This transcript is from the **Cottage Grove Planning Commission** meeting on May 20, 2024. Based on the context provided and the roles of the individuals involved, I have added the speaker names and formatted the transcript accordingly. *** **[00:00] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** At this time I'll call to order the May 20th, 2024 Planning Commission and move on to roll call. Commissioner Bot? **[00:04] Commissioner Bot:** Present. **[00:05] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Commissioner Britton? Here. Commissioner Fiser? **[00:07] Commissioner Fiser:** Here. **[00:08] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Chair Frazier is out tonight. Commissioner Canal? **[00:10] Commissioner Canal:** Here. **[00:11] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Commissioner Rasmuson? **[00:12] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Here. **[00:13] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Commissioner Stevens is out tonight as well. All right, thank you. I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda. **[00:18] Commissioner Canal:** Motion to approve. **[00:20] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Canal. Do we have a second? **[00:22] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Second. **[00:23] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** We have a second from Commissioner Rasmuson. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." **[00:25] All Commissioners:** Aye. **[00:27] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** All those opposed say "Nay." No nays. All right, see, I'm just getting back into it since I don't normally do this. All right, now item number four: Open Forum. Tonight, the Open Forum is a time during the meeting when citizens can talk about something that is not on tonight's agenda. So if you'd like to speak on something that is not on the agenda, I will open the Open Forum, and if somebody would like to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda, they can approach the podium and we can discuss it. Seeing none, I will close the Open Forum and move on to item number five: The Chair's explanation of the hearing process. The Planning Commission is a volunteer advisory group to the City Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium, give their name and address before addressing the Commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to public comments. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table; please do not remove those items. The City Council will act on these items at their meeting on Wednesday, June 5th, 2024, which starts at 7:00 p.m. All right, moving on to item number six, 6.1: Community Solar Garden Case IUP 2024-7, and Planner Jakes will be presenting. **[02:15] Connor Jakes (Planner):** Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. Great to be with you. The application before you this evening is an interim use permit for a proposed 5-megawatt community solar garden. The subject site is located in the eastern agricultural area of the city, adjacent to 100th Street South as well as Lehigh Road South, and then about 3/4 miles east of Kimbro Avenue South. A little background on the site: the subject site has been utilized for agricultural purposes as far back as city files indicate. The site currently consists of two parcels. The west parcel is approximately 80 acres and the eastern 175, for a total subject site of 155 acres. A conditional approval will require that the two lots be combined, and that is in order that the 300-foot setback required by ordinance is met. If solar panels were proposed on one parcel, it wouldn't meet that 300-foot setback, so a condition of approval will require those two lots be combined. Given this is a unique proposal not before the Commission very often, I thought it'd be beneficial to walk through ordinance regulations and just talk through the history of the city code related to community solar gardens. The original ordinance regulating solar energy systems was adopted in 2015 by the City Council and then revised in 2017 with a few updates. The major updates between the two ordinances were the setback and then the vegetative management plan and maintenance of weed growth and pollinator mixes. The setback in the prior ordinance in 2015 was the principal structure setback; in the agricultural districts, it'd be 25 feet from the property line. Today's code requires a 300-foot setback from the property line to the solar panels. In 2015, the other change was that there wasn't really a requirement for vegetative management plans. Modern-day code requires a vegetative management plan and that weed control be mitigated accordingly. City code Title 11-4-13 requires the following for a community solar garden. The one that I'll touch on specifically is the second bullet point, which states the site is located within the designated areas of Exhibit A. That map is on screen before you. A proposal for a community solar garden would have to be within the red area shown on screen. These are agricultural parcels that we don't expect utilities to be at within the near future, thus allowing for an interim use permit. The site is zoned AG-1 Agricultural and guided as agricultural in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The use is permitted with an interim use permit. The application before this evening is proposed for a length of 25 years, which is in accordance with our previously approved community solar gardens. The one thing I'll note is that there is a condition that allows an extension of up to 10 years if approved by the City Council. Within that 10-year extension, if a development application is received on an adjacent parcel, that solar use is required to cease and then be removed within one year's time to not prohibit or inhibit orderly development throughout the city. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting on May 14th; there were four residents in attendance. The applicant is proposing a 35-acre array area where the solar panels are held and equipment pads. Access is proposed off Lehigh Road South running along that southern boundary. At the neighborhood meeting, residents expressed concern over the proposed utility pole location. The applicant originally proposed these on the south side of that access drive, but the residents noted concerns related to maintenance and proximity to the property line. As a result, the applicant moved those utility poles to the northern side of the site access. Another concern was burying those wires; a condition of approval does require that those lines be undergrounded unless there's written evidence from Xcel Energy requiring they be above ground. The rows of panels are proposed to run north and south and pivot on a single access to follow the sun. The maximum height of the panels is proposed at 10 feet at full tilt. I'll note that there's no noise created from that pivoting motion. We actually have a community solar garden in the city that has this pivoting and we haven't received any noise complaints. The applicant is proposing five equipment pads that are 200 feet in size for each pad. The array area is proposed to be enclosed with a 6-foot tall chain link fence. Residents requested that it be black or green coated to blend into the environment; the applicant has agreed to provide a black-coated chain link fence. Regarding transportation, the applicant will enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will outline the designated traffic route and detail pre-construction and post-construction road conditions. The majority of traffic will be construction traffic; following construction, access to the site is minimal. The applicant has also provided a detailed vegetative management plan (VMP) using a native pollinator-friendly seed mix. Maintenance crews will access the site once per month to ensure weed growth is mitigated. Finally, city code requires a decommissioning plan. The applicant has submitted one detailing the removal of the site and restoration to its pre-application conditions. The city may obtain a cash escrow or letter of credit for the length of the project to ensure funds are available for restoration if the owner fails to do so. I'll now invite up our Assistant City Engineer, Crystal Raleigh, to run through water management. **[08:55] Crystal Raleigh (Assistant City Engineer):** Good evening, Commissioners. Acknowledging that there's a concern here for stormwater management, I wanted to highlight the proposal for this site. The applicant's proposal is to meet City of Cottage Grove standards as well as Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. They are proposing an infiltration basin. Today the site sits as an agricultural field; when we add gravel roads, concrete pads, and solar panels, the water is likely to run off more quickly. Because of that, the infiltration basin is sized for that volume so water can soak back into the ground. Vegetation is also important; native seeds and pollinators have deep root systems that carry water down better than traditional crops. There is an existing watercourse, Seager Creek, that runs through the site. Vegetative buffers will be required, and the applicant will be required to set back the panels 50 feet from both sides of the creek. Erosion control measures during construction, such as silt fences and rock construction entrances, will also be required. With that, the recommendation is on the screen before you. **[10:35] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Any questions for staff? All right, seeing none, does the applicant—would they like to add anything? **[10:45] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** Good evening. My name is Evan Carlson. I am the applicant. I own Enterprise energy. We've got about six people working for us now, but we're all local people. I've been in the solar business for about eight years. Enterprise Energy is located at 2925 Dean Parkway, Minneapolis, Minnesota. I have done hundreds of community solar gardens in Minnesota for my former employer, and then two years ago I started this company. Not long after I started my own company, Minnesota law changed and increased the system size of community solar gardens from 1 megawatt to 5 megawatts, which is what made this deal possible. I've been in contact with this landowner for a very long time, but it never made sense because of the 300-foot setback to put a 1-megawatt deal in the middle of a field. But at 5 megawatts, you get better economies of scale. Community solar has a direct benefit to people. It’s a program for people who don't have a good spot for solar panels on their own roofs; we aggregate those people and put them on a single site. We generate a bill credit and sell it to the subscriber who then offsets their power bill. This is a highly regulated program. Under this new 5-megawatt program, you apply to the Department of Commerce on a first-come, first-served basis. Because nothing is currently in the queue on this specific line except our deal, it is far more likely to actually get built. Regarding the vegetative management, we contracted with Natural Resource Services to prepare a VMP. We actually cite Minnesota statute regarding what you need to do to be a "pollinator-friendly" seed mix. We intend to satisfy that state standard so you can inspect it. Regarding decommissioning, the whole thing is planned for removal. The I-beams can be yanked out of the ground. On the topic of the poles, there's a hand-off between our equipment and Xcel Energy's equipment. We can bury the line between the road and our site if we control it. However, if Xcel brings their poles to us, they might be above ground. We’ve agreed to have them buried unless Xcel gives us a writing saying they won't do it. I'm happy to improve the project in any way I can based on your feedback. **[15:15] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Can you tell me a more about the tracker panels? How do they work? Are they electric motor driven? **[15:21] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** Yes, there’s a motor on each row. Fixed panels face south and don't move, but trackers run north to south and pivot on a single axis following the sun from east to west. They need a relatively flat surface to work properly, and this is a pretty flat site. Because they flatten out throughout the day, they are actually lower profile and less visible. We have a strong incentive to keep them working because that's how we measure our power and get paid. **[16:45] Commissioner Bot:** You mentioned screening on the south side. Why only on that side? **[16:51] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** We thought it had the most potential for visibility from the road. To the east, there's a hill. The homes in the area have very good setbacks from the site, but there is a neighborhood to the southeast, and we wanted to do something for them. **[17:25] Commissioner Bot:** And my follow-up to that is since you have sun mostly on the south side, would that screening affect your sunlight? **[17:33] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** No, the setback is big enough so they will not cast a shadow on the project. **[17:40] Commissioner Bot:** You mentioned in the fire prevention section that you will be monitoring power generation continuously. Is that remote? **[17:48] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** Yes, a satellite monitoring system 24 hours a day. **[17:54] Commissioner Bot:** One other thing: you mentioned going from 1 megawatt to 5 megawatts. Does that mean 1-megawatt installations are smaller in size? **[18:05] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** Yes, it’s five times bigger. Practically, this is five 1-megawatt projects located adjacent to each other. The footprint and equipment are the same, but the economics are much better. Mobilizing one crew to do a 5-megawatt site is significantly more profitable than doing five separate sites. **[19:40] Commissioner Canal:** I was just curious about how your five electrical panels are connected. Do they all run to one system? **[19:50] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** Xcel brings their line out to us, and then we have five separate points of interconnection on that line. They all come out of the same part of the fence and interconnect into Xcel's line right there. **[20:15] Commissioner Fiser:** I want to know about the chain link fencing and security. Do you have issues with people messing with property? **[20:31] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** I've never heard of there being an issue within Minnesota. This one is so well hidden you'd have to be looking for it. Sometimes deer jump the fence and we have to let them out. The fence is required by electrical code. There’s a lot of talk about "agrivoltaics"—farming or grazing sheep under panels—but that can be at odds with the pollinator mix, which is a CRP-style benefit we provide for free. **[22:05] Commissioner Bot:** Just out of curiosity, do you know if you'll have the required number of subscribers? **[22:15] Evan Carlson (Applicant):** We haven't selected them yet, but demand is through the roof in the Twin Cities. The new program removed the requirement that subscribers be in the same or contiguous county, which really frees things up. **[23:15] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Thank you. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? **[23:30] Jean Smallage (Citizen):** I'm Jean Smallage. I reside at 10992 Point Douglas Drive in Cottage Grove. I own 205 acres of farmland immediately adjacent on the south side of this project. I have a few concerns. Regarding the John Meyer solar garden on the east side of my property, the city told me back then that all new lines would be buried. I have a quarter mile of buried lines on my farm, and if it was good enough for me, it's good enough for this project. Poles on my property line are just another place for weeds to grow. Also, that property is part of a drainage way that extends to the Mississippi River. When it rains, it’s a flood. My biggest concern is vegetation. The ones I've seen in Washington or Dakota County are a joke; they are just weeds. I don't want weed seed flowing onto my property and contaminating my fields. I want assurance that the plantings will be reasonably maintained on a regular basis. **[26:15] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else? **[26:20] Mike Mingo (Citizen):** My name is Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue South. I live 75 feet from the solar garden Jean was talking about. We were promised weed control and pollinator plants back then, and it never happened. My question is: what does Cottage Grove get out of this solar field? Do we need another one? Are we going to shut down a power plant because of this? Prairie Island and the plant at Chemolite are going to be there long after we're gone. If you take the government money out of these, nobody would be interested. The question before you is: do we need another solar field in Cottage Grove? **[28:50] Ryan Finnegan (Property Owner):** My name is Ryan Finnegan. I live at 24410 Emory Avenue, Hampton, Minnesota. I’m the property owner. We own all the contiguous acres around there, so we don't want weeds going into our crops either. Our tenants, the Pinneys, have farmed for generations and they do a top-notch job. I’ve even signed up to put a solar array by my own house in Hampton, so I’m not saying "not in my backyard." This land has suspect soil quality due to 3M contamination, so solar is a high and best use. It took me eight years to get this land out of AG preserve, so I'm committed to this. **[30:30] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Seeing no one else, I'll close the public forum. Questions or discussion from the Commission? **[30:40] Commissioner Fiser:** I appreciate everybody speaking. I'm wondering—it sounds like there's some non-compliance with weed issues on current solar gardens. What is the city's process for dealing with non-compliant applications? **[31:05] Connor Jakes (Planner):** Great questions. We are rolling out an annual review of interim use permits to ensure compliance. Hearing the residents' complaints tonight was actually the first we've heard from a planning perspective. The older ordinances didn't have a VMP requirement, which makes it harder to go back and enforce, though we do have our 8-inch nuisance weed ordinance. For this new site, we have the VMP and the monthly maintenance requirement to ensure compliance. **[32:20] Commissioner Fiser:** Regarding the buried lines versus poles, it sounds like some of that concern has been considered. Why the difference between then and now? **[32:45] Connor Jakes (Planner):** Originally, the poles were on the south side, but the applicant moved them to the north side of the access road. Our desire is to have the "pole farm" interior to the site to preserve the view. In 2016-2017, Xcel Energy finalized regulations that favor above-ground poles for ease of access to AC disconnects. That's why we see more of them now. We are requiring them to be buried unless Xcel provides written verification that they must be above ground. We also have a 25-foot setback from the southern property line to ensure there is room to mow and maintain without trespassing. **[35:45] Commissioner Bot:** To clarify, if the connections are underground, you don't need a pole at all? **[35:55] Connor Jakes (Planner):** If undergrounded, it’s generally a cabinet on an equipment pad and no poles would be needed at all. **[36:20] Commissioner Rasmuson:** From a planning perspective, it checks most of the boxes. It's in the right area, correct setbacks, screening, and fencing. I understand the weed concerns, but it sounds like the city is going to enforce that. I'd be in favor. **[36:50] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** I agree. When we started this, nobody knew what it would look like. We can grow from it. We have more teeth in our ordinances now to monitor what's going on. If there's no further discussion, I look for a motion. **[37:15] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Motion to approve subject to conditions stipulated in the staff report. **[37:20] Commissioner Fiser:** Second. **[37:22] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Motion passes 5-0. That will be on the June 5th agenda for the City Council. Moving on to item seven: approval of the April 22nd minutes. **[37:45] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Motion to approve. **[37:47] Commissioner Bot:** I second. **[37:50] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Motion passes. Item eight: recap of the May City Council meetings. Director Schmitz? **[38:10] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Good evening. Council approved the zoning updates and the rewrite of the sign code. The Mississippi Landing first edition final plat was approved; there is grading activity going on there for 110 lots. Also, the bus garage fuel tank upgrades were approved. One item from May 15th was the minor subdivision on Kimbro Avenue, which was also approved. Councilmember Clausen is here as well. **[39:20] Councilmember David Clausen:** Mayor Bailey and Councilmember Olsen are currently in Las Vegas at the ICSC marketing our city to potential businesses. I’m here for any questions you guys have. **[39:55] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Thank you. Regarding the weed ordinance on the old solar farms—what can we ask them to do to bring them into compliance? **[40:15] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** We will look back at each of those approvals. If they proposed a native mix, we can evaluate those areas and reach out to the owners to see what we can do to implement a maintenance plan moving forward. **[40:40] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Mr. Smallage hit it on the head. Inside the fence looks fine; it’s the access roads and the 20 feet on each side that look terrible with neck-high Buckthorn. I’d appreciate us looking into that. Also, do we have performance reports on what these solar fields actually generate? **[41:15] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** We can look into what information we can gather on that. **[41:25] Commissioner Bot:** Does the city have jurisdiction to tell Xcel Energy to bury the cables? **[41:35] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Xcel has their own standards that we can't necessarily override, but we are requiring them to verify if undergrounding is possible. I’d have to investigate if the state has further authority over those requirements. **[42:10] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** Any further responses to inquiries? **[42:15] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** You have a written response in your packet regarding the questions from the April meeting. **[42:25] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** All right. Item nine: adjournment. Motion? **[42:30] Commissioner Rasmuson:** Motion to adjourn. **[42:32] Commissioner Bot:** I second. **[42:35] Acting Chair (Commissioner Britton):** We are adjourned.