re: Public Hearing—Solar Farms— Prohibited Ordinance 1. BACKGROUND: In 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance regulating the use of solar energy systems. The ordinance includes rules for accessory solar energy systems, which provide solar energy for on- site use and are accessory to the primary use of the property, and solar farms, which distribute solar energy to off-site consumers and are the primary use of the property. Solar farms are currently permitted in the AG, LA, RR, and FUS zoning districts, all other zoning districts only in the floodplain, and on parcels greater than 10 acres in size. Additionally, solar farms require an Interim Use Permit (IUP), and have specific performance standards and criteria of approval. The first solar farm project was approved in 2018, which drew negative feedback from the community related to aesthetic characteristics and setbacks from property lines. In 2023, the Planning Commission and City Council identified reviewing the ordinance as it relates to solar farms as a goal for the year, due to an increased interest in solar farm development and related feedback from the community. At its February 6, 2023 meeting the City Council enacted a moratorium on applications for solar farms and directed that a study of the ordinance be conducted. The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop on March 23, 2023, and discussed directions for reviewing the solar farm ordinance, including leaving it as-is, prohibiting solar farms, or drafting revisions to address some of the aesthetic concerns that have come up during public comment. The workshop resulted in the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) convening to draft revisions to the ordinance, which included: • An increase in minimum setbacks from property lines from 50 feet to 100 feet • A minimum setback from public rights-of-way and dwellings on adjacent property to 200 feet • A limit of the size of the solar array to five acres • A requirement that trees at least 6 feet tall at the time of planting be provided for screening • A requirement that solar farm applications include a vegetation establishment and management plan • A requirement that ground areas within the solar array not occupied by equipment be planted with deep-rooted, native, pollinator-friendly plantings The ORC's revisions were presented at a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission meeting of July 13, 2023 meeting, and approved by the City Council on July 24, 2023, repealing the moratorium. With the new ordinance in effect, the City received an application for a solar farm on a vacant 12-acre property on Everton Avenue. During the public hearing at the April 11, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, several neighbors spoke in opposition to the project, primarily with concerns that the proposed solar farm would not be compatible with the present character of the surrounding area. However, the Planning Commission determined that the proposal met the necessary requirements to approve a solar farm IUP, and unanimously voted to recommend approval to the City Council. At its May 6, 2024 meeting, the City Council heard the request for the IUP, and the residents who spoke at the Planning Commission meeting stated that the proposal was not compatible with the character of the area. Subsequently, the City Council found that the proposed solar farm did not meet the character of the area requirement, and approved a resolution with findings of fact for denial of the solar farm IUP. At its May 20, 2024 meeting, the City Council enacted another moratorium on solar farm applications, directing staff to study the ordinance again. The City Council had a discussion at its June 17, 2024 meeting to determine the direction needed for the ordinance. Staff recommended that the City Council hold another joint workshop with the Planning Commission. Several councilmembers stated that they would like to gather public feedback on the prohibition of solar farms prior to restarting the ordinance review process, stating that the community was still reacting negatively after significant revisions had been made. The Council stated that they wanted members of the public to ask themselves, even if they are comfortable with allowing solar farms within the city, whether they would want to live next to one. The City Council directed staff to draft a text amendment that would prohibit solar farms within the city. With the Council's direction, staff has drafted text amendments to Sec. 90-1 Definitions and Sec. 90-278(d) Solar Energy Systems that would prohibit solar farms within the city. 2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing and take all comments. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission have a discussion based on the public comments received, and make an appropriate recommendation to the City Council. Attachments: 1. Sec. 90-278. —Solar Energy Systems 2. Draft text amendments to the definition for solar farms, and to item "d" of Sec. 90-278 prohibiting solar farms 3. Article from The Citizen published June 27, 2024 4. Comments received from the public 2 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances Sec. 90-278. - Solar energy systems. (a) Unlawful unless conditions met. It is unlawful for any person to construct, erect, install, or maintain a solar energy system in the city, except in conformance with this section. (b) Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to allow for the generation of renewable energy within the City of Hugo. Promoting the safe, effective, and efficient use of solar energy, may reduce the onsite consumption of fossil fuels and utility-supplied electric energy while avoiding adverse impacts on the community at large. (c) General standards for all solar energy systems. Solar energy systems must conform to all of the following standards: (1) A building permit shall be required for the erection of solar energy system. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the operator must provide evidence of an agreement with the local utility. Off-grid systems shall be exempt from providing evidence of an agreement with the local utility. (2) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to secure any solar energy easements, if applicable, to protect solar access for the system (as per MN Statute Section 500.30). (3) Solar energy system components shall be labeled with the manufacturers name and address, model number, and serial number. (4) All exterior electrical or other service lines shall be buried underground. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electrical grid. Exceptions may be granted in instances where shallow bedrock, water courses, or other elements of the natural landscape interfere with the ability to bury lines. (5) All solar energy systems shall be in compliance with the adopted city and state building code, electrical code, and plumbing code, as amended and receive any necessary permits or approvals from any regulatory agency having jurisdiction. (d) Solar farms. (1) Solar farm interim use permits. An interim use permit application must be submitted for approval by the planning commission and city council before a permit is issued for a solar farm. The information required and the procedure to be followed for all solar farm interim use permit applications shall be the same as that required for a conditional use permit set forth in subsections 90-37(a) and (b). In addition, the applicant shall submit supplementary information pertaining to the nature of the solar farm including: a. Total square footage of the solar energy system. b. Total energy production for the site. c. To scale horizontal and vertical (elevation) drawings. d. about:blank 1/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances Drawings must show the location of the system on the property including the property lines and proposed fencing or vegetative buffer. e. Decommissioning plan. (2) Performance standards for solar farms. Solar farms shall be erected and maintained to meet the following standards. a. Solar farms shall be located on a minimum lot size of ten acres within the Long Term Agricultural (LA), Agricultural (AG), Rural Residential (RR), and Future Urban Service (FUS) zoning districts. Solar farms may also be located in any other zoning district only in the floodplain, as long as all other conditions are met. b. Solar farms shall be 100 feet from all property lines, 200 feet from all public road rights- of-way, and 200 feet from any principal structure on adjacent properties. c. Solar farms shall be limited to a size of five acres, measured by the exterior edges of the solar array. d. Ground mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height at any point when oriented at maximum tilt. e. Solar farms shall be enclosed by approved perimeter fencing or adequate vegetative buffer for screening. The primary form of buffer for screening shall be at least six-foot tall vegetation. Exception may be granted if the natural landscape provides screening from all public right of ways and neighboring properties. f. All ground areas within the perimeter fencing of a solar farm that are not occupied by equipment or access paths shall be planted with deep rooted, native pollinator plantings. g. Solar farm applications shall include a vegetation establishment and management plan which shall be reviewed and approved by staff. h. The owner/ operator of the solar farm shall provide the city with evidence that the solar energy system is functioning properly. This shall be provided at any time deemed necessary by the city. 1. The owner/operator shall submit a decommissioning plan for the solar farm to ensure that the owner/operator properly removes the equipment and facilities upon the end of the project life, abandonment, expiration, or termination of the interim use permit. If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of 12 months, the system shall be deemed abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained within 90 days after notice has been given. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment, structures and foundations, and the restoration of soil and vegetation. The owner/operator shall provide a current-day decommissioning cost estimate, and shall post financial security about:blank 2/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances in a form acceptable by the city. This estimate must include an inflationary escalator, in an amount determined by the city, which will allow the city to remove the solar farm from the property after the 90-day period has elapsed. (3) Criteria of approval of a solar farm. An application for a solar farm interim use permit may be granted only upon finding that all of the following criteria have been met: a. The applicant owns the property or has secured a proper lease agreement on the property, unless the city council determines that unique conditions or circumstances warrant special arrangement. b. The proposed solar farm is allowed as a principle use in the respective zoning district and conforms to this chapter. c. The proposed solar farm is keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. d. The construction of a solar farm shall not impede the city's ability to implement its comprehensive plan. e. The proposed solar farm is compatible with the present character of the surrounding area. f. The proposed solar farm shall have a set date in which the permit shall be reviewed or terminated. g. The proposed solar farm shall be subject to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for the permission of the use. (4) Conditions of approval. In permitting a new solar farm interim use permit or amending an existing solar farm interim use permit, the planning commission may recommend and the city council may impose additional conditions and requirements to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding area and the community at large, mitigate unfavorable consequences of activities resulting from the solar farm, enforce laws and regulations, and ensure compliance with the conditions of the permit. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Limitations on period of use and operation. b. Buffering and screening measures. c. Additional setbacks. d. Approval periods between one to 25 years, beginning at the start of operation. (5) Renewal of a solar farm interim use permit. Because of its temporary nature, an interim use permit for a solar farm shall not be renewed. Continuation of a solar farm beyond the date of expiration of its interim use permit requires approval of a new interim use permit. (6) about:blank 3/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances Interim use permit nontransferable. Solar farm interim use permits do not run with the land. The permit is not transferable from person-to-person, and shall expire if there is a change in ownership of the property, unless the following conditions are met: a. The new permit holder must own the property or have a written lease agreement with the property owner stating the land will continue to be used for the production of energy via a solar farm. b. The new permit holder shall abide by all requirements of the original permit, including, but not limited to, posting financial security to the city for decommissioning, as outlined in subsection (2)f. c. The transfer of the permit must be approved by the city and filed accordingly. (7) Basis for denial. In order to recommend denial of an interim use permit, the planning commission must find that the proposed use will not meet one or more of the conditions found in subsection (d)(3) of this section. (8) Suspension and revocation. a. The city council may suspend or revoke an interim use permit upon failure of the interim use, or the interim use permit holder, owner, operator, tenant, or user, to comply with city codes, the laws of the State of Minnesota, the approved plans, or the conditions of approval, or by which that activities allowed under the permit adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. b. A suspension or revocation of an interim use permit shall be preceded by written notice to the permit holder and a hearing before the city council. The notice shall provide at least ten days' notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the violations. The notice shall be mailed to the permit holder at the most recent address listed on the application. (9) Expiration and termination. An interim use permit shall expire and the interim use permit shall terminate at the earlier of: a. The expiration date established by the city council at the time of approval, but in no case more than 25 years from the date of the start of operation. Solar farms shall be constructed and operational within one year of city council approval. b. Occurrence of any event identified in the interim use permit for the termination of the use. c. Upon an amendment to the city code that no longer allows the interim use. (10) Issuance of permit. The community development director or designee shall, within ten days of city council approval of any interim use permit, provide one copy of the completed permit to the applicant, the city clerk, and for permits issued in the floodplain district or shoreland about:blank 4/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances district, to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. (e) Accessory solar energy systems. (1) Accessory solar energy systems building permit. A building permit application must be submitted and approved by the building official before an accessory solar energy system is installed. The information required and the procedure to be followed for all accessory solar energy system applications shall be the same as that required for a building permit. In addition, the applicant shall submit supplementary information pertaining to the nature of the accessory solar energy system including: a. Total square footage of the solar energy system. b. Total energy production for the site. c. To scale horizontal and vertical (elevation) drawings. d. Drawings must show the location of the system on the building or on the property including the property lines and proposed screening, if required. (2) Accessory commercial or industrial solar energy systems building permit. All commercial or industrial solar energy systems will require submittal for approval by the community development director or designee before a permit is issued for any accessory solar energy system. This submittal process will require the same application and supplementary information required in (e) (1). Denial of a building permit request may be appealed to the planning commission by following the procedures outlined in section 90-37.1. (3) Performance standards for accessory solar energy systems. Accessory solar energy systems shall be erected and maintained to meet the following standards. a. Setbacks for accessory solar energy systems are as follows: 1. Ground or pole mounted solar energy system panels shall conform to all setback requirements for accessory uses in the district in which they are located. 2. Roof mounted solar energy systems shall abide by all manufacturer specifications and requirements. b. Coverage requirements for accessory solar energy systems are as follows: 1. Ground mounted solar energy systems are considered accessory structures. The size of the system (sq. ft.) will be calculated as part of the maximum combined number and size of accessory structures allowed by lot size. The number and size of accessory structures permitted are as follows: Lot size Maximum Number of Maximum Combined Size of Accessory Structures Allowed Accessory Structures (Square Feet) about:blank 5/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances Under 1.5 acre 1 260 1 .5 to 2.99 acres 2 1,500 3 to 4.99 acres 2 2,000 5 to 9.99 acres 2 3,500 10 or more acres 3 5,000 2. Roof mounted systems are not accessory structures and are excluded from size and number calculations for accessory structures. 3. A variance application may be submitted if the ground mounted solar energy system exceeds the limits for maximum combined size of accessory structures, but does not meet the definition of a solar farm. c. Height requirements for accessory solar energy systems are as follows: 1. Ground or pole mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed 15 feet in height when oriented at maximum tilt. 2. Roof mounted solar energy systems shall not project vertically more than the height requirements of the district in which they are located. d. Screening requirements for accessory solar energy systems are as follows: 1. Residential roof mounted solar energy systems are not required to be screened by this section. 2. Commercial or industrial roof mounted solar energy systems shall be installed such that it is compatible with the building architecture. Architectural standards as found in the commercial and industrial guidelines, a PUD, or other architectural conditions shall apply. e. Except in the agricultural and long-term agricultural zoning districts, no ground or pole mounted solar energy system shall be located or protrude in front of the principle building on the site, in relation to any public street. f. Roof mounted solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built. Exterior piping for solar hot water systems shall be allowed to extend beyond the perimeter of the building. 9. about:blank 6/7 5/6/24,5:05 PM Hugo, MN Code of Ordinances If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of 12 months, the system shall be deemed abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense within 90 days. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment, structures and foundations, and the restoration of soil and vegetation. (4) Criteria for approval of an accessory commercial or industrial solar energy system. An application for an accessory commercial or industrial solar energy system permit may be granted only upon a finding that all the following criteria have been met: a. The applicant owns the property or has a leasing contract with the owner of the property. b. The proposed solar energy system conforms to this chapter. d. The proposed solar energy system shall be subject to, by agreement with the property owner or lease holder, any conditions that the city deems appropriate for permission of the use. (Ord. No. 2016-475, 12-21-2015; Ord. No. 2023-523, § 1, 5-1-2023) about:blank 7/7 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS ORDINANCE 2024-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 90—ZONING AND LAND USE,ARTICLE VI— REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SECTION 90- 278—SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS,AS IT RELATES TO SOLAR FARMS THE CITY OF HUGO ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Hugo does hereby amend Chapter 90, Article VI, Section 90- 278, to revise the following sections of Chapter 90 ZONING AND LAND USE, Article I IN GENERAL, Section 90-1 DEFINITIONS Amend the definition of Solar Farm to read as follows: Solar Farm means a solar energy system that is composed of multiple solar panels where the primary land use, whether by footprint or visual impact or both, of the parcel is for a solar array. A solar farm produces energy for wholesale to subscribers, or is capable of producing, or is otherwise intended to produce energy beyond that which is necessary solely for on-site use. And Article VI REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, Section 90-278 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, Subsection (d) SOLAR FARMS Removing all items under Subsection(d) SOLAR FARMS and replacing with the following: (d) Solar farms. (1) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for any person to construct a Solar Farm, as defined herein, on any portion of their property within any zoning district within the city. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hugo this 15th day of July, 2024. Tom Weidt, Mayor Attest: Michele Lindau, City Clerk :vtcoze,oz azer i.riree czazzirzert r�zi�vpaae Chloe. The family has lived in Hugo since 2001 and learned about the hunt for the Golden Spike by reading the paper. After school let out the week of Good Neighbor SEE GOLDEN SPIKE,PAGE 8 4th of July events FILEPHOTOS Hugo considers ban crest Lake Where;Downtown Lake Elmo, Fireworks show begins at 10 on solar farms IURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION Main Street p.m.Places to watch fireworks hen:schedule TBD.Wednesday, Details:Decorate your wagon, are West Park,Memorial Beach, BYSHANNON GRANHOLM Lly 3-Sunday,July'7 shoelaces,bike,or tractor for this Ramsey MANAGING EDITOR here:Lakeside Memorial Park, 36th annual event featuring face VFW AUXILIARY 4TH OF JULY East Broadway Avenue,Forest painting,kids parade,ice cream PANCAKE BREAKFAST HUGO—Residents who have an opinion on Lke,MN 55025 social,dunk tank,fire trucks, When:9 a.m.-noon Thursday, Whether the city should allow solar farms should !tails:Hosted by the Forest July 4 and more. plan to be at City Hall at 7 p.m.Thursday,July � ike American Legion Post 225. Contact:651-474-3900 Where:Ameirican Legion,2210 11. irnival games,rides,and food. 3rd St.,White Bear Lake An interim ordinance placing a temporary six- reworks will take place at 10 White Bear Lake Details:Annual event held at month moratorium on new development of solar m.on July 4th FIREWORKS OVER THE LAKE American Legion due to VFW farm energy systems is currently in place so that intact:651-209-9723 When:6-10:00 p.m.Thursday,July remodel.Net proceeds support a study can be conducted.City Administrator 4th VFW 1782 Auxiliary programs. Bryan Bear explained that in the past when the 3ke Elmo Where::West Park and Memorial city has studied the solar farm topic,it has held ILY 4TH KIDS PARADE& Beach,White Bear Lake BIRCHWOOD 4TH OF JULY PARADE a joint workshop with the Planning Commission j :TIVITIES Details:Live Music,Playground, When:9:30 a.m.Thursday,July 4 to come up with a vision for the study. hen:10 a.m.Thursday,July 4th Food,Beach,Plane Flyover. Where:Birchwood Ave.and East ! SEE CALENDAR,PAGE 2 SEE SOLAR FARMS,PAGE 15 ri FAMILY OWNED SINCE 1923 I�•r.a J COP chaser excludes aleakel WINNER 7 S 6.9 NvX!t,%_La i iVot valid with any other offers Expires 7/31/24FLOWERS FOR EVERV CCCAS�0,% ■ r i6513 407-1994.7095 20M Ave S• I = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII CIRCULATION NEWS ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED PRODUCTION 4- i 651-407-1234 651-407-1230 651-407-1200 651-407-1250 651-407-1239 08805 93123 5 ppcirc@presspubs.com citizen@presspubs.com marketing@presspubs.com classified@presspubs.com art@presspubs.com JUNE 27,2024 THE CITIZEN rJ www.readthecitizerixom SOLAR FARMS: Hugo City Council wants to know residents' app etite' FROM PAGE 1 Mayor Tom Weidt said he would another,"he said."We have got to would want to live next to one."I think like to differ from that process and figure out what the appetite for(solar _ some of the initial feedback we got was proposed the city go in the direction of farms)is in the city and figure out how they support solar as an idea;it is when History of solar farm making a text amendment to its zoning to move forward...So far,the feedback the application gets put forward and we moratoriums ordinance that would ban solar farms has been pretty poor." are looking at a particular parcel that it •In February 20L3,City within the city.The ban would not Council Member Mike Miron said seems like that is when the opposition Council established a six-month solar arrays on homes or solar he agreed the text amendment process starts to come up" panels on private property used for would be a greaft way to gather public Council Member Phil Klein said he moratorium that prohibits new personal use. input."Obviously we have had this also supported this direction."I think solar farms and directed the "We have done two of these now and discussion a few different times as a it is a good idea to get it out there and let ordinance review committee to we have had mainly negative feedback council,as a Planning Commission, the community decide what they want study the ordinance and consider from people involved,"Weidt explained. as an Ordinance Review Committee, to do and then we can follow their lead." revisions. "What we have done so far just isn't I get the sense that this is less about The Planning Commission will •In June 2023,City Council working for us." an ordinance tweak and more about a host a public hearing on the draft text extended the moratorium for Weidt said based on the feedback what is the appetite of the community amendment that would ban solar farms another six months. that would come out of a future public in terms of this particular use,"Miron within the city July 11. •In May 2i124,City Council hearing,the city could come up said."This would open it up to the established a six-month with a solution it hasn't necessarily public to give their perspective on how Managing Editor Shannon Granholm considered yet. they see this particular use." can be reached at 651-407-1227 or citizen- moratorium. "I think this is a way to trigger that Miron added that residents should news@presspubs.com. discussion and come up with ways ask themselves,even if they are okay to rectify the situation one way or with solar farms in the city,if they BLUE HERON M GRILL 14725 VICTOR H000 8001 LAKE DRIVE rr•'' BLVD I H000 LINO LAKE$ - Your mAl License number 03934-008 License numi> , Q3g ■ ■ • , s , , , • • • a • , , , • ♦ • • ■" a :aloe Heron Grill&The Tavern on Main . P U V k TAB LS t- � Blue Heron Grill BINGO 0.N UTURIAT ENROLL sT - . . Startingat r BY JULY 31 Hygienists. -- and get our 61h week FREE • + • A • M EAT,_RA I LE, New full-time enrollment only.Not valid with other offers. r s t" One time use only.Expires 7/31/24 We provide comprehensive dental C E NT E Rfor fW RAL AFFAIRS July 10, 2024 City of Hugo Planning Commission 14669 Fitzgerald Ave N Hugo, MN 55038 Re: Proposed Solar Ordinance in Hugo The Center for Rural Affairs is a private non-profit organization that advocates for policies that strengthen rural communities in order to create a more vibrant future. We connect rural citizens with opportunities to engage in the decisions that affect their lives, and one of the biggest of these is the opportunity to decide how their electricity is generated. Solar energy systems provide diversified income to landowners who have a right to decide how to use their land in a way that works best for them. They also allow communities to invest in solutions to offset energy usage and reduce energy costs. With the potential benefits that solar energy development offers the residents of Hugo, creating an ordinance that balances the interests of the city and its community members, and protects landowner rights, is essential. We commend the Hugo Planning Commission for taking the time to introduce a detailed solar ordinance and for their consideration of community needs and concerns. Regarding the proposed ordinance amendment to prohibit solar farms within any zoning district within the city, we recommend that the commission may want to reconsider some language within the amendment. The language for what constitutes a "solar farm" is imprecise and could limit the ability of some landowners to install even a small number of solar panels on land they own. We recommend that if the intent is to limit the development or purely commercial solar energy systems, that the commission consider alternative language that clarifies systems that are intended only for the generation of energy for commercial sale. Additionally, if the intention is to limit utility-scale solar, we recommend that the city use the standard for net metering to identify a capacity limit for individual installed solar systems versus utility-scale systems to make the ordinance language more precise. This means that if a customer produces more electricity than they use, the utility will pay them for the extra power. For reference, the system capacity limit for net metering in Minnesota is 1 megawatt. Using the standard for net metering would limit the exclusion of homeowners and landowners that want to install solar energy systems to meet their own energy needs. You can learn more about net metering in Minnesota here. Submitted along with this comment are some resources that may be useful during discussions on the proposed solar ordinance amendment. Additionally, our full clean energy siting library can be viewed at cfra.org/cleanenerg sag. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. CENTER for RU RAL AFFAIRS Respectfully submitted, Cora Hoffer Policy Associate Chaska, MN corahncfra.org Resources: Decommissioning Solar Energy Systems Resource Guide Policy pproaches for Dual-Use and Agrisolar Practices Sifting through Solar: Land-Use Concerns on Prime Farmland Amplifying Clean Energy with Conservation Solar Energy Presents Opportunities for Minnesota Making the Case for Solar Beekeeping Making the Case for Solar Grazing 7/9/24 Hugo Planning Commission: I would like to share my support for solar farms in the city of Hugo. I don't think green energy is going to go away in our country so I feel as a city we should welcome solar farms. Hugo has been very proactive in water conservation. I am not sure why there is even discussion regarding banning solar farms. We need to be proactive and welcome new ideas regarding all utilities. I don't think solar farms are ugly to look at. I would have no problem living next to one. They are not tall and obstructive to views. They don't create night light pollution, traffic, or noise. They don't create water runoff. There are lots of advantages living next to a solar farm compared to noisy neighbors (for example, motorcycles, backyards used for gun target practices, etc.) or properties that are not kept up (for example, un-mowed lawns, dilapidated outbuildings, clutter/junk strewn about). I was disappointed to hear the residents on Everton Avenue complain and threaten lawsuits when a solar farm was planned there. This was not in the spirit of Hugo "Good Neighbors". People who buy land should be able to use it as they choose, providing it is in accordance with local ordinances and laws. I hope, as the city moves forward, we welcome all businesses, including solar farms, who are willing to work with the city, have a positive impact in the community, and who are good neighbors themselves. Cathy Klein 6760 165th St N Hugo, MN 55038 From: Huao Info To: man Bear; Rachel Juba; Max Gort Subject: FW: Solar Farm Discussion by the Planning Commission on July 11th-Please forward Date: Thursday,July 11,2024 8:16:00 AM Attachments: imacte001.ing Michele Lindau Hugo City Clerk 651-762-6315 [ I1 V {}F From: M Z<z.bmw5@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday,July 11, 2024 12:45 AM To: Hugo Info<info@ci.hugo.mn.us> Subject: Solar Farm Discussion by the Planning Commission on July 11th - Please forward You don't often get email from z.bmw5kyahoo.com.Learn why this is important Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. I am writing regarding the ban on solar farms that the Planning Commission is considering on July 11th. Would you please forward my email to the Planning Commission. I am unable to attend this meeting as I will be at the May Township meeting on the same evening I support solar farms in Hugo and believe that including some additional conditions will eliminate some of the issues that residents are experiencing with the current solar farms: *The solar farms must be in an area zoned agricultural *There must be a minimum of 15 acres for the solar farm A solar farm would eliminate virtually all of the concerns that neighbors expressed recently regarding an addition to an existing school: * No increase in traffic * No septic system * No stormwater pond * No noise * Maintains the current land as agricultural * No lighting * Keeps the area rural For these reasons, I support solar farms with some additional conditions such as what was outlined above. Thank you for your consideration, Melanie Zahler From: Bryan Carlson To: Max Gort Subject: Re: Planning Commission Packet 7.11.24 Date: Wednesday,July 10,2024 8:07:28 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi max I live at 5091 149th St N Unit 2, Hugo MN 55038, United States I am cool with the solar farm ordinance as is. Maybe I can talk to my neighbors and get a petition started to build a solar farm in our neighborhood. Bryan Sent from my Whone On Jul 10, 2024, at 4:25 PM, Max Gort<MGort@ci.hugo.mn.us>wrote: Hi everyone, I have a few items for you to review ahead of tomorrow night's meeting. First, we have a new draft text amendment for you to review. We added some clarifying language in the definitions section for solar farms, and simplified the section that would prohibit solar farms. Also, we've received a few letters for you to review. One came from a resident, and the other came from a group known as the Center for Rural Affairs. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Also, let me know if you can not attend the meeting. Thanks! Max Gort Associate Planner City of Hugo, Minnesota mgort e ci.hugo.mn.us 1 651-762-6311 From: Max Gort<MGort@ci.hugo.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday,July 3, 2024 3:17 PM To: Bronwen Kleissler<brkleissler@mmm.com>; Matthew Derr <matthew.derr@gmail.com>; Steve Andress<steve.andress@yahoo.com>; Scott