Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
08-12-2008
CITY OF MEDINA 2052 COUNTY ROAD 24 MEDINA, MN 55340 AGENDA MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEDINA CITY HALL 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Update from City Council proceedings 4. Planning Department Report 5. Approval of July 8, 2008 Planning Commission draft minutes. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - Hennepin County Public Works Facility -1600 Prairie Drive (PID 10-118-23-12-0003 and 10-118-23-11-0004) — Amendment to Planned Unit Development General Plan (No. A16846) for the construction of a Wind Turbine tower and Civil Defense Siren tower 7. PUBLIC HEARING - Baker Golf and Ski Chalet — 2935 Park View Drive (PID 17-118-29-11-0003) — Conditional Use Permit Amendment for construction of two 22' x 80' (1760 square feet each) accessory structures for the storage of electric golf carts in the Public/Semi-Public zoning district. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 8 of the City's Zoning Ordinance — Creating a Private Recreation zoning district. 9. Open Discussion Items: Mixed Use District 10. Future Meeting Information: 11.Adjourn Posted in City Hall August 1, 2008 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Medina Planning Commissioners FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning Director DATE: August 12, 2008 RE: Planning Department Report and Updates Update on Applications, Developments, Projects and Issues: A) Uptown Hamel Zoning District Standards — City Council adopted the new Uptown Hamel Ordinance at the August 6th regular meeting. B) Rural Residential and Accessory Building Standards: City staff presented the Rural Residential zoning district amendments and Accessory Building standards amendments at the August 6th regular meeting. Considerable discussion took place on the RR district standards, including the Animal Unit standards. Staff was directed to provide updated revisions and research in other communities' ordinances; present back to City Council at the Aug. 19th or Sept. 2nd regular meeting. C) High Pointe Ridge 2nd Addition - Tim Druk and Mark Luetmer — Request for preliminary plat to rearrange existing lot lines between 2920 and 2930 Parkview Drive was tabled by the City Council at the August 6th meeting; requested staff to investigate site conditions and other matters, and report back to council. Scheduled for reconsideration at the Aug. 19th meeting. . D) Mackin Easement Vacation Request. City Council adopted resolution vacating the existing flowage easement inside the Mackin residence of 250 Bergamot Drive. 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Update i. We received the City of Greenfield's and City of Maple Plain's comprehensive plans for review; staff is currently reviewing both documents. ii. [Medina Comp Plan Reviews Received from other Communities: City of Maple Grove; City of Long Lake; Elm Creek Watershed District; City of Loretto, City of Maple Plain, and Three Rivers park District] Planning Dept. Update Page 1 of 1 Planning Commission 2008 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes CITY OF MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT Meeting Minutes Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1. Ca11 to Order: Chair Jeff Pederson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Planning Commissioners Jeff Pederson, Michele Litts, Simons, Victoria Reid and Robin Reid. Absent: Mary Verbick and Nolan Also Present: Planning Director Tim Benetti, Associate Planner Dusty Finke and Planning Assistant Debra Peterson -Dufresne. 2. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda No public comments. 3. Update from City Council Proceedings Elizabeth Weir gave update: • Council reviewed Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan • Approved CUP for Bi11 and Diane Nunn adding conditions • Approved ordinance for storm water discharge • Approved height variance and CUP for Hogan on Hamel Road • Updated ordinance on burning • Appointed committee to run contest for new Medina logo 4. Planning Department Report Benetti updated the Commission on new applications that are corning up in the future months. 5. Approval of June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes Motion by Simons, seconded by R. Reid to approve the June 10th, 2008 minutes with changes as noted. Motion carried unanimously (Absent: Nolan and Verbick). 6. Item to be Tabled - Hennepin County Public Works Facility -1600 Prairie Drive (PID 10-118-23-12-0003 and 10-118-23-11-0004) — Planned Unit Development Amendment General Plan for the construction of a Wind Turbine with a height of 80 meters (or 262 feet) to the top of the tower and a 369 foot in height wing span. Motion by V. Reid, seconded by Simons to table the application to the August 12th 2008 PC meeting. 1 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes 7. Public Hearing - Luetmer and Druk — Preliminary Plat to rearrange lot lines between two parcels in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district — Located on Parkview Drive and west of School Lake (PID #16-118-23-23-0006 & #16-118-23-23-0007). Finke presented the application. He stated that the two lots meet the standards of the RR zoning district and the 5 acre contiguous suitable soils requirement. He further reviewed the minimum requirements for a preliminary plat and informed the Commission that the applicant met all the minimums for setbacks, lot size, width, and frontage requirements at the lake. R. Reid asked if there would be a negative impact on the lake. Finke stated the lot change does not have an impact on the lake. Finke was more concerned with all the restrictions placed by the property owner on the one lot. V. Reid asked if staff had a sense of maximum square footage that's actually buildable on the parcel. Finke stated its approximately one half of an acre. Simons asked if a public hearing notice was sent to neighboring properties within 1000 feet and Finke replied that they were mailed out. Mark Gronberg, the applicant's Engineer explained that the watershed easement area is restricted to only allow grading and does not allow a structure. Public Hearing opened at 7:26 p.m. Closed Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m. Litts stated she did not have an issue with the application. R. Reid also stated she did not have an issue with the application. Pederson said he didn't see any issues with staffs recommendations. V. Reid did not have any issues. Simons felt it met all the conditions and that it was well thought out. Pederson had spoken with some of the neighbors and they were all fine with the application and he felt the application met all requirements and was fine with it. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Litts to approve the preliminary plat between two parcels in the RR zoning district, subject to staffs recommended conditions. Motion carried unanimously (Absent: Verbick and Nolan). 2 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes 8. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Chapter 8, Section 826 of the Citv's Zoning Ordinance - Pertaining to regulations related to RR, Rural Residential District. Benetti presented the application and explained that the City held an open house for residents within this district. Resident comments were attached for the Commissioners to review. He further presented information on specific properties that were identified to be revised. He explained the intent of the RR district and the language that changed from the current ordinance. Signage and the use of stands for the sale of agricultural products, provided said products are primarily raised on the premises, were specifically discussed. R. Reid asked why the City would add cemeteries to the RR district as a CUP. Benetti explained that the City Attorney felt we should allow them within this district. She felt that cemeteries shouldn't be allowed since we previously discussed the issue. Benetti stated that staff looked at taking out cemeteries, but it was recommended to stay by the City attorney. Weir explained that the City has to allow the use within one of the zoning districts, and since we currently have a cemetery within the RR area we should continue to allow them within this district since we have to allow them somewhere. R. Reid clarified with Weir that cemeteries were more likely to be for profit if it was over 10 acres in size. Benetti reviewed with the Commission the permitted accessory uses proposed to be added within the district, such as land spreading yard waste and maple tree tapping. Benetti explained the current and proposed regulations requiring five acres of suitable soils within this district. He informed the Commission that discussion had taken place regarding increasing the minimum lot size to 10 acres and not have a suitable soils requirement. He explained that since the City has a lot of wetland areas, typically our average lot ends up averaging 10 acres in most cases. He felt that having a suitable soils minimum worked well and discussed this requirement with the City Attorney. The City Attorney felt it would be good to keep the suitable soils requirement, rather than having a 10 acre minimum lot size and disregard suitable soils. Benetti then reviewed the hard surface coverage requirements for the district. Finke pointed out that option one under the hard surface definition requiring a maximum 6% slope is difficult to enforce. Benetti reviewed accessory structures that house animals. He explained that the current and proposed ordinance requires a 150 foot setback. He further explained animal unit density. V. Reid questioned the use of home base businesses; if it was listed within the zoning district. Benetti stated home occupations or home based businesses are still considered a permitted use (accessory). 3 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes R. Reid asked why Skyrock was a CUP rather than an RR2 district. Benetti clarified that it existed prior to the RR2 district. Public hearing opened 8:09 p.m. Chriss Renier, resident @ 3392 Hamel Road, asked why paddocks are considered hard surface. Benetti explained that the paddocks are compacted by the horses and since water typically runs off of the area rather than soaks into the ground, it was considered a hard surfaced area. Chriss Renier asked the Commission to recognize "grazable" acres since horses are rotated onto pastures, fed hay and grain, and the pastures are typically managed rather than depending on the actual grazable area. She further questioned if the City has issues with the number of horses. If the City does not have an issue with the actual number of horses, she asked if there really is a need for a regulation related to the number of horses/animals. She feels that some degree of regulation is needed. She also asked if a land owner didn't meet the proposed ordinance, would they be grandfathered in and not have to reduce the number of animals. Weir stated that the real problem relates to water quality. She felt that the issue of animal units and water quality interrelate and that the City needs more strict manure management practices. She stated that the City would grandfather existing horses. Chriss Renier stated she needed to know what the objective is and appreciated the clarification. The Commission reviewed the staff report page by page with questions. Weir asked about the livestock and poultry, specifically poultry, since she regularly purchases eggs from neighbors in the area and wanted to make sure this would be allowable under the proposed ordinance. Benetti clarified that selling of eggs or raising chickens is allowed under an agricultural use. Selling of agricultural goods, eggs and vegetables were discussed by the Commission and the consensus was that it was acceptable to have a stand to sell such products, provided said products are primarily raised on the premises. R. Reid asked for clarification on windmills and solar equipment within this district. Benetti explained that a windmill is a conditional use within the district. Solar equipment was relocated to the permitted accessory uses. Pederson asked about public and semi public uses. He asked if it included or excluded City Hall, Public Works building and golf courses. Benetti explained that the City Hall and Public Works would be a permitted use and a golf course a conditional use. The Commission asked staff to further research the proposed 10 percent maximum hard coverage for lots. 4 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes The requirement of a 150 foot setback for accessory structures that house animals was discussed. Benetti stated that the 150 foot setback was mentioned by attendees at the open house and they requested that the setback be discussed by the Commission. Pederson and Simons felt that it was fine. R. Reid asked if the City defined grazable acres. Benetti read the definition to the Commission. Chriss Renier raised a concern with the proposed definition of grazable acres in that she didn't feel it was clear as presented since not all horses are surviving on the grass. She said that if water quality and manure management are the greater concern then maybe that's what the ordinance should focus on rather than the animals. She said if managed properly, it's a possibility that twice as many animals could be allowed. Pederson stated that the City has the right to review manure management if they received a complaint. Benetti explained how the chart works relating to animal units. Simons asked about lots greater than 10 acres and how the ordinance impacted them. Benetti explained that the ordinance proposes that a land owner could have one animal unit per grazable acre. Simons asked if the ordinance were implemented, would this help with the water quality levels. Weir explained that the City is under a mandate by the Metropolitan Council to improve water quality in our lakes. The City is under a federal and state mandate to do something about our water quality. Pederson asked if farmers are under the same or different mandate. Weir explained that farmers are not under any mandate or regulation related to wetlands. Weir mentioned that the City is applying for a grant to assist farmers to test/measure their soils. Simons asked why we burden the first animal in the calculation. The Commission recommended to start with one acre equals one animal unit. It was also discussed that it could be used for properties over 10 acres. Jim Renier, resident, asked who enforces the animal units. Benetti explained that it is complaint driven. Litts asked if we knew how many properties would be impacted by adopting an ordinance that controls the number of animals per property (units). She informed the Commission that the City has a lot of show horses that typically do not graze on pastures and are housed on higher density locations. V. Reid asked if Chriss Renier would be out of compliance under the proposed ordinance. Chriss Renier stated that they have the second highest piece of property in Hennepin County. 5 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes She said she has 37-38 acres and 10 horses. Her property also has a CUP controlling the number of horses on her property. Benetti asked the Commission if they felt utilizing the requirement of animal units was necessary. Pederson asked if this is what the City Council wanted. Benetti said that it is up to the Commission to determine what is best. Weir explained to the Commission that counting animal units is one way to address the water quality issue within the City. She informed the Commission that the City would respond on complaints only. She felt that horse population will continue to reduce over time as it has been doing. Pederson asked Weir and staff if utilizing animal units is the right track to measure and Weir confirmed by stating yes. Simons asked Weir about the manure management plan. She said another approach could be that if one wants to go over the animal units, the property would be required to go through a much more restrictive manure management program. Chriss Renier pointed out that the function of the Commission should be to make recommendations to the Council with what they think makes sense and not what the Commission thinks the Council is looking for from them. She further raised the point that animal units may not be the way to resolve the problem. V. Reid is concerned more with manure management and felt properties should be able to exceed the proposed table if they have a good manure management program. R. Reid said that the Commission would not have to decide what the manure management would be for each property, but rather the applicant would have to provide the Commission with a recommendation since technology changes. Lilts asked if we prohibit grazing in a wetland. Benetti explained that we don't allow it under our wetland ordinance. He said that under the proposed ordinance, if we allow one animal unit per acre it wouldn't exclude wetlands or heavily wooded areas so grazable acres is a measurement utilized in calculating the number of animals allowed on a property. Benetti suggested that staff improve the proposed grazable acres definition to simplify it. Pederson asked if wetlands were fenced off would it be easier to determine grazable acres. He further questioned how we determine wetland areas. Benetti explained that wetland delineations are required under land use applications. Consensus of Commission was that animals are currently grazing in wetlands. Weir agreed that if a complaint is made, or if staff sees a violation, the City would follow through with the complaint. R. Reid asked if most hobby farms in the City would have to be a CUP. Finke said they would not be and that a CUP is triggered by commercial uses and accessory structure size. 6 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes Simons requested a simple grazable acre definition and that we reference the wetland ordinance. He thought it would be best to not have a distinction for properties under or over 10 acres. He suggested that if a property owner wanted to exceed the number of units allowed they would need to go through the CUP process. The Commission discussed "accessory structures for buildings used to house animals" and concluded that a 150 foot setback was appropriate. Public Hearing closed at 9:52 p.m. Motion by Litts, seconded by Simons to approve the changes as discussed. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Verbick and Nolan). 9. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 8, Section 825 of the City's Zoning Ordinance - Pertaining to regulations related to Accessory Structures. Benetti presented the application and more specifically explained that the proposed accessory structure height does not allow the structure to exceed 30 feet (mean roof line), nor shall any roof line exceed 35 feet in overall height (top of roof). R. Reid said that the recommended height conditions applied to all structures except farm buildings used for agricultural purposes. Benetti stated that he would add language to the height restrictions allowing agricultural buildings to be an exception. Weir asked if the City can still have accessory structures with sport courts or tennis courts on the second story. Benetti explained that the Commission originally wanted staff to establish something simple. R. Reid felt that it's not what is inside of large buildings, but to decide a maximum height. The Commission discussed barns recently reviewed. Pederson felt comfortable with the proposed ordinance. Litts and R. Reid felt the ordinance needed to define farm building. Benetti agreed to add the definition. Benetti explained that a detached garage used primarily for storage of products from the principal building would not be allowed to exceed the height of the house. V. Reid raised concern of a ranch style home (one level) wouldn't allow a two story garage with an office above. She doesn't have an issue with the detached structure being larger than the house. Simons asked Benetti what is the intent of the ordinance. Benetti said the intent of the ordinance is to restrict the height. Pederson raised concern that motor homes wouldn't be able to fit in a detached garage with the proposed height restrictions the way it is written. 7 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes Benetti reviewed exterior building material requirements. Simons agreed that getting away from galvanized steel was good, though he wasn't sure about requiring the exterior building materials to match the house if the accessory structure is detached. Benetti reviewed the accessory structure square footage/acreage chart. He informed the Commission that staff increased the allowable square footage. R. Reid asked that we add footprint instead of square footage for those buildings that have more than one level. Pederson stated he'd rather see one structure per lot than two. He also discussed with the Commission matching the street side of the structure with the house. Simons stated that with larger parcels more than one side of an accessory structure could be visible. The Commission discussed amongst themselves what was acceptable for the maximum size of a building for lots less than 3 acres in size and also for lots over 3 acres. The Commission felt satisfied with the proposed chart under Subsection 4. Benetti reviewed accessory structure standards for properties over 5 acres. The Commission recommended the 10,000 square foot standard be reduced. Benetti explained to the Commission that he discussed the exterior design requirements with the City Attorney and the attorney felt the language should include words such as "compatible" and designed with the "rural character of Medina". The Commission concluded that the added language was good, since it provides flexibility of the Commission and Council on future applications. Benetti reviewed the proposed CUP requirements for accessory structures over 10,000 square feet and the design standards that would be required. He stated that he included requirements similar to those placed on Hogan and Nunn. The Commission discussed the provisions of the ordinance as it pertained to exterior elements, textures, and colors for structures over 10,000 square feet. R. Reid asked the question of materials fading. Finke clarified the requirement that it pertains to the quality and warranty of the products. Benetti discussed best management practices and that they apply to applications for buildings exceeding 5000 square feet. The Commission discussed accessory structures 120 square feet or less in size to not count towards the maximum square footage requirements for a lot. Accessory structures such as play houses, sheds, or gazebos would fall within this category. Opened public hearing at 11:01 p.m. Closed public hearing at 11:01 p.m. 8 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes Motion by R. Reid, seconded by V. Reid to approve the accessory structure standards with changes as discussed. Motion carries unanimously (Absent: Verbick and Nolan 9. Open Discussion Items • Open Discussion Items: Schedule Special Meeting July 17, 2008 for Wind Turbine Tour. Benetti explained the special meeting and asked which Commission members could attend. Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Simons Motion by R. Reid, seconded by Simons to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. Motion carries unanimously. (Absent: Verbick and Nolan). 9 Agenda Item: 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning Director MEETING: August 12, 2008 SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development Amendment (to PUD No. A16846) Hennepin County Public Works SITE ADDRESS: 1600 Prairie Drive APPLICANT: Hennepin County, MN Application Review Information ,Submittal Date: June 8, 2007 Deemed Complete: May 12, 2008 Review Deadline: September 19, 2008 (extension granted by Hennepin County) 1) INTRODUCTION This item is a continuation from the June 10, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting. Hennepin County is seeking approval to amend their previously approved planned unit development plan (PUD No. A16846) to allow the construction of a new wind turbine, and a new civil defense siren on the HC Public Works campus. The subject site is located at 1600 Prairie Drive. The Commission elected to table this hearing to allow Hennepin County (HC) to provide a tour of similar wind turbines in Northfield, and provide further information for the Commission to consider. The wind turbine tour was held on July 17 and consisted of a personal guided tour of the wind turbine facilities located on the St. Olaf College and Carlton College campuses in Northfield, Minnesota. Two members of the planning commission, Jeff Pederson and Vicki Reid participated in the tour; along with Carolyn Smith and Liz Weir from the city council; three citizens; and four county officials. Public hearing notices for this meeting were mailed to landowners within one -mile of the HC campus, along with notifications placed in the city newsletter and published notice in the South Crow River News. This updated staff report contains most of the original information from the June 10th report, along with additional information provided by HC for your review. Page 1 of 10 2) TURBINE DETAILS Hennepin County is looking at installing either a General Electric 1.5 MW turbine or 2.1 MW Suzlon turbine. The size specification for each of these turbines is noted in the table below: model capacity blade *length* Chub heightt total height area swept by blades rpm range max blade $tip speed$ rated wind §speed§ 4,657 m2 38.5m 80m 118.5m (1.15 10.1- 11.8m/s GE 1.5s1 1.5 MW (126 ft) (262 ft) (389 ft) acre) 20.4 184 mph (26 mph) 6,082 m2 44 m 80 m 124 m (1.50 14 m/s Suzlon S88 2.1 MW (144 ft) (262 ft) (407 ft) acres) (31 mph) * This figure is actually half the rotor diameter. The blade itself may be about a meter shorter, because it is attached to a large hub. t Hub (tower) heights may vary; the more commonly used sizes are presented. $ Rotor diameter (m) x rr x rpm _ 26.82 § The rated, or nominal, wind speed is the speed at which the turbine produces power at its full capacity. For example the GE 1.5s does not generate 1.5 MW of power until the wind is blowing steadily at 27 mph or more. As the wind falls below that, power production falls exponentially. The June 10t' staff report indicated the single wind turbine tower would stand approximately 262 feet high from its ground base to the upper generator, and up to 369 feet from ground level to upper -most tip of a blades. According to HC officials, the height of the tower for each type of turbine remains at 262 feet; however, the rotor diameter makes the overall height between the GE and Suzlon type turbines up to 389-ft. and 407-ft., respectively. This was provided in the original information but was not specifically clarified or indicated under the original staff report. For the most part, this increased height (389 vs. 407 feet) does not change the intent or parameter of the applicant's request. HC will determine the size (1.5 or 2.1 MW) of the turbine later. The cut out wind speed (at which the turbine shuts down) is 45 mph for each unit; and the maximum sustained wind speeds at which the turbine may withstand is up to 100 mph. The Applicant is also requesting allowance to install the tower within two years from approval. The energy produced from this turbine would generate electricity equivalent to power the annual needs of approximately 450 single-family homes. The electrical power generated by the turbine is not used directly or fed on -site for the County's use, and is actually routed into one of the local energy providers system, where it is bought at a negotiated price point (to be determined between HC and the power company). Eventually, this power is re-routed back into the campus site, where the power needs are paid at a standard rates. The cost saving is met between the bought vs. used power needs by the HC facility. Page 2 of 10 3. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST A. Surrounding Land Use and Zonink The HCPW site is guided under the City's 2000 Comp Plan as RC -Rural Commercial; the west and east sites are guided UC-1 — Urban Commercial 1; and RR — Rural Residential to the south. Under the new 2010 Plan, the HCPW site is tentatively guided under the new Public Semi Public (PSP) designation; while the east will be guided Industrial Business (IB) and General Business (GB); the west as General Business; and the south as Permanent Rural (PR). The entire HCPW is under separate PUD zoning district, and is surrounded by IP- Industrial Park and BP -Business Park to the east; RR -Rural Residential to the south; and BP and RR districts to the west. The section of IP zone to the east is the Loram facility; DMJ Asphalt is situated to the west; and the Laurent families and Dellcroft family farms to the south. Except for the main Loram property, most of these surrounding land uses are fairly vacant or consist of structures or developments located at considerable distances away from the shared property lines with HCPW. B. Physical and Natural Characteristics of the Site The site is accessed off Arrowhead Drive by Prairie Drive, which is a public roadway that legally ends at the westerly property line. The subject property is improved with large office building and outbuildings, along with the 420-foot high Sheriff s radio tower. The HCPW site is impacted by a number of wetland bodies. It does not appear the turbine or civil defense tower will affect any portion of these wetlands. The request will be subject to the Wetland Ordinance, which under the PUD process requires the applicant to provide a conservation easement to encumber wetland buffers around the wetlands, which at this time would be up to 35-foot average and 25-foot minimum buffer widths. The site plan submitted by the Applicant indicates two potential sites for the tower, with Option 1 (preferred site) and Option 2 (as the alternative). During deliberations at the June 10th meeting, it appeared the preferred location of the commission was Option 2, which places the tower farther to the north (350' from Option 1) and away from any future residential development to the south of the HC campus. If this Option 2 still remains the preferred location, the commission should make this as a condition of approval as necessary. C. Site Improvements and Impacts i) Setbacks: The original PUD documentation did not specify or indicate what setbacks would be required inside this site. All buildings and improvements are typically approved under the General Plan, which essentially sets or approves the location and setbacks of structures. The two turbine locations are demarcated with a 400-foot radius setback line. The smaller 1.5 MW turbine at 389 feet would fit inside this 400-ft. setback, whereas the larger 2.1 MW turbine at 407-feet would Page 3 of 10 exceed by just 7 feet. Staff does not believe this 7-foot extension should be of any real concerns or necessitate the additional need of 407 foot radius setback line. Noise: Noise is measured by decibels, which are a measurement of sound pressure levels emitted from a noise source. These measurements are reflective of the normal sensitivity levels of the human ear. According to the applicant's narrative and supporting documents, the proposed 1.5 MW wind generator (and the noise produced from such device) would meet the MPCA night time standards for any residence located at least 623 feet away, and the 2.1 MW meets the standards at 850 feet. According to estimated measurements (from City GIS/Pictometry program), the estimated distances between the tower and the farmstead dwelling located at 1982 Hamel Rd (immediately south) is approximately 2,300 feet; approx. 2,700 feet to the Anthony Laurent farm at 2092 Hamel Rd.; over 2,500 feet to the Dellcroft farm site (out buildings — no dwellings); approx. 3,800 feet to 1400 Hamel Rd.; and approx. 3,900 feet to 1585 Hamel Rd. Assuming the information provided by the Applicant is accurate, then most of the nearby homes would not be affected by the anticipated noise generated by the wind tower. Although this permit is not subject to any Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) setbacks or standards, the information as applied to wind turbines may be useful for the commission's consideration. PUC issued permits require a 500-ft. minimum setback from homes and any additional distance sufficient to meet residential Minnesota Noise Standards, particularly overnight hours. According to the PUC information, "typical utility scale wind turbines... require a 750 — 1200 foot setbacks from homes to meet these standards." The information contained form the American Energy Wind Association indicates a wind farm or turbine produces a decibel level of 35-45, and further states: "...an operating wind farm from a distance of 750-1000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or moderately quiet room." Although the ultimate question of "how noisy will the turbine be?" is difficult to answer, staff must assume the information submitted by the applicant is a true reflective example or documentation of the turbine noises. This may be somewhat speculative to some who read or interpret this same information, but for the most part, staff concludes the noise would be negligible and the distance the turbine sits from the south property lines further supports that noise and decibel levels should be met, even if future residential dwellings are constructed in or around this site. The Commission members who attended the wind tour to Northfield may be able to provide personal testimony as to the wind noise heard from each wind turbine site. Staff will also provide a presentation indicating the speeds and noises that were picked up during video images of the two sites. Page 4 of 10 Visibility/Sight Lines: The individual size of the tower and rotation of the blades will definitely impact or change the views and visibility from all adjacent properties (360-degree panorama view). Even travelers along the adjacent roadways will likely notice the structure and turning blades. Although arguments could be made that the existing 420 foot high radio tower exceeds the height of the new wind tower and it already impacts these views, the turbine has large moving mechanism affixed to it, which will likely make this tower more noticeable and stand -out than the other static features of the site. Under our city ordinances, and for the most part many other communities, we do not regulate or provide standards on views or sight lines, or protection of views or vantage points from adjacent properties. iv) Other Improvements: The proposed civil defense siren is to be located near the north edge of the HCPW campus. According to Police Chief Belland, the siren's pole is only expected to reach a height of 55 feet or less, and is used only for severe weather or other local emergency warnings. City and Hennepin County officials have been working on this project for approximately 2 years, and each party is contributing one-half the cost to install the smaller tower and siren. The size and location of this tower does not affect or impact the larger adjacent radio tower, nor impacts any other improvements on this property. This feature should be a welcome addition for maintaining the overall public safety needs of our citizens. E. Wind & Economic Analysis Inquiries made by citizens and city officials regarding the viability of this site as related to wind resources and economics have been addressed by HC officials. Attached is an abbreviated report from WindLogics, Inc. (dated Jan. 6, 2006) on the wind analysis of the HCPW site, which was completed over a 12-month period. The findings from the report indicate wind speed data yielded a correlation coefficient (R) value of 0.906. The report states that an R-value above 0.60 is fair; 0.75 range is good; while values 0.85 or higher are excellent. By accepting the findings of this report, it may be concluded the HCPW property is an excellent site for a wind turbine to successfully function. Economically, the applicants have indicated that they currently have or continue to work on the proforma for the turbine. A proforma provides a projection of the capital costs, sources of financing, revenue, expenses and the profit bases on specific set of assumptions. A current proforma was not submitted due to HC's continued efforts to negotiate with the power companies, and the city is not privy to reviewing this information until it becomes officially public. HC previously stated the turbine would be used to help off -set the energy needs for the large HCPW facility. The turbine will hopefully "cash -flow" after 10 years and the longevity of the turbine is approximately 20 years, which includes insurance costs to Page 5 of 10 guarantee cash flow. The years that the turbine has cash flow the county will allocate for replacement of the turbine. F. Compliance with City Ordinance. Under the current zoning ordinance, Private Use of Windmills or Wind Energy Conversion Systems(WECS) is allowed by conditional use permit under the AG - Agriculture, RR- Rural Residential, RR-UR Rural Res. Urban Residential, and SR - Suburban Residential districts. The code further provides under section 826.98 the following standards to approve a CUP for a private windmill or WCES by the following standards: (i) minimum setback from the nearest property line is 150 feet or a distance equal to the height of the tower plus one-half the diameter of the rotor, whichever is greater; (ii) certified by a professional engineer as being of a design adequate for the atmospheric conditions of the Twin Cities; (iii) equipped with overspeed or similar controls designed to prevent disintegration of the rotor in high winds; (iv) compliance with all building and electrical code requirements of the city, the noise regulations of the Minnesota pollution control agency and the rules and regulations of the federal communications commission and federal aviation administration; and (v) the city council may require compliance with any other conditions, restrictions or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. Although these standards do not necessarily apply under this PUD amendment request, it would not preclude the City's discretionary rights to apply these standards under this specific request related to the wind tower/turbine. According to the applicant's submittal information, it appears the new wind turbine and tower would meet or exceed these standards. The wind tower is shown with a 400-foot radius setback line, which would meet the 369 foot setback requirements. The documents also indicate the equipment and turbine will be built to specific engineering standards; equipped with overspeed or braking measures; and would comply with all State of Minnesota Building Codes, MPCA, FCC and FAA rules. E. Level of City Discretion in Decision Making The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a Planned Unit Development amendment. A PUD amendment must be similar with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the approved PUD final plan. The City may impose reasonable requirements upon a PUD amendment not otherwise required if the City deems it necessary to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and surrounding area. Page 6 of 10 Section 827.21 of the City Zoning Code requires any non-residential project to meet the following standards: (a) There shall be no minimum lot or area size required for a tract of land for which a PUD Zoning District or PUD conditional use permit is proposed. (b) There shall be no minimum frontage on a public street required for a tract of land for which a PUD is proposed. (c) The tract of land for which a non-residential PUD is proposed shall have municipal water and sewer available to it or shall provide approved well locations and comply with the provisions in the Medina Sewer Code. (d) Off-street parking and loading facilities for a non-residential PUD shall be provided in accordance with Section 828, Zoning -Performance Standards and Enforcement of the Medina City Code. (e) For non-residential PUD Zoning District projects, the normal standards of either the RC, UC, RI, UI and PS zoning classifications shall apply to each project, excepting those standards to be modified, as determined by the City Council and as provided above in Section 827.27, Subd. 1 (a) and (c) (f) In addition to the above standards, the City Council may impose such other standards for a nonresidential PUD as are reasonable and as the Council deems are necessary to protect and promote the general health, safety and welfare of the community and the surrounding area. For all intents and purposes, the original PUD appears to have met or exceeded these standards. The new wind tower does not impact or affect any of these standards. 4. CONCLUSIONS The Applicant has proposed PUD Amendment to allow the installation of either a 1.5 mW or 2.1 mW wind generator turbine and tower, plus the new civil defense siren, as indicated on the attached site plan. The turbine tower appears to meet the required setbacks, noise and engineering standards usually reserved for such structures on either the Option 1 or Option 2 locations. As the City of Medina researches and prepares to implement low impact design and development standards within our own ordinances, along with "greener" initiatives for our own community, we may want to determine the success of this project later on when we begin to plan for and design our own facilities, such as the new city Public Works facility or a future city hall. Quite possibly, other businesses or industry within the community could implement such a device for their own on -site energy needs similar to what HCPW is proposing. Page 7 of 10 For the most part, and what Planning Staff could interpret and apply in the analysis of the information provided by the applicants, including our own observations from the personal site visit of the turbine facilities in Northfield, Staff continues to have no objections to this proposed PUD Amendment or the requested improvements. Due to the unique nature of this request, and if requested to do so by the Commission, Staff may suggest we have an outside or third party expert (similar to WindLogics, Inc. or an environmental engineering firm) provide an expert review or analysis of the same information provided by Hennepin County. This need for additional study is common in cases where information provided to the city needs some type of independent or experienced personnel to complete an analysis beyond the scope of city staff review. If further study or analysis is not necessary, then Staff believes the Applicants have met most of the criteria necessary to grant a PUD amendment. Due to the flexibility of the PUD process itself, the Applicant is allowed the ability to request and propose such a wind energy device even though it may not be entirely permitted or allowed inside this PUD district. Conversely, the City also has the flexibility to regulate or provide additional standards deemed necessary to protect the citizens and community. 5. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment to Hennepin County to allow the installation of an individual wind turbine and tower up to a maximum overall height of 407 feet, along with the installation of a new civil defense siren located next to the radio tower. The Planning Commission should reaffirm if the preferred location of the turbine remains as Option 2, as per the submitted site plan. If Planning Commission supports this recommendation to approve the PUD amendment, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall provide an updated wetland delineation report, and illustrate the wetland boundaries on the site plan, as requested by the City Engineer review memo dated June 2, 2008; 2. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions and regulations of the adopted City Zoning Ordinance and City Code at time of approval, including the city Wetland Ordinance and wetland buffer/easement requirements; 3. The maximum height allowed for any turbine/tower shall not exceed 410 feet (as specified by the Applicant); 4. The Applicant shall be given the choice of installing a 1.5 MW or 2.1 MW generator turbine on the subject site, and within two (2) years from approval of this amendment. If within the two year period the turbine size is increased, the Applicant will be allowed to have a higher generating turbine as long as it conforms to the height specified in Condition No. 3 above; 5. The new wind turbine shall meet all noise standards (both day -time and night time) as determined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Page 8 of 10 6. The new towers shall meet all State of Minnesota Building Codes, MPCA, FCC and FAA rules and standards as necessary; 7. The Applicant shall submit any required permits, as necessary or required by MPCA, Elm Creek Watershed District, PUC, FCC and/or FAA; 8. The Applicant shall provide adequate security measures, including fencing where necessary, to prevent outside tampering or malicious intent by others to damage, destroy, deface or affect the wind turbines operations or structure; 9. Any proposed grading activities associated with the proposed Option 1 or 2 sites must be shown on the site plan for review; 10. The new tower and footings shall be designed engineered by a licensed structural engineer and approved by the City Building Official at time building permit submittals; 11. The Applicant agrees to share all information related to the costs to design, engineer and construct the new wind turbine and tower to assist in Medina's planning and budgetary preparation for the future Medina Public Works facility site; Applicant further agrees to provide public information related to the tower and the energy saving measures, and provide on -site tours (if possible) for members of the public. 12. The Applicant agrees to consider allowing the city Public Works Department to install a city -owned Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) antenna on the radio tower; 13. The original Planned Unit Development Agreement (i.d. Contract No. A16846) and the conditions listed therein remain intact and not subject to any revisions or modifications under this PUD Amendment request. 14. The Applicant agrees to enter into a Development Agreement with the City of Medina to ensure the development is completed in accordance with the approved set of plans and conditions of approvals specified herein; and 15. The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in an amount sufficient to reimburse the City for the cost of reviewing the application and related documents. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Narrative (dated May 12, 2008) 3. Site Plan (dated May 12, 2008) 4. City Engineer's Memo, dated June 2, 2008 5. Sight Visibility Photos (simulated) 6. State of MN— Dept. of Commerce (Summary of Historic PUC Wind Setbacks and Standards); 7. American Wind Energy Association — "Facts about Wind Energy and Noise" 8. WindLogics, Inc. (Abbreviated Report) 9. Minnesota's Wind Power Industry Fact Sheet 10. Thomas Borman — Dellcroft Farms Letter 11. June 10, 2008 PC Minutes- Excerpts Only Page 9 of 10 Attachment —1 Location Map Page 10 of 10 5 ATTACHMENT - 2 May 12, 2008 Mr. Tim Benetti Planning Director City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 J ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE 400 CLIFTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESUTA 55403-3299 TELEPHONE 16121671-5163 FAX (6121871-1212 Re: Hennepin County Public Works Facility — Conceptual PUD Amendment Narrative City of Medina Contract No. A 16846 Dear Mr. Benetti: After some discussion with the City of Medina, Hennepin County would like to submit a Conceptual PUD amendment to its Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement with the City of Medina dated June 18, 1996 (City Contract No. A16846). There is one new Hennepin County development initiative, and one new City of Medina development initiative, which generate the request for a PUD amendment. A. New Development Initiatives 1. Wind Turbine Hennepin County intends to build (1) wind turbine at the site. The wind turbine is in the range of 1,500 kW to 2,100 kW (1.5 MW to 2.1 MW), which can generate electricity equivalent to accommodating the annual power needs of 450 homes. The wind turbine is referred to as an 80-meter (or 262 feet) tower. The top of the wings extends to 369 feet. As a point of reference, the existing radio tower at the site is 400 feet tall and the antennas extend to 420 feet. Availability will be a consideration in the final selection of the manufacturer and size. It is the County's intent to build the wind turbine within two years. Note that there are two potential location options for the wind turbine. The preferred location is Option 1. The approximate location coordinates for Option 1 are Latitude: 45° 2'51.97"N and Longitude: 93° 34' 19.19"W. We have enclosed product literature from two wind turbine manufacturers, a footing design drawing, a State of Minnesota PUC publication addressing wind setbacks and standards, an article from the American Wind Energy Association regarding wind energy and noise, and an article from the British Wind Energy Association regarding noise from wind turbines. P:12007120070961CorrespondencelLetters105-12-08 PUD Amendment Narrative.doc Mr. Tim Benetti May 12, 2008 Page 2 of 3 In addition, attached is a table and a graph from a 2007 site application to the PUC by PPM Energy for a recent large-scale project at Buffalo fudge The modeling for that project (9 different wind turbine sizes were modeled) indicate that noise levels from a General Electric (GE) 1.5 MW turbine would meet MPCA night time standards at any residences located at least 623 feet away, and for a 2.1 MW Suzlon turbine at least 850 feet away. The link to the State PUC for the PPM Energy application is listed below: htto://enerovfacilities.ouc.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=19192 2. City of Medina Civil Defense Siren As you aware, the City of Medina and Hennepin County have ongoing discussions about the potential location of a new City of Medina Civil Defense Siren near the County's existing Radio Tower on the site. Please contact me if you have questions or desire additional information. Sincerely, &ate We PETER VESTERHOLT, AlA Principal cc: Earl Karr DeAngelo Pravinala File Enclosures: 1. Site Plan: (3) Full size, (3) half size, (3) 11x17, (3) 8.5 x 11, (1) digital. 2. Site -specific photograph looking towards the southwest with inclusion of an 80-meter wind turbine showing both Option 1 and Option 2, (1) page. 3. General photographic images of wind turbines, (1) page. 4. Product data/specifications from General Electric, (4) pages. 5. Product data/specifications from Suzlon, (12) pages. Mr. Tim Benetti May 12, 2008 Page 3 of 3 6. Wind turbine foundation plan and details, (1) page. 7. State of Minnesota, PUC Docket Number. E,G999JM-07-I 10, (6) pages. 8. American Wind Energy Association Article, (4) pages. 9. British Wind Energy Association Article, (3) pages. 10. Comparative table (2-1) of Noise Modeling of 4 wind turbine sizes, (I) page. 11. Comparative graph (5-1) of Noise Modeling of 3 wind turbine sizes, (1) page. Note: A PUD Application with associated filing fee and mailing labels were submitted to the City of Medina on June 8, 2007. P:12007100.090Carrespoadencellelters105-12-08 PUU Amendment Narrative.doc SfiAG MOUNDS FUTURE MOUND SITE OPTION 1 PROPOSED WIND TURBINE LATITUDE 45'751.9714 LONGITUDE: 69'- 93'31'19.101N WETLAND OPTION 2 OPOSED WI TURBINE LATITUDE 45 756.74'N LONGITUDE: '14'19.07'W 1 0 a EXISTING RADIO TOWER P .4.TA4D 94105 0 200' 400' Pf 0iect PUD AMENDMENT HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Date MAY 12, 2008 Cantu No. 2001056 Drawing No. SITE PLAN 1 ATTACHMENT - 3 ARCNITECHIBAL ALLIANCE 400 CLIFTON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55403.3299 TEL (612)871-5709 FAX (6121 B71-7212 ATTACHMENT - 4 June 2, 2008 Ms. Debra Peterson -Dufresne Planning Assistant City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 Re: Hennepin County PUD Bonestroo File No, 000190-08000-1 Plat No. L-07-013 Dear Debra, 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MI4 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www,bonestroo.com Bonestroo We have reviewed the site plan and specifications for the proposed wind turbine at the Hennepin County Public Works site on Arrowhead Road. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • It appears that there are wetlands in the immediate area of the proposed wind turbine location for Option 1. To provide an adequate review related to the city`s wetland ordinance the following should be submitted: o Wetland delineation report o Include the boundaries of the delineated wetland on the site plan. • Any proposed grading activities associated with Option 1 or 2 should be shown on the site plan for review. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894. Sincerely, BONESTROO Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg AllEHITECTIIIIAL ALLIANCE MAY 12, 2000 Hennepin County Public Works Facility Medina, MN Photograph looking toward the southwest at the Intersection of Arrowhead Drive and Prairie Drive incorporating an 80-meter wind turbine. S-1N31AIHOVII ' ATTACHMENT - 5 GE 1.5f1e 1,500 kW 1Nr rurb'ne mull, generate pmanr for akour up Millet at a peed wind we Iron Loper notwort wr aeapal4 meat' Sand 240•ES 500 k W Mk hme„,e.mnd produce elernnar rw aarut lja home{ at a good wow/ ute fwemn m i. tue rangn ar,eaifmp edpr MMWngy M Of midi tffpf. 19a' Bergey Excel UAW f a yowl wuM YM. lurbone on. penerrfe enough eaefrr.tsfy one aeersgehomerrttd 112' toff Ke ATTACHMENT-6 LIlk MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT Or COMMERCE STATE OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Department of Commerce Issued: September 28, 2007 In the Matter of Establishment of General Permit Standards for the Siting of Wind Generation Projects Less than 25 Megawatts PUC Docket Number: E,G999/M-07-1102 SUMMARY OF HISTORIC PUC WIND SETBACKS AND STANDARDS Background Minnesota Session Laws 2007, Chapter136, Sections 12-14, (relevant sections attached) provides a new option for counties to assume responsibility under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216F to process wind site permitting for large wind energy conversion systems (LWECS) less than 25 MW in total nameplate capacity. In providing this option, the Legislature recognized that there was a need for some standardization of siting parameters that would support consistent and orderly development of Minnesota's wind resource. It therefore tasked the Commission with establishing general permit standards by January 15, 2008. The PUC order establishing general permit standards must consider existing and historic Commission standards for wind permits issued by the Commission. The standards adopted by the PUC will apply to wind site permits issued by counties and to permits issued by the Commission for LWECS with a combined nameplate capacity of less than 25 MW. The Commission or counties may grant a, variance from a general permit standard if the variance is found to be in the public interest and counties may establish more restrictive standards by ordinance. This document summarizes the setback and permit standards required by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC or Commission) for site permits for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems (LWECS). PUC issued site permits have consistently required minimum setbacks from certain land uses or structures to protect public safety, to ensure compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216F and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7836, and to ensure orderly development of wind resources. The PUC has requested that the Department of Commerce Energy Facilities Permitting staff collect public comments on the PUC permit standards and setbacks and make recommendations to the Commission by the end of November 2007. Public Comments Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments on the historic PUC wind siting standards, suggest additional siting standards or modifications to PUC's historic standards. In addition, parties are encouraged to comment on procedural matters related to siting wind facilities by the PUC or by counties and technical assistance needs which could be provided to counties in the future by the DOC EFP staff. Interested parties may comment on the proposed delegation process and PUC wind siting standards by submitting written comments by 4:30 p.m. on October 31, 2007. Written comments can be sent by mail, fax or by email. Please include the following docket number (E,G999/M-07-1102) on written comments. Written or fax comments should be directed to: Minnesota Department of Commerce, 85 7th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-2198, fax 651-297-7891. Additional information about the process to establish general permit standards, the state wind siting process, rules guiding the review process, and additional information is available and will be updated on the MPUC website at: http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=19302 The DOC will take comments into consideration in making its general permit standards and setback recommendations to the PUC in late November 2007. Historic PUC Wind Setbacks Wind Access Buffer: The largest setback the PUC requires for LWECS projects is the Wind Access Buffer, which can be from 760 —1640 feet, depending on turbine rotor diameter and predominant wind direction. This setback is measured from the boundaries of the permittee's wind development rights, which may consist of one isolated parcel of wind rights or thousands of acres of wind and land rights made up of many individual, contiguous parcels. This setback protects the wind developments rights of neighboring wind rights owners by requiring projects be spaced apart to ensure that one permitted project does not "take" or negatively affect the wind development rights owned by or assigned to others. Homes and Noise: PUC issued site permits require a 500 foot minimum setback from homes and an additional distance sufficient to meet the residential Minnesota Noise Standard, Noise Area Classification 1, L50 50 dBA during overnight hours measured at residential receptors. See Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030. Typical utility scale wind turbines today typically require750 — 1200 foot setbacks from homes to meet the standard. Each turbine, project layout and local vegetative, topographic, and other conditions will dictate the total setback required to meet the noise standard. Public Roads: PUC issued site permits have historically required a 250 foot minimum setback from the edge of public road rights -of -way. The table below summarizes all historic PUC LWECS site permit setbacks. Some of these setbacks have evolved over time due to changing circumstances or have been varied on a limited, case -by -case basis. Historic PUC Wind Setbacks Resource Category PUC Historic Standard Minimum Setback PUC Permit Condition Wind Access Buffer (setback from lands and/or wind rights not under Permittee's control) 5 rotor diameters on the predominant wind axis or downwind (typically north -south), 3 rotor diameters on the secondary or crosswind (typically east -west) axis if wind rose shows lesser winds from secondary or crosswind direction. 3 RD (760 — 985 ft) on east -west axis and 5 RD (1280 — 1640 ft) on north - south using turbines with 78 — 100 m rotor diameters III.C.I Homes At least 500 ft and sufficient distance to meet state noise standard (below). 500 feet + state noise standard. III.0 2 Noise Standard Project must meet Minnesota Noise Standards, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030, at all residential receivers (homes). Residential noise standard NAC 1, L50 50 dBA during overnight hours. Setback distance calculated based on site layout and turbine by developer for each residential receptor near each project. Typically 750 — 1500 ft required to meet noise standards depending on turbines, layout, site specific conditions. III.E.3 Public Roads Minimum setback of 250 feet from edge of public road ROW 250 ft II1.C.3 Wildlife Management Areas No turbines, towers or associated facilities in public lands. No setback required historically. III.C.4 Meteorological Towers 250 foot setback from edge of road rights- of -way and boundary of developer's site control (wind and land rights). 250 ft from road ROW and boundary of site control. Wetlands No turbines, towers or associated facilities in public waters wetlands. However, access road and electric line crossings may be permitted and subject to DNR, FWS, and/or USACOE permits III.C.S Native Prairie Native prairie protection plan to be submitted if native prairie is present. III.C.6 Sand and Gravel Operations No turbines, towers or associated facilities in active sand and gravel operations, unless negotiated with the landowner. 111.C.7 Internal Turbine Spacing Turbines spaced 5 rotor diameters apart for downwind spacing and 3 rotor diameters apart for crosswind spacing. Additional case -by -case analysis based on topographic conditions. 5 rotor diameters downwind spacing 3 rotor diameters apart for crosswind spacing III.D.5 Questions: 1. Are these the proper resource categories to establish setbacks from? 2. Are there additional resource categories for which a setback should be developed? 3. Are there resource categories and setbacks which should be eliminated in the PUC's general permit standards decision? 4. Do you believe these minimum setback distances are inadequate, adequate, or excessive? 5. How should the minimum setback distances be changed or modified? If so, please describe the rationale for each change. Additional Standards The following list summarizes the additional PUC's standards applied to LWECS site permits and references the permit condition where each standard is found. These standards have evolved and have been refined over time in response to changing times, technology, permitting requirements of other agencies, etc... • Wind Turbines. Monopole design, uniform white/off white color. Permit condition • Topsoil and Compaction. Must protect and segregate topsoil from subsoil in cultivated lands unless otherwise negotiated with affected landowner. Must minimize compaction of all lands during all phases and confine compaction to as small area as possible. Permit conditions III.B.2 and III.B.3. • Fences. Promptly repair or replace all fences and gates removed or damaged during project life. Provide continuity of electric fence circuits. Permit condition III.B.5 • Drainage Tile. Shall take into account, promptly repair or replace all drainage tiles broken or damaged during all phases of project life unless otherwise negotiated with affected landowner. Permit condition 111.B.6. • Equipment Storage. Shall not locate temporary equipment staging areas on cultivated Iands unless negotiated with landowner. Permit condition III.B.7. • Public Roads. Identify roads to be used in project construction. Inform public jurisdiction controlling each road to determine inspection of road prior to use. Permittee shall make satisfactory arrangements (including obtaining permits) for road use, access road intersections, maintenance and repair of damage with governmental jurisdiction with authority over each road. Permit condition III.B.8.a. • Turbine Access Roads. Construct smallest number of access roads it can. Roads must be low profile to allow farm equipment to cross. Shall be constructed of Class 5 gravel or similar material. Shall not obstruct runoff or watersheds. Permit condition III.B.8.b. • Private Roads. Shall promptly repair private roads or lanes damaged unless otherwise negotiated with landowner. Permit condition III.B.8.c. • Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Permittee shall submit its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of its NPDES construction permit application. Permit condition IIL8.9. • Cleanup. Shall remove all waste and scrap from site. Permit condition III.B.10. • Tree Removal. Minimize tree removal and negotiate all tree or shelter belt removal with landowner. Permit condition III.B.11. • Restoration. Shall restore area affected by any LWECS activity to pre construction condition, to the extent possible within eight (8) months of completion of turbine construction. Permit condition III.B.12. • Hazardous Waste. Shall be responsible for compliance will all laws applicable to the generation, storage, transportation, clean up and disposal of hazardous wastes generated during any phase of the project's life. Permit condition III.B.13. • Application of Herbicides. Restrict use to those herbicides and methods approved by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Must contact landowner prior to application. Permit condition III.B.14. • Public Safety. Permittee shall provide any safety measures such as warning signs or gates for traffic control or to restrict public access. Permit condition III.B.15. " F i r e P r o t e c t i o n . P e r m i t t e e s h a l l p r e p a r e f i r e p r o t e c t i o n a n d m e d i c a l e m e r g e n c y p l a n i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h l o c a l f i r e d e p a r t m e n t . S h a l l s u b m i t t o P U C u p o n r e q u e s t . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . B . 1 6 . " T o w e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . A l l t u r b i n e t o w e r s s h a l l b e m a r k e d w i t h a v i s i b l e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n m a r k e r . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . B . 1 7 . " N a t i v e P r a i r i e . M u s t s u b m i t n a t i v e p r a i r i e p r o t e c t i o n p l a n s w h e r e a p p l i c a b l e . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I 1 . C . 6 " E l e c t r o m a g n e t i c I n t e r f e r e n c e . S h a l l c o n d u c t a s s e s s m e n t o f t e l e v i s i o n s i g n a l r e c e p t i o n a n d m i c r o w a v e s i g n a l p a t t e r s i n p r o j e c t a r e a p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n . P e r m i t t e e i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l e v i a t i n g a n y d i s r u p t i o n o r i n t e r f e r e n c e c a u s e d b y w i n d t u r b i n e s o r a s s o c i a t e d f a c i l i t i e s . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . D . 3 . " T u r b i n e L i g h t i n g . N o l i g h t s o r p a i n t c o l o r o n w i n d t u r b i n e s o r m e t t o w e r s o t h e r t h a n w h a t i s r e q u i r e d b y F A A . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . D . 4 . " P r o j e c t E n e r g y P r o d u c t i o n : T h e P e r m i t t e e s h a l l , b y J u l y 1 5 o f e a c h y e a r , r e p o r t t o t h e P U C o n t h e m o n t h l y e n e i g y p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e P r o j e c t a n d t h e a v e r a g e m o n t h l y w i n d s p e e d c o l l e c t e d a t o n e p e r m a n e n t m e t e o r o l o g i c a l t o w e r s e l e c t e d b y t h e P U C d u r i n g t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r o r p a r t i a l y e a r o f o p e r a t i o n . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . H . I - 2 . " E x t r a o r d i n a r y E v e n t s : W i t h i n 2 4 h o u r s o f a n o c c u r r e n c e , t h e P e r m i t t e e s h a l l n o t i f y t h e P U C o f a n y e x t r a o r d i n a r y e v e n t . E x t r a o r d i n a r y e v e n t s i n c l u d e b u t s h a l l n o t b e l i m i t e d t o : f i r e s , t o w e r c o l l a p s e , t h r o w n b l a d e , c o l l e c t o r o r f e e d e r l i n e f a i l u r e , i n j u r e d L W E C S w o r k e r o r p r i v a t e p e r s o n , k i l l s o f t h r e a t e n e d o r e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s , o r d i s c o v e r y o f a n u n e x p e c t e d l y l a r g e n u m b e r o f d e a d b i r d s o r b a t s o f a n y v a r i e t y o n s i t e . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . H . 3 . " C o m p l a i n t s : P r i o r t o t h e s t a r t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e P e r m i t t e e s h a l l s u b m i t t o t h e P U C t h e c o m p a n y ' s p r o c e d u r e s t o b e u s e d t o r e c e i v e a n d r e s p o n d t o c o m p l a i n t s . T h e P e r m i t t e e s h a l l r e p o r t t o t h e P U C a l l c o m p l a i n t s r e c e i v e d c o n c e r n i n g a n y p a r t o f t h e L W E C S i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s p r o v i d e d i n p e r m i t . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . H . 4 . " A s - B u i l t P l a n s a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s : W i t h i n 6 0 d a y s a f t e r c o m p l e t i o n o f c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e P e r m i t t e e s h a l l s u b m i t t o t h e P U C a c o p y o f t h e a s - b u i l t p l a n s a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . T h e P e r m i t t e e m u s t a l s o s u b m i t t h i s d a t a i n a g e o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n s y s t e m ( G I S ) f o r m a t f o r u s e i n a s t a t e w i d e w i n d t u r b i n e d a t a b a s e . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . I . 1 - 2 . " D e c o m m i s s i o n i n g P l a n . M u s t s u b m i t a d e c o m m i s s i o n i n g p l a n d e s c r i b i n g m a n n e r P e r m i t t e e p l a n s o n m e e t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s o f M i n n e s o t a R u l e 7 8 3 6 . 0 5 0 0 , s u b p a r t 1 3 . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . G . I . " S p e c i a l C o n d i t i o n s : P U C i s s u e d s i t e p e r m i t s o f t e n i n c l u d e a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i f i c a n d s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s u c h i s s u e s a s t h r e a t e n e d o r e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s w h i c h a r e d e v e l o p e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . P e r m i t c o n d i t i o n I I I . M . 1 . Q u e s t i o n s : 6 . A r e t h e s e s t a n d a r d s i n a d e q u a t e , a d e q u a t e , o r e x c e s s i v e ? 7 . A r e t h e r e s t a n d a r d s t h a t s h o u l d b e e l i m i n a t e d i n t h e P U C ' s g e n e r a l p e r m i t s t a n d a r d s d e c i s i o n ? 8 . A r e t h e r e a d d i t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s t h a t s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e P U C ' s g e n e r a l p e r m i t s t a n d a r d s d e c i s i o n ? 9. Do these standards conflict with county ordinances, county procedures, or additional county permits required to be issued? 10. Please suggest any modifications to existing standards which should be considered in the PUC's general permit standards decision. DOC Project Contacts Questions about PUC site permit standards, the standards review process, or wind development and permitting generally may be directed to: Adam Sokolski, Project Manager Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 7`h Place East, Suite 500 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 Tel: 651-296-2096 Fax: 651-297-7891 e-mail: adam.sokolskifiNtate.mn.us Deborah Pile, Unit Supervisor Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 7.th Place East, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-2198 Tel: 651-297-2375 Fax: 651-297-7891 e-mail: deborah.pileastate.mn.us ATTACHMENT - 7 111111111 `_n3cri�.Ener�sociation FACTS ABOUT WIND ENERGY AND NOISE What is noise? "Noise," when one is talking about wind energy projects, basically means "any unwanted sound." Whether a noise is objectionable will vary depending on its type (tonal, broadband, low - frequency, impulsive, etc.) and the circumstances and sensitivity of the individual who hears it (often referred to as the "receptor"). As with beauty, often said to be "in the eye of the beholder," the degree to which a noise is bothersome or annoying is largely in the ear of the hearer. What may be a soothing and relaxing rhythmic swishing sound to one person may be quite troublesome to another. Because of this, there is no completely satisfactory and impartial way to measure how upsetting a noise may be to any given person. Still, it is possible to objectively measure how loud a noise is. Here is a table showing the loudness ("sound pressure level") of some common noises: COMPARISON OF SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL AND SAUNA PRESSURE Sound Pressure Level, dB Sound Pressure, Pa Pneumatic Chipper (at 5 It) Textile Loom Newspaper Press Diesel Buck 40 mph (at 5011) Passenger Car 50 mph (at 5011) Conversation (a13 ft) Quiet Room 120 20 110 50 Rock-n-Roll Band 100 2 Power Lawn Mower —'-1 (at operator's ear) 90 0.5 Milling Machine (at 4 ft BO 0.2 Garbage Disposal (al 3 It) 70 U.1n5 Vacuum Cleaner 60 0.02 Air Conditioning (Window Unit at 25 ft) 50 0.01 0.005 40 0.002 30 0.001 0,0005 20 0,0002 10 0.0001 0 — 0.00002 Source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (see www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phvs agents/noise basic.html ). What kinds of noise do wind turbines produce? Wind turbines most commonly produce some broadband noise as their revolving rotor blades encounter turbulence in the passing air. Broadband noise is usually described as a "swishing" or "whooshing" sound. Some wind turbines (usually older ones) can also produce tonal sounds (a "hum" or "whine" at a steady pitch). This can be caused by mechanical components or, less commonly, by unusual wind currents interacting with turbine parts. This problem has been nearly eliminated in modern turbine design. How noisy are wind farms? Good question, and a difficult one. Wind plants are very, very quiet compared to other types of industrial facilities, such as manufacturing plants, but most industrial plants are not located in rural or low -density residential areas. In those types of areas, background noise tends to be lower than in urban areas. On the other hand, wind plants are always located where the wind speed is higher than average, and the "background" noise of the wind tends to "mask" any sounds that might be produced by operating wind turbines —especially because the turbines only run when the wind is blowing. The only occasional exception to this general rule occurs when a wind plant is sited in hilly terrain where nearby residences are in dips or hollows downwind that are sheltered from the wind —in such a case, turbine noise may carry further than on flat terrain. Virtually everything with moving parts will make some sound, and wind turbines are no exception. However, well -designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft, and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low. Noise used to be a very serious problem for the wind energy industry. Some early, primitive types of turbines built in the early 1980s were extremely noisy, to the point that it was annoying to hear them from as much as a mile away. The industry quickly realized that this problem needed to be dealt with, however (particularly in Europe, where turbines are often located in or near residential areas), and manufacturers went to work on making their machines quieter. Today, an operating wind farm at a distance of 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room. Source/Activity Indicative noise level dB (A) Threshold of hearing 0 Rural night-time background 20-40 Quiet bedroom 35 Wind farm at 350m 35-45 Car at 40mph at 100m 55 Busy general office 60 Truck at 30mph at 100m 65 Pneumatic drill at 7m 95 Jet aircraft at 250m 105 Threshold of pain 140 Source: The Scottish Office, Environment Department, Planning Advice Note, PAN 45, Annex A: Wind Power, A.27. Renewable Energy Technologies, August 1994. Cited in "Noise from Wind Turbines," British Wind Energy Association, htto://www.britishwindenerov.co.uklref/noise.html . The best test is to simply experience the noise from a turbine for yourself. You will find that you can stand directly beneath a turbine and have a normal conversation without raising your voice. What have manufacturers done to reduce wind turbine noise? Most rotors are upwind: A wind turbine can be either "upwind" (that is, where the rotor faces into the wind) or "downwind" (where the rotor faces away from the wind). A downwind design offers some engineering advantages, but when a rotor blade passes the "wind shadow" of the tower as the rotor revolves, it tends to produce an "impulsive" or thumping sound that can be annoying. Today, almost all of the commercial wind machines on the market are upwind designs, and the few that are downwind have incorporated design features aimed at reducing impulsive noise (for example, positioning the rotor so that it is further away from the tower). Towers and nacelles are streamlined: Streamlining (rounding or giving an aerodynamic shape to any protruding features and to the nacelle itself) reduces any noise that is created by the wind passing the turbine. Turbines also incorporate design features to reduce vibration and any associated noise. Soundproofing in nacelles has been increased: The generator, gears, and other moving parts located in the turbine nacelle produce mechanical noise. Soundproofing and mounting equipment on sound -dampening buffer pads helps to deal with this issue. Wind turbine blades have become more efficient: As the wind energy industry and wind engineers gain more experience with wind turbine operations, turbine blades are constantly being redesigned to make them more efficient. The more efficient they are, the more the wind's energy is converted into rotational energy and the less aerodynamic noise is created. Gearboxes are specially -designed for quiet operation: Wind turbines use special gearboxes, in which the gear wheels are designed to flex slightly and reduce mechanical noise. In addition, special sound -dampening buffer pads separate the gearboxes from the nacelle frame to minimize the possibility that any vibrations could become sound. What about small wind turbines for household or batterv-charginq use? Small wind turbines, paradoxically, tend to be noisier for their size than large machines, for two reasons: (1) The rotational speed of the blade tips is higher; and (2) Much more research money, both from government and private industry, has been invested in reducing noise from large turbines. The manufacturer of a small wind turbine should be able to provide you with information about its noise levels, based on standard measurement techniques. In addition, you can ask owners of small turbines about their experiences on the American Wind Energy Association's Horne Energy Systems discussion list. To subscribe to this discussion, send an e-mail message to awea-wind- home-subscribeaNahooarouos.com . As with other types of equipment owned by homeowners, small wind turbines can be regulated by local communities through noise ordinances. Typically, such an ordinance will specify an allowable decibel level for noise at the property line nearest to the source. What other noises are associated with large wind oroiects? Wind turbines are large pieces of industrial equipment, and installing them is, in essence, a major construction project. The construction phase of a project lasts only a few months, but during that period, noises will be produced that are typical of heavy construction, including: Truck traffic: A modern wind turbine is larger than a Boeing 747, with rotor blades that weigh thousands of pounds each and must be trucked to the site along with tower sections and other large components. The sound level is that caused by a highway truck moving at slow speed. Heavy equipment: A large construction crane is usually needed to install the nacelle and rotor atop the turbine tower. Cement mixing is necessary for turbine foundations. The sound levels of this equipment is comparable to a highway truck moving at slow speed. Foundation blasting: May occasionally be required if the wind plant is being installed in hilly or mountainous terrain where bedrock is close to the surface and cannot be broken up by other means. More frequently, foundation holes are excavated using backhoes, sometimes with a pneumatic hammer to break up subsoil rock. Obviously, it is desirable for construction activities that are likely to produce noise to be scheduled during normal working hours. What can be done to reduce the likelihood of a noise problem from a wind project? A noise analysis can be done based on the operating characteristics of the specific wind turbine that will be used, the type of terrain in which the project will be located, and the distance to nearby residences. Particular attention will need to be paid if residences are sheltered from the wind. Also, pre -construction noise surveys can be conducted to find out what the normally -occurring background noise levels are at the site, and to determine later on what, if anything, the wind project has added to those levels. The most common method for dealing with a potential noise issue, as indicated above, is to simply require a "setback," or minimum distance between any of the wind turbines in the project and the nearest residence, that is sufficient to reduce the sound level to a regulatory threshold. Some permitting agencies have set up noise complaint resolution processes. in such a process, typically, a telephone number through which the agency can be notified of any noise concern is made public, and agency staff work with the project owner and concerned citizens to resolve the issue. The process should include a technical assessment of the noise complaint to ensure its legitimacy. In general, wind plants are not noisy, and wind is a good neighbor. Complaints about noise from wind projects are rare, and can usually be satisfactorily resolved. BWEA - Are wind turbines noisy? Page 1 of 3 BWEA Han_ I About BWEA I Contact us 1 I-ledha j Searcn Onshore wind Offshore wind Wave & tidal Small wind systems Wales Wind farms in the UK Health & Safety Events Publications Latest news lobs Membership Company Directory Members Area Reference Noise from Wind Turbines - The Facts Thls document Is also available In PDF format Delivering the UK's wind, wave and tidal energy Prepared with assistance from the Hayes McKenzie Partnership, Consultants in Acoustics, Southampton and Machynlleth. Search: Virtually everything with moving parts will make some sound, and wind turbines are no exception. Well designed wind turbines are generally quiet in operation, and compared to the noise of road traffic, trains, aircraft and construction activities, to name but a few, the noise from wind turbines is very low. Outside the nearest houses, which are at least 300 metres away, and more often further, the sound of a wind turbine generating electricity is likely to be about the same level as noise from a flowing stream about 50- 100 metres away or the noise of leaves rustling In a gentle breeze. This Is similar to the sound level Inside a typical living room with a gas fire switched on, or the reading room of a library or In an unoccupied, quiet, air-conditioned office. Source/Activity Indicative noise level de (A) Threshold of hearing 0 Rural night-time background 20-40 Quiet bedroom 35 Wind farm at 350m 35-45 Car at 40mph at 100m 55 Busy general office 60 Truck at 30mph at 100m 65 Pneumatic drill at 7m 95 ]et aircraft at 250m 105 Threshold of pain 140 Information taken from The Scottish Office, Environment Department, Planning Advice Note, PAN 45, Annes A: Wind Power, A.27. Renewable Energy Technologies, August 1994 As the table shows, the sound of a working wind farm Is actually less than normal road traffic or an office. Even when wind speed increases, It Is difficult to detect any Increase In turbine sound above the increase In normal background sound, such as the noise the wind itself makes and the rustling of trees. so 20 10 Background Noise and Turbine Noise vs. ii'ind Speed ---:.3a?x!-=+C :.`, -('. 0 "Ei_s__-` ___-__- --- _ _ @ :e7�iYI�y! ?..II!!! .q- I^J� fE IM CF3-Y': f_.� G.r _t]]r.:. 37 ri:.�- �p�1r++''L n' r�r�wwyy...a�yl 3 L=C '.. 3�L^,r=__ - --- -- - - - -- ----- a 10 Ynd Speed e Turbine Weak. Height (Iris) • BdQewd Nebe t10 M:ae :sar olea1 1vk6t Nth: 15 Graph taken from The Assessment & Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, The Working Reference UK Wind Energy Database 9^ bttp://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html 5/8/2008 BWEA - Are wind turbines noisy? Page 2 of 3 Group on Wind Turbine Noise, September 1996. The best test is always to experience the noise from a turbine for yourself. You will find that it is perfectly possible to stand underneath a turbine and have a normal conversation, without raising your voice. What makes the noise? Almost all wind turbines producing electricity for the national grid consist of a tower, which Is between 25 and 50 metres high; a nacelle (housing) containing the gearbox and generator, which is mounted on top of the tower, and 3 blades which rotate around a horizontal hub protruding from the nacelle. This type of turbine is referred to as a horizontal axis machine. There are two potential sources of noise: the turbine blades passing through the air as the hub rotates, and the gearbox and generator in the nacelle. Noise from the blades is minimised by careful attention to the design and manufacture of the blades. The noise from the gearbox and generator Is contained within the nacelle by sound insulation and isolation materials. Standing next to the turbine, It Is usually possible to hear a swishing sound as the blades rotate; and the whirr of the gearbox and generator may also be audible. However, as distance from the turbine Increases, these effects are reduced. How Is noise measured? Noise is measured In decibels (dB). The decibel is a measure of the sound pressure level, le. the magnitude of the pressure variations In the alr. An increase of 10 dB sounds roughly like a doubling of loudness. Measurements of environmental noise are usually made In dB(A) which includes a correction for the sensitivity of the human ear. The noise a wind turbine creates is normally expressed In terms of its sound power level. Although this is measured in dB(A), it is not a measurement of the noise level which we hear but of the noise power emitted by the machine. The sound power level from a single wind turbine Is usually between 90 and 100 dB(A). This creates a sound pressure level of 50-60 dB(A) at a distance of 40 metres from the turbine, le. about the same level as conversational speech. At a house 500 metres away, the equivalent sound pressure level would be 25-35 dB(A) when the wind is blowing from the turbine towards the house. Ten such wind turbines, all at a distance of 500 metres would create a noise level of 35-45 dB(A) under the same conditions. With the wind blowing in the opposite direction the noise level would be about 10 dB lower. Wind projects When planning a wind turbine project, careful consideration is given to any noise which might be heard outside nearby houses. Inside, the level is likely to be much lower, even with windows open. The potential noise impact is usually assessed by predicting the noise which will be produced when the wind is blowing from the turbines towards the houses. This Is then compared to the background noise which already exists in the area, without the wind farm operating. There is an increase In turbine noise level as wind speed increases. However, as seen above, the noise from wind in nearby trees and hedgerows, around buildings and over local topography also increases with wind speed but at a faster rate. Wind turbines do not operate below the wind speed referred to as the cut -in speed (usually around 5 metres per second) and wind data from typical sites suggests that wind speeds are usually below this for about 30% of the time. Preliminary recommendations from the Wind Turbine Noise Working Group'l, established by the DTI, are that turbine noise level should be kept to within 5 dB(A) of the average existing evening or night-time background noise level. This Is In line with standard practice for assessment of most sources of noise except for transportation and some mineral extraction and construction sites when higher levels are usually permitted. A fixed low level of between 35 and 40 dB(A) may be specified when background noise is very low, ie. less than 30 dB(A). Different Types of Turbine Wind turbines may be designed In different ways and many of the differences have come about from a desire to minimise noise emissions: Upwind & Downwind Machines The majority of horizontal axis turbines are designed In such a way that the blades are always upwind of the tower. This has the effect of minimising any airflow changes as the blades pass the tower. Some turbine designs, particularly some of those Installed in the http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html 5/8/2008 BWEA - Are wind turbines noisy? Page 3 of 3 USA, have the turbine blades downwind of the tower. With this type of design, a strong pulse can sometimes be heard with each passing of a blade behind the tower. However, most turbines currently operating In the UK are of the upwind design. Twin Speed and Variable Speed Machines Most horizontal axis turbines rotate at a constant speed, usually between 25 and 50 rpm, irrespective of wind speed. However, twin speed machines operate at a reduced speed when the wind is light. This produces less noise and means that when the noise of wind in the trees Is low, the noise of the turbine is also significantly lower by up to 10 dB (A). Variable speed machines change speed continuously in response to changes In wind speed and, although noise output may be higher at higher wind speeds, it is lower at low wind speeds where the low background levels occur. Direct Drive Machines Direct drive turbines are the latest design concept in turbine technology. Simply put, these machines have no gearbox or drive train, and consequently no high speed mechanical (or electrical) components. Direct drive turbines are therefore much quieter than gearbox machines as they do not produce mechanical or tonal noise. An example of this type of turbine Is the 1.5MW 'Ecotrlcity' turbine Installed at Swaffham In Norfolk In September 1999. In conclusion, the noise produced by typical wind farms Is so low that they would not be noticeable in most residential areas In the UK. However, the areas suitable for such developments tend to be In quiet but exposed areas of countryside. A significant amount of effort is put into minimising any noise Impact but it should be emphasised that typical noise levels are so low for a carefully considered site that they would normally be drowned out by a nearby stream or by a moderate breeze In nearby trees and hedgerows . As said by the House of Lords In their Report on Electricity from Renewables'2 : "thanks to Improvements In technology ...., noise Is no longer the Issue It was." Click here to download The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, produced try ETSU For the DTI '1 The Working Group on Wind Turbine Noise, The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms, September 1996. ETSU-R-97. Available from: New Et Renewable Energy Enquiries Bureau ETSU Harwell, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 ORA Tel: 01235 432 450 Fax: 01235 433 066 The working group was formed from independent experts on wind turbine noise. The main objectives of the group were to define a framework which can be used to measure and rate the noise from wind turbines and to provide indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours and encourage best practice In turbine design and wind farm siting and layout. *z House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, 12th Report, Session 1998-99, Electricity from Renewables HL Paper 78, available from: The Stationery Office, Publications Centre PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT General enquiries Lo-call 0345 123 474 Telephone orders Lo-call 0345 585 463 Fax orders 0171 873 8200 The report costs E10.40 and the evidence Is E20.30 search I contact us I srie map I is awEA, 2007 http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.html 5/8/2008 ELM CREEK WIND, LLC ELM CREEK WIND PROJECT P1.1C SITE PERMIT APPLICATION Characteristic Table 2-1 Wind Turbine Characteristics GE 1.5 MW Turbine Simian 2.1 MW GE 2.5 MW Vestas 3.0 MW Nameplate capacity 1,500 kW 2,100 kW 2,500 kW 3,000 kW Hub height 80 m (262 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 85 to I00 m (279 to 328 ft) 80 to 105 m (262 to 345 ft) Rotor Diameter 78 m (256 ft) 88 m (289 ft) 88 to 100 m (289 to 328 ft) 90 m (295 ft) Total height 1 19 m (390 ft) 124 m (407 ft) 135 to 150 m (443 to 493 ft) 125 to 150 m (410 to 493 ft) Cut -in wind speed2 3 m/s (6.7 mph) 4 m/s (8.9 mph) 3.5 m/s (7.8 mph) 4 m/s (8.9 mph) Rated capacity wind speed3 11.8 m/s (26A mph) 14 m/s (31.3 mph) 12.5 m/s (28.0 mph) 15 m/s (33.6 mph) Cut-out wind speed`' 25 m/s (45 mph) 25 m/s (45 mph) 25 m/s (45 mph) 25 m/s (45 mph) Maximum sustained wind speeds Over 45 m/s (100 mph) Over 45 m/s (100 mph) N/A Over 42.5 m/s (05 mph) Rotor speed 10.1 to 20.4 rpm 15.1 to 17.7 rpm 5.5 to 16.5 rpm 9.9 to 18.4 rpm Distance to 50 dBA noise level 623 ft 850 ft N/A 788 ft Total height =the total turbine height from tlae ground to the tip of the blade in an upright position Cut -in wind speed = wind speed at which turbine begins operation 3 Rated capacity wind speed = wind speed at which turbine reaches its rated capacity ° Cut-out wind speed = wind speed above which turbine shuts dosvn operation 5 Maximum sustained wind speed = wind speed up to which turbine is designed to withstand N/A = information is not available. Each tower will be secured by a concrete foundation that can vary in design depending on the soil conditions. A control panel inside the base of each turbine tower houses communication and electronic circuitry. Each turbine is equipped with a wind speed and direction sensor that communicates to the turbine's control system to signal when sufficient winds are present for operation. The turbines feature variable -speed control and independent blade pitch to assure aerodynamic efficiency. HDR ENGINEERING, INC. 2-2 JUNE15,2007 80.0 Predicted Noise Levels for 1.5 MW, 2.1 MW and 3.0 MW Wind Turbines (dBA) 70.0 - 60.0 -ma 50.0 m d m 40.0 '5 z �a d b 30.0 w a 20.0 10.0 0.0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Distance from Turbine (feet) —4--1.5 MW Turbine — 2.1 MW Turbine a-3.0 MW Turbine ; PPM Energy . S..II..Itmo ha Figure 5-1 Predicted Noise Levels for 1.5 MW, 2.1 MW and 3.0 MW Wind Turbines Elm Creek Wind Project Jackson & Martin Counties, MN ATTACHMENT - 8 Hennepin County Environmental Services Medina Site Wind Resource Analysis January 6, 2006 CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL ENCLOSED This document has been prepared and furnished exclusively for the use of the recipient. The reproduction, copying or distortion of this document, in whole or in part, or the disclosure or resale of any of its contents to any other person is not licensed except with the written approval of WindLogics Inc. Copyright ©2006 by WindLogics Inc. All rights reserved. This document is a trade secret and its confidentiality is strictly maintained. Use of the Copyright notice does not designate publication and is not to the contrary. Prepared By: Tony Meys Senior Scientist WindLogics Inc. Patrick Heinis, M.S. Meteorologist WindLogics Inc. Disclaimer: WindLogics Inc. has prepared this report based on available third party historical weather information and use of our predictive software and analysis methods. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of historical weather data. Historical weather information also does not necessarily allow accurate prediction of future weather patterns. WE ARE THEREFORE PROVIDING THIS REPORT TO YOU WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY. Our sole responsibility is the preparation and delivery of this report. By accepting this report, you agree that our liability in any situation is limited to the amount paid for our report. In no event will we be liable for any special or consequential damages arising from use, or misuse, of our report or information in it. WindLogics To: Tony Hainault - Hennepin County Environmental Services From: WindLogics Inc. Re: Medina Minnesota Site Suitability Date: August 12th, 2008 To whom it may concern, Page 1 of 1 On January 6, 2006 WindLogics completed a Wind Resource Assessment analysis for Hennepin County Environmental Services at a site location near Medina, Minnesota. The objective of this study was to have WindLogics analyze the detailed wind characteristics for one "virtual tower" location roughly 3.58 km (2.2 mi) north-northwest of the town of Hamel, Minnesota. This study provided an analysis of the overall wind regime at the Medina site, including a long-term estimation of the wind resource. The WindLogics modeling system was used to gather statistics and information covering the entire site, with a comprehensive analysis reported for one "virtual tower" located within the bounds of the site. Using data from the WindLogics Weather Archive, WindLogics executed a detailed, twelve-month modeling process that was then normalized to reflect long-term values using forty years of additional WindLogics data. Finally, these results were used to generate the conclusions and details in this report. The report generally summarized that at the "virtual tower" location, the annual average wind speed at 80 meters above ground level (AGL) was above 7 m/s (meter per second) and should support commercial scale operation of wind turbines. Seasonally the site sees decreased wind speeds in the summer months, which is typical for the mid -west. The transition and cooler months generally see increased wind speeds as compared to the summer months. This site indicates wind speed ranges that are typical for wind energy development in Minnesota and the Mid -west. Based on our wind analysis, the wind speeds and Gross Capacity Factor may be viable for wind energy development. However, our studies did not include any onsite measured met tower data nor exhaustive review of various potential electrical losses, engineering, zoning, permitting and/or construction factors that may reduce Net Capacity Factors or cause added expenses when constructing a turbine or wind farm. In addition, there may be siting issues, land use issues, environmental issues, or cultural /historic issues discovered during later project phases which might impact final project viability. Should you require any further detailed discussion, study, or analysis, WindLogics can be contracted to provide solutions throughout the project lifecycle. Sincerely, Yusef Orest Sales and Customer Support WindLogics Inc. 651-556-4279 yusefo@windlogics.com www.windlogics.com www.WindLogics.com WindLogics® CONFIDENTIAL Figure 3. Windfield model inner grid terrain. Contour interval is 5 m. The red dot indicates the virtual tower location. Inner grid size: 5.50 x 6.55 km. Horizontal resolution: 50 m. Executive Summary — Page 7 Elevation (meters) 330 CONFIDENTIAL Executive Summary - Page 8 w 0 a co § u) o .a) o 13 Reanalysis vs. WindLogics Average Monthly Wind Speeds 10 9 8 .7V7. • • • • 7• - — 6 R = 0.906 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 Reanalysis 4 Wind 5 Speed 6 7 8 9 (m/s) 10 Figure 4. Correlation between Reanalysis and WindLogics average monthly wind speeds. A Minnesota's SHEET FOR BUSINESSES Minnesota is one of the top producers o Leadership ' •energy in the country. vied ■ Minnesota ranks fourth nationwide with 615 MW of installed wind capacity, as of December 2004. ■ As of July 2005, there were 51 wind projects in Minnesota operating 683 turbines and producing more than 600 MW, enough to power approximately 230,000 homes. ■ In 2003, Minnesota added the more wind capacity (226 MW), than any other state. In 2004, the state added the fourth largest increase (39 MW) nationwide. ■ A six -county area in southwest Minnesota is home to more than 70 percent of the state's wind power production. ■ World renown Suzlon Energy recently announced plans to build a Minnesota manufacturing plant to supply wind tower blades and nose cones to the North American market. Main Minnesota Wind Power Projects Buffalo Ridge Existing Projects Capacity (MVV) 1. North Shaokatan 11.88 2. Shaokatan Hills 11.88 3. Lake Benton II 103.50 4. Viking 12.00 5. Chanarambie 85.50 6. Moraine 51.00 7. Woodstock 10.20 8. Buffalo Ridge 25.00 9. Ruthton 15.84 10. Lake Benton I 107.25 11. Lakota Ridge 11.25 Note: MW = megawatts Dynamic; • Minnesota's wind projects generate clean elechtcity while benefiting the states economy. ■ Thanks to state policies that support farmers, land owners and other small investors to build small wind projects of less than 2 MW (see back page), Minnesota is a leader nationwide in "community projects," which generate clean electricity while keeping revenues in the local community. ■ Land owners in Lincoln County, Minnesota, receive an estimated annual revenue of more than $500,000 from leased and purchased land by wind energy developers, according to the National Wind Coordinating Committee. ■ Estimated cost per turbine is $1-2 million, with a typical life expectancy of 20-30 years. Once the capital expense of the turbines is fully paid, profits to farmers who own and operate one or two turbines can exceed $100,000 per year. ■ Farmers in Southern Minnesota who choose to lease their land to wind developers annually receive between $2,500 to $5,000 per turbine. ■ The wind power plant near Lake Benton (number 10 on the map) is the second largest employer in the town after the school district. ■ Minnesota based companies supporting the wind industry include but are not limited to: Wind turbines, towers and components manufacturers: ■ SMI and Hydraulics ■ CWMF, Inc. ■ Wind Turbine Industries Corp. ■ Hutchinson Manufacturing, Inc. ■ Parsons Electric LLC Wind energy consulting companies: ■ DanMar and Associates, Inc. ■ Navitas Energy Inc. ■ Artigale and .Associates, LLC ■ WindLogics, Inc. ■ Project Resources Corporation ATTACHMENT - 9 Minnesota's wind power industry benefits from federal financial support > In August 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded $21.2 million in grants to 113 renewable energy projects nationwide. Minnesota received $3.9 million of the $7.2 million (or 16 of 25 grants) awarded to large wind projects. Y. In 2004, Minnesota received $5.2 million in grants through the USDA. Of the total, $4.2 million was awarded for wind projects. > The Federal Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) at a rate of 1.5 0/kWh (inflation adjusted - currently 1.9 0/kWh ) was created by the Energy Policy Act in 1992. Since then, the Congress has extended the PTC for short periods, expiring in 1999, 2001 and 2003. Although it is slated to expire on December 31, 2005, an extension was approved in July 2005, extending PTC to December 31, 2007. Exceptional state and local support > The Minnesota Legislature enacted in 1997 the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) of 1.50/kWh paid to small wind projects (less than 2 MW) for the first 10 years of turbine operation. The incentive included 200 MW and it has been fully allocated. > In 2005, the Omnibus Energy Bill established the Community -Based Energy Development (C-BED) Tariff at a rate up to a 2.70/kWh in net present value. This tariff will provide investors with better cash flow during their debt period and reduce the cost of energy for utilities and ratepayers in the later years of a 20-year power purchase agreement. Additional provisions within the bill are expected to support the upgrading of transmission lines. > Wind turbines and materials used in their construction and installation are exempt from Minnesota sales taxes. Additionally, electricity generated from wind in a Job Opportunity Building Zone (JOBZ) is exempt from the wind energy production tax. > Minnesota's law exempts wind production facilities from value -based property taxes, but a production tax is collected by local governments: (a) <0.25 MW, exempt; (b) 0.25 MW-2MW, 0.0120/kWh; (c) 2-12 MW , 0.0360/kWh; (d) >12 MW, 0.120/kWh. In 2005, a law was passed to distribute the revenue to local taxing jurisdictions in which the wind energy project is located as follows: Beginning in 2006, 80 percent to counties, 14 percent to cities and townships and 6 percent to school districts. Future: Minnesota is well positioned for wind power• growth. ■ Windustry is a non-profit organzation that supports wind industry investors in the Midwest through technical assistance and networking opportunities (www.windundustry.org). ■ A 2001 statute requires all electric utilities in Minnesota to make a "good faith effort" toward having 10 percent renewable electricity in their generating mix by 2015. ■ Minnesota's largest utility (Xcel Energy) has been mandated by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to acquire 1,125 MW from wind power by 2010 (425 MW have already been purchased). More than 150 megawatts are required to come from small wind projects of 2 MW or less. ■ Xcel Energy has received permission to spend more than $160 million to upgrade its transmission lines in the Buffalo Ridge area. The project is expected to be completed by the end of 2005. p SI y Department of Employment and Economic Development innoSota 1st National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200 St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 ■ Minnesota wind power projects are blooming. Recent wind projects in Minnesota include: > Minwind III-X: A farmer owned wind project added seven 1.65 MW turbines in 2004 to the four 950-kilowatt turbines (Minwind I and II) it was already operating. > Carlton College: Installed in 2004 the first college owned commercial scale wind turbine in the country. The 1.65 MW turbine produces approximately 40 percent of the campus' electricity. ■ In 2004, Great River Energy, Minnesota's second largest utility, announced plans to purchase the output from a new 100-MW wind project in Southwestern Minnesota. The project is scheduled to deliver energy in 2005 to meet electricity needs of Great River's 28 member retail distribution cooperatives. Industry Contact: Mark Lofthus Director of Business Development Phone: 651-297-4567 Fax: 651-296-5287 mark.lofthus@state.mn.us Toll Free: 1-800-657-3858 TP TDD:651-282-6142 Fax: 651-296-1290 www.deed.state.mn.us BCD-0068Q 2/14 - 500 ATTACHMENT - 10 THOMAS H. BORMAN 3300 WELLS FARGO CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-4140 June 4, 2008 Medina City Council — via e-mail Tom Crosby, Mayor tcrosby@faegre.com Carolyn Smith, Council Member Carolyn.Smith@co.anoka.mn.us Dan Johnson, Council Member dani@danetechnologies.com Elizabeth Weir, Council Member lizweir cz,Qmail.com Joe Cavanaugh, Council Member Cavanaugh@mchsi.com Medina Planning Commission Jeff Pederson, Chair Charles Nolan, Vice Chair Mary Verbick Robin Reid Michele Lifts Victoria Reid Jim Simons Re: 155.907 Acres of Agricultural Land Property Address: 1975 and 19XX Hamel Road Legal Description: Torrens #852749 -- Hennepin County, MN PID #10-118-23-41-001 and #10-11823-43-0001 Dear Members of Council and Planning Commission: As owners of the land immediately adjacent to the Hennepin County Public Works Facility, Dellcroft Farms opposes the PUD for Wind Turbine on the Planning Commission Agenda for Tuesday, June 10, 2008. While as a family we favor environmentally friendly sources of energy, we question its location next to our property. Since our land is currently zoned for 5+ acre/hobby farm uses, such an industrial, unsightly use of land directly to our north can only impact our property value negatively. As a prominent Medina realtor told us, the type of buyer of a 5+ acre/hobby farm will not view a neighboring 262 foot by 369 foot Wind Turbine as contributing to the feel for which they are looking. 1 am reasonably confident you know this, but we would be happy to provide expert testimony, appraisal evidence, etc. in some setting of your choice. Medina City Council and Planning Commission June 4, 2008 Page 2 The little research we have done indicates turbines in westem Minnesota cause significant noise, which again raises questions about their appropriateness for the uses for which our property is zoned. If the City is conunitted to allowing Hennepin County this use, we would respectfully request that our proposal to sewer and water our property be reconsidered. If the value of our land for hobby farm use is reduced as we anticipate by such an industrial use, our northern parcel might fit better with a higher density, lower priced, sewered use. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, omas H. Borman on behalf of Dellcroft Farms THB/sgc 593035.1 Medina Planning Commission DRAFT June 10, 2008 Meeting Minutes EXCERPTS ONLY 7. Public Hearing - Hennepin County Public Works Facility -1600 Prairie Drive (PID 10-118- 23-12-0003 and 10-118-23-11-0004) — Planned Unit Development Amendment General Plan for the construction of a Wind Turbine with a height of 80 meters (or 262 feet) to the top of the tower and a 369 foot in height wing span. Benetti presented the application to the Commission describing the wind turbine height and noise decibel comparisons. He also described setbacks, sight visibility and code compliance. He noted that the City code only allows wind turbines in agriculture districts through a CUP or PUD. Pederson questioned if a light would be on the wind turbine. Applicant, Roy Earl, Hennepin County Engineer stated that the hub would be lit and not the blades. He pointed out the hub is at the center point of where the blades are affixed and would not rotate with the blades. R. Reid asked if steps would be taken to minimize noise. Earl explained that turbine manufacturers are always looking to make improvements and the newest models are always the most up-to-date. The County will be purchasing a new turbine from the manufacturer with the most up-to-date technology as possible. Tony Hainault of Hennepin County reviewed the noise data with the Commission. Greg Carr, Hennepin County explained the rotation of the blades on the wind turbine and the type of noise it generates, which rotates at a very slow speed and has more of a delayed whoosh sound than a constant sound. Pederson asked why the applicant wasn't reducing the height of the wind turbine and adding an additional turbine. Earl explained that the wind is very good in the area proposed and their intention is to have one wind turbine (more efficient) at a greater height rather than multiple wind turbines with lesser height. Pederson further asked what the payback was to recover costs. Earl explained that it'll cash flow after 10 years and the longevity of the turbine is approximately 20 years, which includes insurance costs to guarantee cash flow. The years that the turbine has cash flow the county will allocate for replacement of the turbine. Simons asked how much power the County needed. Earl explained that it consumes 2 ''A million kilowatts per year. Simons expressed that he wanted the County to be able to have the turbine support Hennepin County's need for power without having to purchase additional. Simons read an opposition letter submitted by Thomas Borman on behalf of Dellcroft Farms to the Commission. The letter stated their opposition to the proposed land use application and how it would be more of an industrial type use adjacent to a hobby farm/residential type use, which would devalue their property. Borman requested the City to consider changing the use of their property and allow sewer and water sooner if the proposed land use application is approved. Simons asked if a wind turbine was an allowed use under the current zoning district. Benetti explained that the site is currently covered under a PUD which allows the Commission to allow a wind turbine. Simons asked if the application met all code compliance requirements and Benetti explained that building codes would be reviewed when the applicant applies for a building permit. Nolan asked for clarification of the two locations proposed (options). Benetti explained why two options were submitted and why. He stated the applicant prefers option #1 which is fine with staff. Nolan discussed the surrounding homes in the area and the distance of the tower from neighboring properties. Hainault stated that when the data submitted refers to wind turbine setbacks it pertains to Medina Planning Commission DRAFT June 10, 2008 Meeting Minutes EXCERPTS ONLY other wind turbines and their wind rights and not the setbacks of adjacent homes. Simons explained the inconsistency with the noise data provided for the application. Nolan asked the applicant what happens to the wind turbine after 20 years, will it be taken down. Hainault stated that the cost of decommissioning the turbine is factored into the overall cost and yes it would be removed. Litts stated she researched complaint articles pertaining to wind turbines in Wisconsin and Illinois. One concern of the US Fish and Wild Life is that wind turbines can impact birds. Hainault stated that the National Audubon Society supports wind turbines but that they do ask that wind turbines not be installed in natural fly ways. Hainault also explained that the manufacturers have made design improvements so that birds wouldn't perch on the blades. Litts mentioned that most complaints weren't noise related but more of the complaints pertained to the vibration, flickering, and shadows made from them and the impact on neighboring residential windows. Hainault said he couldn't comment on Litts concern but would be happy to have the commission tour the one at St. Olaf in Northfield, MN. He recommended markers be placed around the perimeter of the turbine in Northfield so that those that take the fieldtrip could get an idea of distance as it relates to sound, shadows and vibration. He also volunteered to assist in arranging the tour. Litts said that the articles also talked about residents within a quarter mile having issues with television reception, motion and shadows. She felt that since this would be along highway 55 it may be something of concern. She also indicated that her research suggested wind turbines should be at least one mile from homes and schools due to the motion and shadow distraction. R. Reid asked if St. Olaf mentioned receiving any complaints. Hainault said he was not aware of them receiving complaints. He further stated that it is Hennepin County's intent to follow all requirements of the City through this process. R. Reid asked what restrictions the City could attach to the application. Benetti reviewed the conditions identified in the staff report and further discussed the area around the tower that would have potential for future residential homes. Simons asked the applicant if they would be selling power and if so could they build one in a different location. Greg Carr, Hennepin County stated that since Hennepin County is a leader in technology they think this is a good way to continue their efforts of being a leader. He said that they completed a study of the general area and that the proposed site is one of the better locations for a wind turbine. Hainault also stated that Western Hennepin County has good wind resources and the proposed location is a very good site. Public Hearing opened at 8:36 p.m. Kirt, representing Dellcroft Farms spoke to the Commission. He is concerned with the constant moving shadow the turbine creates, the eyesore it would be and the negative impact it would have on residential properties near it. He's also not sure if anyone would build near it. He went to Elk River to visit the wind turbine there and parked their car 200 feet from it and noticed the whoosh sound that it creates. He felt it was disturbing and that it was more of a commercial or industrial type use in nature and shouldn't be near residential homes. His wife also felt that the sound was very disturbing and that if anyone had to be near it, it would drive them crazy. Medina Planning Commission DRAFT June 10, 2008 Meeting Minutes EXCERPTS ONLY Close Public Hearing at 8:43 p.m. Pederson felt the Commission should discuss the issues of noise and unsightliness. He asked the Commission if they were comfortable with the proposed size, location, and lighting. Nolan felt Pederson's comments were all good. He felt the data was not real clear and was conflicting. He's torn whether this is the right location, yet supports alternative energies. Once he heard that the County would be selling energy he wasn't sure it was the best location since it is more commercial in nature and would be next to a residential area. He's not saying no, but isn't convinced that it wouldn't be a problem. R. Reid raised concerns pertaining to noise and vibration. She indicated that once a person starts to hear the noise or feels the vibration it would be difficult to block out. She doesn't think our notification process/distance is acceptable. She felt we need to expand the notification mailings to a broader area since the impact of the turbine would be beyond those adjacent. She is also concerned that it will be producing more electricity than what they really need. Litts has a tough time with the application. She spoke with two neighbors that were not on the notification list and one neighbor was fine with the turbine and the other didn't want to live near it. The research she found says that most communities recommend a one mile radius from residential areas. She didn't think we knew enough about the wind turbines to recommend approval yet does agrees that green energy is a good thing. Simons asked about the notification distance. Benetti stated the notification mailing went 350 feet. Simons stated that he would like to hear from more residents. He felt it was a showcase project but isn't convinced that this is a good location. The inconsistent data submitted and impact of future development is a concern. Pederson asked the Commission if they'd want to go on a field trip to Northfield because he is leaning towards tabling the application. Benetti said it's a good idea to go on a field trip, invite the city council, and expand the area of notification. R. Reid felt the mailing notification should be City wide. V. Reid stated she was concerned with the wind turbine size and that it is more of a commercial type use yet realizes that no one wants it in their back yard. She doesn't want to destroy property values but realizes that the noise pollution on highway 55 already exists. She feels a little more supportive than the other Commissioners since wind energy is a direction we need to be going. She does not think it is terrible location. If she had to pick a location in Medina she felt that this is a good location since the area already has a lot of other noise with the traffic and railroad tracks. Pederson asked how close is option 2 to the railroad tracks. Benetti said approximately 350 feet. Carr stated he would like to set up markers at the Northfield wind turbine location. The markers would be placed in locations that would identify the setback distance of various items such as residential lot lines, nearby homes, and fall zone. He is in support to table the application and provide labels for the city wide mailing notification. He will get clarification on questions asked and prefers to have the Commission see the wind turbine up close. Medina Planning Commission DRAFT June 10, 2008 Meeting Minutes EXCERPTS ONLY Benetti explained to the Commission that the mailing would be $1,000.00 if it was City wide. He informed the Commission that he would have to clarify who pays for a mailing of this type. A consensus was made by the Commission to have a city wide mailing. Benetti explained that the mayor had called asking questions relating to the economic feasibility of such a project and that research was going to be done. Hainault said that the turbine manufacturer researches what size a future purchaser could afford. Simons made a motion to table the application requesting additional information and that a field trip be arranged to look at a wind turbine similar in height in Northfield. Motion by Simons, seconded by Nolan to table the application, require a City wide mailing and set-up a field trip to Northfield. TH©MAS H. H©RMAN 3300 WELLS F'ARGO CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403-4140 August 8, 2008 Medina City- Council — via e-mail Tom Crosby, Mayor tcrosby@faegre.com faegre.com Carolyn Smith, Council Member Carolyn.Smith(a co.anoka.mn.us Dan Johnson, Council Member danj@danetechnologies.com Elizabeth Weir, Council Member lizvweir@,gmail.com Joe Cavanaugh, Council Member Cavanaugh@mchsi.com Medina Planning Commission Jeff Pederson, Chair Charles Nolan, Vice Chair Mary Verbick Robin Reid Michele Litts Victoria Reid Jim Simons Adjacent Homeowners to 1975 and 19XX Hamel Road Re: Wind Turbine — Medina Planning Commission August 12, 2008 Dear Members of Council, Planning Commission and Adjacent Homeowners: I represent, as part owner, Dellcioft Farms in connection with the above -referenced matter. As the landowner most proximate to the proposed turbine and, thus, with the most to lose in terms of diminution of value to our land, I would like to ask the Commission to consider the following: (1) What advantage is there in approving the turbine for the City of Medina? I understand Medina gains no revenue from the turbine and no power. I am even told Hennepin County gains no power for its residents; that the energy generated is being sold to Xcel. (2) How does this turbine add to the rural character of Medina? Throughout the Comprehensive Plan process, we, as a landowner requesting higher density, were told how central it was to the character of Medina to maintain its singular, rural, Medina City Council, Planning Commission and Adjacent Homeowners August 8, 2008 Page 2 (3) unspoiled nature. How does this huge turbine not detract from that character? How are the noise and shadow issues raised by Commission members and residents to be addressed? (4) Have you quantified how much our property value will be diminished by this action or how much other landowners will be affected? We are mindful of the time you devote to City matters and do not mean, by this letter, to appear to be disrespectful of your efforts. It is hard, however, for us to see the benefits of this to the City of Medina as a whole or to neighboring landowners. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, on behalf of Dellcroft Farms THB/sgc cc: Burt and Jean Corwin Marvin and Betty Borman 604467.1 MEMORANDUM Agenda Item: 7 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti DATE: July 31, 2008 MEETING: August 12, 2008 Planning Commission SUBJ: Three Rivers Park District (Baker Golf Course) — 2935 Parkview Drive — Conditional Use Permit Amendment for a golf cart storage building Application Deadline Original Application Received: July 8, 2008 Complete Application Received: July 29, 2008 60-day Review Deadline: September 27, 2008 Overview of Request Three Rivers Park District has requested approval of an amendment to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Baker National Golf Course to allow construction of two 1,760 S.F. structures to store golf carts. Currently, carts are stored outdoors in approximately the location of the proposed structures. The applicants also seek approval for a small future addition to the clubhouse building for the purposes of building an ADA accessible restroom and shower -room. Plans are not available for this addition at this time, but staff suggested that the District add it to this application since it will likely be smaller than 450 S.F. in size (5% of the footprint of the clubhouse). The subject property is zoned Public/Semi-Public, where institutional outdoor recreational activities are listed as a Conditional Use. The original CUP was granted to the property in 1988, when the course was expanded to 27 holes and the club house was constructed. Since that time, a number of amendments have been granted, allowing additions to the clubhouse and construction of various accessory structures for course maintenance. Staff suggests integrating these amendments into one comprehensive CUP for the golf course operations so that future Park District and City staff only need to reference one resolution for the required operational conditions. It should also be noted that two variance have been granted for structures at Baker National Golf Course. The Park District was granted a shoreland setback for construction of the irrigation pumphouse and a building material variance to construct a steel -sided chemical building. Site Description Baker National Golf Course is located on two parcels, which are 529 and 156 acres in size. The course is located west of Parkview Drive, stretching most of the distance between Hamel Road and County Road 24. In addition to Baker National Golf Course, two other Park District facilities are also located on the larger parcel. The Marshview Group Camp and the old Natural Resource Management office are located on the larger parcel, adjacent to County Road 24. The remaining western portion of the large parcel is undeveloped except for existing nature trails. Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 1 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting Existing structures (and their footprint size) within the course include the clubhouse (9,600 S.F.), five structures in the maintenance area (total of 12,600 S.F.), the red barn used for storage (1,800 S.F.) two small structures near the driving range (total of 1300 S.F.), a small "starter building" (80 S.F.), and an irrigation pumphouse (196 S.F.). There are also vault latrines restroom facilities throughout the course. The proposed golf cart building location is over 640 feet from Parkview Drive and almost 2000 feet from Hamel Road. The location will be visible from the course itself, but not from neighboring properties. Park District staff believes the restroom/shower-room addition will likely be off of the front (east) of the clubhouse because there is easier access to plumbing and mechanical equipment. Proposed Location Buildings Details The proposed golf cart buildings are each 22' x 80' and are separated by a 22' wide driveway. A chain link gate will enclose the common driveway and control access to the buildings The building height of the proposed structures is approximately 13 feet, while the gross distance from slab to the top of the peak is 17 feet. The applicant proposes Hardie -board siding and a shingled roof, with architectural design fashioned after the clubhouse. Park District staff has not yet prepared even rough sketches of the restroom/shower-room addition. However, because of the scale of the addition, the Park District seeks approval on the CUP so that City staff may administrative review the building permit. Staff believes this is reasonable, and actually had suggested that the Golf Course look forward in its capital improvement plan to include any additional small projects. Staff suggests a condition that allows Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 2 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting 9 small (5% of existing footprint) additions to the existing buildings, without approval of another amended CUP, so long as certain conditions as met. This will allow construction of the restroom/shower-room addition, and other small additions if they would come up. Stormwater/Wetlands The proposed structures and cart driveway increase the hardcover on the site by approximately 1122 sq. ft. or 0.0038% of the entire site. Because this area drains to the retention pond on the property, and in the context of the stormwater utility fee recently enacted by the Council, staff requested information on the stormwater quality treatment of this pond. See the attached memo from the City Engineer for more information. The nearest wetland is over 1000 feet to the southwest of the golf cart building location. The Park District maintains a minimum of 20 feet native upland buffer around wetlands. Because of relatively small amount of disturbance, the distance from the proposed construction to the nearest wetland, and because drainage is directed into a treatment pond, staff does not believe the Upland Buffer requirements of the wetland ordinance are triggered. Nonetheless, the existing 20-foot buffers maintained by the Park District would meet the requirements of the ordinance. Conditional Use Permit Ordinance Compliance Section 825.39 states that when considering a CUP, the City shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of occupants or surrounding lands. Among other things, the City shall consider the following: L That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitte4 nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Staff believes the proposed golf cart structure will not intensify activities on the site, and improves the site by enclosing more of the on -site storage. 2. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. The City has previously determined that the golf course use will not impede the normal and orderly development in the area, and staff does not believe the proposed golf cart building nor the small additions in the future will intensify the use. 3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided Staff believes adequate facilities are proposed for the golf cart building and future small additions to the existing buildings. The attached letter from the City Engineer discusses stormwater treatment. The Fire Marshal has also reviewed the plan and has required "Fire Lane -No Parking" signage adjacent to the access drives, and has also required a key -box for fire department access to the buildings. 4. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. Neither the proposed golf cart building, nor a small addition to the clubhouse will not increase the parking needs of the golf course. Driveway circulation appears adequate for golf carts, and the fire Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 3 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting marshal has required necessary signage for fire access to the buildings. The existing parking lot provides 225 stalls. A previous CUP amendment requires the District to provide traffic control and overflow parking for large events. Staff has suggested this condition be continued. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result the paved Staff does not believe the golf cart building will increase any of these impacts. In fact, surface should reduce dust in comparison to the existing gravel lot. Additionally, electric carts should reduce noise in comparison to gas -powered carts. Future small additions should also have a minimum impact. 6. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. Baker National, although certainly holding appeal to a wider customer base, is an amenity for residents of Medina. 7. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. Outdoor recreational uses are consistent with the Public/Semi-Public land use. Additionally, constructing a building to house the golf carts is consistent with the zoning ordinance, which generally limits outside storage. The restroom/locker room addition would also help bring the building into compliance with accessibility codes. 8. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. Staff does not believe the use is in conflict with the Comp Plan Public/Semi-Public land use. 9. The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion. The addition of the golf cart building should not increase traffic concerns, nor should small additions to the existing buildings. In terms of the golf course use overall, the District is required by a previous CUP amendment to provide traffic control for larger events. Staff has suggested continuing this condition. 10. Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. The location, topography, and existing screening limit the visibility of the golf course in general. The golf cart building itself will be difficult to see from nearby properties. Five percent addition to the structures on the site would also have a minimum impact. 11. The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project. The Park District will begin construction of the golf cart building as soon as the project is approved, and they wish to have the buildings complete before spring 2009, when the electric golf carts arrive. The Park District did not have as solid of a timeline on the bathroom/shower-room addition, but it is on their project radar. 12. The developer shall provide proof of ownership of the property to the Zoning Officer. County records indicate Three Rivers Park District as the owner of the subject properties. Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 4 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting As referenced above, the structures meet setbacks, height, and exterior building material requirements of the Public/Semi-Public district. No significant trees are proposed to be removed, and erosion control methods will be utilized. It appears that the proposed structure abides by the requirements of the Public/Semi-Public district and the performance standards of the zoning ordinance. City Discretion The City has relatively limited discretion when reviewing =a Conditional Use Permit. If the application meets City ordinances, the CUP should be approved. However, if the City has discretion to impose conditions on the approval that protect the best interests of the surrounding community and the city as a whole. Section 825.41 states that these conditions could include, but are not limited to: ■ Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions. ■ Limiting the height, size or location of buildings. ■ Controlling the location and number of vehicle access points. ■ Increasing the street width. ■ Increasing the number of required off-street parking spaces. ■ Limiting the number, size, location or lighting of signs. ■ Required diking, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to protect adjacent or nearby property. ■ Designating sites for open space. Staff has recommended conditions below. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the amended conditional use permit. The proposed golf cart storage structures do not intensify the use. The buildings also reduce the amount of outside storage on the site. Staff is also supportive of language in the CUP to allow small (5% of existing building footprint) additions to existing buildings via an administrative review. As described above, staff suggests that the previous amendments to the conditional use permit be combined within one resolution so that it is clearer for everyone in the future. A number of the suggested conditions are carried over from these previous resolutions and are noted by italics. If the City is considering changing these conditions, it should be aware that Baker National is currently operating under the conditions. Through conversations with the applicant, the maximum number of employees was increased (from 7 full-time; 20 part-time). The Commission may wish to recommend this condition be removed. 1) Unless otherwise specified by this resolution, structures shall be limited to those identified on the site plan received by the City on July 29, 2008: 9,600 S.F. clubhouse; five structures in the maintenance area (total of 12,600 S.F.); two golf cart storage buildings (total of 3,520 S.F.); 1,800 S.F. storage bam; two driving range structures (total of 1,300 S.F.); 196 S.F. irrigation pumphouse; 80 S.F. starter building; and necessary vault latrine restroom facilities. 2) Existing structures may be expanded by up to 5% of the footprint size specified above without approval of an amended conditional use permit. These small additions shall be Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 5 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting reviewed by city staff for compliance with relevant ordinance and statute requirements. Additional structures or larger additions will be subject to conditional use permit review process requirements of the zoning ordinance. 3) The clubhouse shall comply with a 500 foot setback; 4) Parking shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from property lines; 5) There shall be no exterior storage on the site, including golf carts and other equipment; 6) Signs shall comply with city ordinances; 7) Exterior trash containers shall be screened from view with material wish is similar to used on the exterior of nearby buildings; 8) Hours of operation of the golf course and maintenance facility shall be 5: 30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Memorial Day through Labor Day and 7:00 a.m. to 9: 00 p.m. for the remainder of the year. 9) Hours of operation of the clubhouse shall be 6: 00 a.m. to midnight daily; 10) Exterior lighting shall be designed, installed, and maintained so the globe is recessed and enclosed on all sides except the bottom to prevent spread to areas not intended for illumination; 11) Exterior lighting for the clubhouse are only permitted at expressed entry points of the building. Lighting shall be downcast and meet the intensity requirements of the zoning ordinance; 12) Parking lot lighting shall be extinguished prior to 11: 00 p.m. unless a scheduled event is taking place which requires the lighting be on for a longer period of time; 13) Exterior lighting on the irrigation pumphouse shall be limited to security lighting under the east building soffit; 14) Use of the clubhouse by private groups shall be restricted to golfing, skiing and natural environment activities; 15) No outside speakers or telephone bells are permitted; 16) Driveways and access drives shall be posted with "No Parking" and "Fire Lane" signage as required by the fire marshal; 17) A special event held on the property at which more than 185 cars are expected must have proper traffic control. The applicant shall develop a contingency parking plan to be approved by the city under such circumstances; 18) There shall be no more than nine full-time employees and 30 seasonal employees; 19) No heating equipment shall be used or installed within the barn because of limited accessibility to the structure. The barn shall not be utilized for any purpose other than cold storage; 20) Construction of the golf cart buildings, including exterior building materials, shall be in substantial conformance with the plans received by the City on July 8, 2008; 21) The Applicant shall obtain any necessary permit from the Pioneer -Sarah Watershed District for construction of the golf cart building; and 22) The Applicant shall pay to the City a fee in the amount sufficient to pay for all costs associated with the review of the conditional use permit application. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. City Engineer comments dated July 29, 2008 3. Applicant Letter 4. Site/Building plans for golf cart buildings Baker Park National Golf Course CUP Amendment Page 6 of 6 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting .MAPLES T t QS. Independence Location Map COUNTY ROAD 24 Hamel Road School r- July 29, 2008 Ms. Debra Peterson -Dufresne Planning Assistant City of Medina 2052 County Road 24 Hamel, Minnesota 55340 Re: Baker National Golf Cart Storage CUP Bonestroo File No. 000190-08000-1 Plat No. L-08-033 Dear Deb, 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com Bonestroo We have reviewed the site and building plans for the proposed golf cart storage at the Baker National Golf Course. The plans propose to construct two new electric golf cart storage buildings and driveway. The majority of the building space will occupy an existing paved golf cart parking area. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The storm water run off from the project will flow overland to an existing storm water retention and treatment pond approximately 1000 feet west of the site. Storm water calculations have been submitted showing minimal water quantity and quality impacts due to this improvement. • The applicant has submitted a written description of proposed erosion control measures. These measures should be reviewed and verified along with the construction sequencing at the preconstruction meeting. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (651) 604-4894. Sincerely, BONESTROO Darren Amundsen cc: Tom Kellogg Dusty Finke t e Three Rivers Park District Board of Commissioners. Sara Wyatt District 1 Marilynn Corcoran, Vice Chair District 2 Mark Hagge District 3 Y Dale Woodbeck District 4 Rosemary Franzese District 5 Larry Biackstad, Chair Appointed ThreeRavers PARK DISTRICT Baker National Golf Course Electric Cart Storage Buildings Three Rivers Park District is switching from gas operated to electric golf carts and is proposing to build two electric golf cart storage buildings at Baker National Course. The buildings will be 22' x 80' in size, separated by a 22' x 80' common entrance area for moving carts. Construction will be wood frame with cement frost footings and concrete floors, exteriors to match the existing Clubhouse in color and basic design features. The building will function as cold storage only and will not be open to the public. 1. The distance from the proposed buildings to the nearest property line would be 640 ft west of the road right-of-way for Park View Drive. 2. The distance to the nearest existing building, the Clubhouse, would be 69 ft. 3. The height of the proposed buildings would be 17.1 ft from slab level; the height of the existing Clubhouse building would be 31.4 ft from the proposed buildings slab level. 4. The existing hard surface entrance road (2736 sq ft) leading to the current gasoline -cart outside hard surface storage area (3520 sq ft), will be removed and prepped with an additional 3520 sq ft for the proposed buildings. The new entrance drive from the west, including the surface area between the buildings, will be 3938 sq ft. The total surface area gain would be 1122 sq ft. S. The only exterior lighting on the building will be wall pack mounted fixtures, model RAB lighting WPIFCH70QT, mounted to the top of the walls on the buildings. The lights will illuminate 90 degrees down from horizontal directly at the ground. 6. The nearest utility would be an electrical transformer 215 ft to the ENE. According to Excel Energy, this transformer would power the proposed buildings. 7. The area would drain to the existing storm drain located 35 ft NW of the proposed buildings, adjacent to the existing cart path, this storm drain empties into the retention pond east of the maintenance shop. 8. The buildings will be signed as required by fire regulations. 9. The enclosed CD contains electronic copies of all the documents pertaining to this application. If any questions arise, please contact: Jim Olesen Central Services Manger Three Rivers Park District 612-490-0844 Mark Dusbabek Central Services Coordinator OR Three Rivers Park District 612-490-7854 Administrative Center, 3000 Xenium Lane North, Plymouth, MN 55441-1299 Information 763.559.9000 • TTY 763.559.6719 • Fax 763.559.3287 • www.ThreeRiversParkDistrict.org ThreeRivon PARIC'DISTR1CT Building Layout Golf Cart Storage Building Baker Park Reserve EXISTING:CCUBHOLSE Building height 31.4 ft from new Cart building slab Y Scale, 1" I= 401 Date: 04.112000> L7rraMI:by: D. Elias Impervious Surface Areas 34>EVELOnte STAITI,Osittellgirktio$ Cott Stariejiie Site Pien.dwp ! • . . • .,/ / - ---- 4 / ! ,. t • if • , / / / / ThreeRivers PARK Kt/STRICT NOw Electric Golf Cart Storage Buildings Golf Cart Storage Building Baker Park Reserve Printed: Vilif12098 3:52 PPI , A.1 Scale: 1" _ 40' Date: 04.11,2008 Draiem by: D. Elias Area A New Cart Building 3520 Sq Area B New Entrance Pad 3938 Sq Area C Existing Entrance to be removed) 3600 Sq Existing pad For carts to be Removed 3600 Sq Net Gain 1122 Sq Ft Map prepared by Three Rivers Park Distnd GIS July 2008 macs ram epro red -a: Is' .a,w, errmty matsdA•Ilmitare �I e=Wnr�,ed<ma�.� Baker Golf Utilities for Proposed Cart Storage Building ri. :'_ ; 41� 7 0 i�� _ 7n:3Md��7nr. ryL � r ' Legend ® Electric_Transformers Electric_Pullbox Use_ -FT General Park Use 71137 Ski Use Electric_PowerPoles ® General Park Use • Electric Meter Electric Lights Class Geneal Park Ughls Golf Lights Gas_Meters Use ElGeneral Park Use Ski Use Nursery Use • Nursery Use Irrigation_MH Use General Park Use Nt Ski Use General Gate Valve • Sanitary_Manhole • Sanitary_Cleanout Stonn_MaMde • Storm_Catch_Basin Drain_Tle CB • Telephone_Risers eWater Wells 1.4 Water Valves • Water Manhole Water_Hydrants Use_ °{r> General Park Use Water Drink_Fountain Electric_Cable Cable Loc Irrigation Line Use_ ---- General Park Use ---a^•— Golf Use •••••^°—.. Sanitary_Unes Storm Sewer Type - General Park Slonn Sewer --== Golf Storm Sewer �—^ Drain Tile Telephone_lines Cable_Loc Overhead --^^ Underground «-^® PubllcAddress Unes ^— Water_Unes • Irrigation Heads Satellite Coniml_Boxes IN Quick Coupler Valves Fle" 4 Gate Valves KOCatch Basins O Drain Tile Daylights Gasdine_Tanks_AG Sanitary_Tanks_UG Buildings r J Park Bounden. T'hree.Rivers PARK DISTRICT k•41LIE:. -17,. 14svnte.1 •": 3,1,04 02.$1;A:541. Nt4 '44K-4 , • • 71,*(51:14.i. r 044,6 • .735:9-ii3aY • . 4 9. • °1k'4 7$: 0)5., • / \• • ;!!,(4'e 4:744Vr Wood.. . T • • ••• 7.77 •-•,:xsome). .4- f • • .. 4 4 • • . •• 1'7: • '...-.;•`•,•••••• • • • • ••'' "•:. 77.'• . . . • — r. .• • N.4rri- at, $5111111 1118111111W :.,',4911=14 SWIM remEtn;,,.,savo paw 7,0-ARIELN, 'eAtiS,im sisores 2r-,/,0MUM, NAM MIMI ::,,,,,,A65211MMIL,X1 = 4,VPREFII>oto4MINUMMNYM AISITIMilE,,,,,,,,.... Wo Mk, ,-*WRZT,e,et ulz.,Me • `,`'_‘, ',4"; siammt '4,_.4tingillin IMMO ONSPillX`VI\ SIIIII IMMIIEM 1111571P" /4=i67,o 'MI MIMI rev comm. AN - • Aiwysgbli:•010..,A., -1 = _ tira" A VIMMONT5negf. '4% ' I • I .;!ir• 54 f'••:•• • ;,. • • •;:•.•••,.• fr •• • ktelt••••—'--,----"—a—, • •citte._ :r Agenda Item: 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti DATE: August 5, 2008 MEETING: August 12, 2008 Planning Commission SUBJ: Private Recreation Zoning Ordinance Background The 2010-2030 Comp Plan Update identifies three areas as "Private Recreation" land uses. This includes the two golf courses in the City (Medina Golf and Country Club; a small portion of Spring Hill Golf Club which is predominantly located in Orono) and the portion of.YMCA's Camp Ihduhapi which extends into Medina. Currently, these areas are zoned Public/Semi-Public, which also currently include parks and pubic buildings. During the process of updating the Comp Plan, there was a lot of discussion about the Public/Semi-Public land use for a variety of reasons: 1) to recognize the private (as opposed to public) ownership of the property; 2) a proposal to develop residential units along the perimeter of the Medina Golf and Country, Club; 3) discussions about churches, cemeteries, schools, and other similar uses. As a result of these conversation, the Comp Plan update identifies three different land uses in place of the previous Public/Semi-Public: a "Parks and Recreation" use, a "Public/Semi-Public" use (churches, cemeteries, government buildings), and a "Private Recreation" use (golf courses, camp area). Comp Plan Compliance Description from Chapter 5 - Land Use and Growth Private Recreation (PREC) refers to areas that are currently used for recreational uses, are held under private ownership including a campground and golf courses and could be expanded to include other recreational uses that are not publicly maintained. Limited numbers of residential uses will be included within this land use designation. Language from Chapter 7 — Implementation Private Recreational (PREC) land use designation identifies areas that are privately held for open space and recreational activities. These areas are important to the overall character of the community, but the City does not hold any conservation rights to preserve them as long-term open space. To encourage owners to maintain these areas for the enjoyment of the community, the PREC land use designation allows for limited residential and business uses. A minimum of two zoning districts supporting this land use will be required: one for urban service areas and one for the rural areas. Private Recreation Page 1 of 3 August 12, 2008 Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting Two Districts (PREC-R; PREC-U) The Implementation chapter of the Comp Plan describes the need for at least two PREC zoning districts, one district for the rural area and one for the portion of the City where sewer and water are available. The draft ordinance includes these two districts. General Lot/Development Standards The standards in the existing Public/Semi-Public district are very limited. Adding a more exhaustive list of regulations (building materials, landscaping, etc.) may cause existing structures and uses to become non -conforming. The draft ordinance does include some additional regulations. The table below summarizes these standards in comparison to the existing Public/Semi-Public zoning district. Public/Semi-Public (existing zoning) Private Recreation — Urban Private Recreation — Rural Minimum Lot Size No regulation 12 acres 30 acres Front Setback 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Rear Setback 30 feet 30 feet 50 feet Side Setback 30 feet 30 feet 50 feet Impervious Surface No regulation (60% on any lot) 40% 20% Building Height 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Outside Storage No regulation 20% of principal building footprint 20% of principal building footprint Residential Uses in PREC-U The Comp Plan update states that "limited numbers of residential uses will be included" within PREC. This arose primarily in response to a proposal to develop twin homes along the Medina Golf and Country Club. The City heard a Concept Plan on such a proposal back in 2006, and was generally favorable to the use. The applicant was also involved during the Comp Plan update process. Again, the Comp Plan Advisory Panel, Planning Commission, and City Council appeared favorable to residential uses along the perimeter of the golf course. Private Recreation Zoning Ordinance Page 2 of 3 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting The draft ordinance allows residential development within the Private Recreation -Urban (PREC-U) district, but not within the Private Recreation -Rural (PREC-R) district. Proposed residential development is required to go through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process of the ordinance. Staff believes- the PUD process is preferable because it more easily allows a mix of recreation and residential uses, and because it allows a more effective way to limit the portion of the property which is residentially developed. The City has identified the maintenance of these recreational uses as a goal. Allowing residential development on a portion of the property is an economic incentive to achieve this goal. However, allowing too much of the PREC property to be developed goes against the very reason why residential is being allowed. The draft ordinance limits residential development to 15% of the property. The Commission should discuss if this percentage is preferable. As a point of reference, the 2006 Medina Golf and Country Club concept was approximately 12.5% of the property of the course. The draft ordinance requires that any residential development maintain a density of 3.5-5.0 units/net acre. This is equivalent to the low end of the medium density residential land use. Staff targeted this density to achieve additional residential units while trying to limit impacts to the recreational/open space amenities of the PREC property. The Commission should discuss the preferred density. The ordinance does not include additional development standards for residential development. Regulations such as lot size and setbacks would be determined as part of the PUD review. This would leave the most flexibility for proposed development. If the Commission wished for explicit regulations on these matters, they could be added to the ordinance. Open House Feedback Staff held an Open House on the ordinance amendment, with notices being sent to all properties within 350 feet of the PREC properties. Two neighbors attended the meeting. One family had specific comments related to the 2006 concept at Medina Golf and Country Club. They believed twinhomes were not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and did not believe Shawnee Woods Road was a good street to access additional homes. The developer who proposed the 2006 concept at Medina Golf and Country Club was also present, and suggested the proportion of the property which can be developed be increased to 20%. Staff also spoke with a representative from the YMCA, who asked a number of questions, but did not provide specific feedback. Attachments 1. Conceptual zoning designation map for PREC properties 2. Draft ordinance Private Recreation Page 3 of 3 August 12, 2008 Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Meeting Private Recreation Parcels Camp Iduhapi Possible Zoning Designation PREC-R PREC-U Medina Golf and Country Club Spring Hill Golf Club Map Date: July 30, 2008 CITY OF MEDINA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE PRIVATE RECREATION -URBAN ZONING DISTRICT AND PRIVATE RECREATION -RURAL ZONING DISTRICT; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 837.1 AND 837.2. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MEDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section I. The Medina code of ordinances is amended to add new section 837 et seq. as follows: PRIVATE RECREATION -URBAN DISTRICT Section 837.1.01. Private Recreation -Urban (PREC — U) - Purpose. The purpose of the Private Recreation -Urban (PREC-U) district is to provide a zoning district for facilities which offer recreational activities to the public, within areas served by city sewer and water, but which are generally not publicly owned. The large lots within this district also provide open space that is important to the character of the community. The PREC-U district may also include limited residential development in order to support the continuation of broader recreation and open space amenities in the community. Section 837.1.02. (PREC-U) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the PREC-U district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: Subd. 1. Essential services. Subd. 2. Nature study areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and arboretums. Subd. 3. Parks and open space. Subd. 4. Residential dwellings, subject to the requirements of Section 837.1.08 below. Section 837.1.03. (PREC-U) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the PREC-U district, subject to conditional use permit approval, and other applicable provisions of the city code: Subd. 1. Outdoor recreational facilities (including uses similar to: golf courses, country clubs, driving ranges, campgrounds and resorts). Section 837.1.04. (PREC-U) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be allowed within the PREC-U district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: Subd. 1. Off-street parking and loading. 1 Subd. 2. Signs. Subd. 3. Restaurants and food service. Subd. 4. Licensed on -sale liquor establishments. Subd. 5. Outdoor dining, drinking or entertainment area. Section 837.1.05. (PREC-U) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Minimum Lot Size: 12 acres Subd. 2. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 50 feet Subd. 3. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 30 feet Subd. 4. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 30 feet Subd. 5. Outdoor Recreation and Parking Setback: Outdoor improvements, areas intended for recreational purposes, and parking areas shall abide by the same setbacks required for structures. Subd. 6. Animal Structure Setback: Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line. Subd. 7. Maximum Impervious Surface: Impervious surface coverage shall not exceed 40 percent. Section 837.1.06. (PREC-U) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet Subd. 2. Outside Storage: Outside storage shall not exceed 20 percent of the footprint area of the principal structure on the lot. Outside storage areas must be located and screened in a way so as not to be visible from adjacent property. At a minimum, outside storage areas shall meet the structure setback requirements of the district. Subd. 3. Outside Storage of Service Vehicles: For every 5,000 square feet of building footprint, outside storage of one service vehicle shall be allowed. Such service vehicles shall have current and valid license, be in operable condition for use on public streets, and be regularly utilized in the property's daily operations. Vehicles stored consistent with this provision shall not be counted against outside storage limitations. 2 Section 837.1.07. (PREC-U) Additional Design and Development Standards for Conditional Uses. Subd. 1. A detailed plan shall be submitted to the city describing how the proposed outdoor recreational facility's impacts on neighboring properties and public rights -of -way will be minimized The city may require additional conditions to reduce the potential for adverse impacts including, but not limited to, the following: additional setbacks for areas which are intensively utilized for recreational activities; additional landscaping, berming, or fencing; and limitations on the hours of operation. Subd. 2. The city may require evidence of liability insurance specifically covering private property damage, depending on the type of outdoor recreational facility proposed. Subd. 3. Adequate restroom facilities shall be provided. Subd. 4. Unless within an outside storage area or otherwise permitted by this section, all equipment and vehicles must be stored within a building. Section 837.1.08. (PREC-U) Residential Development. In order to encourage the continuation of the recreation and open space amenities of PREC-U property in the community, a limited amount of residential development shall be permitted within this district. Such development shall abide by the following restrictions and other relevant regulations of the city code. Subd. 1. Maximum Area Limitation. No more than 15 percent of the gross acreage of a property containing a recreational facility or permitted use may be utilized for residential development. Subd. 2. Allowed Residential Density. Residential development within the district shall include a minimum of 3.5 and a maximum of 5.0 units per net acre. Subd. 3. Planned Unit Development Required. Residential development within the district must be in the form of a planned unit development (PUD). All proposed residential development will be reviewed and subject to the PUD process and requirements set forth in Sections 827.27-827.43 of the city code. 3 PRIVATE RECREATION -RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (PREC-R) Section 837.2.01. Private Recreation -Residential (PREC-R) - Purpose. The purpose of the Private Recreation -Residential (PREC-R) district is to provide a zoning district for facilities which offer recreational activities to the public that are within areas not served by city sewer and water, but which are generally not publicly owned. The large lots within this district also provide open space important to the character of the community. Section 837.2.02. (PREC-R) Permitted Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the PREC-R district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code: Subd. 1. Essential services. Subd. 2. Nature study areas, wildlife sanctuaries, and arboretums. Subd. 3. Parks and open space. Section 837.2.03. (PREC-R) Conditional Uses. The following shall be permitted uses within the PREC-R district, subject to conditional use permit approval, and other applicable provisions of the city code: Subd. 1. Outdoor recreational facilities (including uses similar to: golf courses, country clubs, driving ranges, campgrounds and resorts). Section 837.2.04. (PREC-R) Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall be allowed within the PREC-R district, subject to applicable provisions of the city code and provided such use is subordinate to and associated with a permitted or conditional use: Subd. 1. Off-street parking and loading. Subd. 2. Signs. Subd. 3. Restaurants and food service. Subd. 4. Licensed on -sale liquor establishments. Subd. 5. Outdoor dining, drinking or entertainment area. Subd. 6. Riding stables. Section 837.2.05. (PREC-R) Lot Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. Minimum Lot Size: 30 acres Subd. 2. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 50 feet 4 Subd. 3. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 50 feet Subd. 4. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 50 feet Subd. 5. Outdoor Recreation and Parking Setback: Outdoor improvements, areas intended for recreational purposes, and parking areas shall abide by the same setbacks required for structures. Subd. 6. Animal Structure Setback: Structures or buildings used to house, exercise or accommodate animals shall not be erected within 150 feet of any lot line. Subd. 7. Maximum Impervious Surface: Impervious surface coverage. shall not exceed 20 percent. Section 837.2.06. (PREC-R) Design and Development Standards. The following standards shall be observed, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in the city code: Subd. 1. The design and development standards of the Private Recreation -Urban (PREC-U) district shall apply, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance. Subd. 2. When determining necessary specifications for sewage treatment systems, the city shall consider the proposed use, soil suitability, and environmental factors. Section 837.2.07. (PREC-R) Additional Design and Development Standards for Conditional Uses. The design and development standards of the Private Recreation -Urban (PREC-U) district shall apply, subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in other sections of this ordinance. SECTION II. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption and publication. Adopted by the city council of the city of Medina this day of , 2008. T.M. Crosby, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Chad M. Adams, City Administrator -Clerk Published in the South Crow River News this day of , 2008. 5 Agenda Item: 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Dusty Finke, Associate Planner; through Planning Director Benetti DATE: August 5, 2008 MEETING: August 12, 2008 Planning Commission SUBJ: Mixed Use Zoning District(s) - Commission Discussion Background The 2010-2030 Comp Plan Update identifies a number of areas as "Mixed Use" (MU) land use. The MU parcels are pink on the attached Future Land Use map. The Mixed Use designation is different from the Mixed Use -Business land use which was discussed in Uptown Hamel. MU-B allows residential units above retail uses within the same parcel, or a mix of uses throughout the district. MU parcels, on the other hand, are generally larger vacant parcels which abut a major roadway and extend towards existing residential uses. Commercial uses make sense near the road while residential is preferable adjacent to existing homes. Rather than drawing arbitrary lines through property to designate the break between commercial and residential, the MU designation was used. In order to account for the number of residential units on these parcels, the Comp Plan requires residential development equivalent to 3.5-7.0 units/net acre across half of the property. Comp Plan Compliance Description from Chapter 5 - Land Use and Growth Mixed -Use (MU) provides opportunities for multiple, compatible uses on a single site including a residential component and one or more of the following: general business, commercial, office and public semi-public uses in each case where the primary use is residential. The areas designated with this land use will have residential densities between 3.5 units per acre and 6.99 units per acre. The mixed -use areas are served, or are intended to be served, by urban services in the future. Language from Chapter 7 - Implementation Mixed -Use land use designations are designed to allow greater flexibility to both the City and a developer to respond to market conditions while still maintaining a balanced land use pattern. The development of mixed -use zoning will need to include a minimum of two districts to address vertically integrated mixed use (Mixed -Use Business), where residential space is above the commercial space, and lateral mixed use (Mixed -Use) where commercial and residential building exist together in the zoning district. The Mixed -Use land use designation dictates that a minimum of fifty percent of a given property will include a residential component, whereas the Mixed -Use Business designation assumes a strong business component as well as increased density. Mixed -Use Business designation is focused around Uptown Hamel and may be able to utilize the Uptown Hamel zoning designation. Mixed -Use zoning districts will need to address the following elements: a) Percentage and composition of uses on a particular site; Mixed Use Zoning Ordinance Page 1 of 3 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Discussion Planning Commission Meeting b) Accommodation of mixed -use across an entire development and not on each individual parcel; c) Assemblage by owners and developers of smaller parcels to help create a unified environment; d) Architectural and design standards that are specific to the location and type of mixed -use; and e) Conservation standards to ensure a high quality of life MU Zoning District Staff recommends that the Mixed Use district be designed as a "placeholder" until the subject property develops. The City will be establishing standards for commercial and residential zoning districts over the next six months. Guidelines for development within the MU district could then be based off of these newly established districts. In terms of process, the MU property could then be subdivided and rezoned (to a combination of commercial and residential districts), or if could be reviewed through a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Designing the district as a "placeholder," prevents the need to duplicate regulations and it also supports the vision of a mix of uses on different areas of the property (instead of vertical mixed -use or allowing a mix of uses throughout the entire property). The ordinance will include regulations to give additional guidance for the design of a MU site which are above and beyond the commercial and residential district standards. These additional regulations will address the implementation goals described in the Comp Plan (density decreasing closer to low -density residential; creating a unified, connected environment). Discussion Items Crafting Specific MU Standards vs. Referencing Existing Residential/Commercial Standards Staff has recommended designing the district as a "placeholder" which will utilize the commercial and residential district standards to review development. The other option would be to establish separate standards for the residential and commercial portions of MU. Residential Density The Comp Plan requires 3.5-7.0 units/net acres on half of the MU property. This is a fairly wide density range. Through zoning regulations, the City may want to target the density more specifically. For example, the MU properties north of Loretto are adjacent to High Density Residential future uses and it may make sense to have more density in this location than south of Foxberry Farms (Low Density Residential). The Comp Plan calls for "...greater flexibility...to respond to market conditions while still maintaining a balanced land use pattern." Obviously the greatest flexibility would be achieved by not placing additional limitations on the density (beyond the 3.5 to 7.0 units/net acre). The City would have limited discretion to deny applications which are perceived to have too high of density but are still within the allowed range. As described above, the ordinance will be written to require that density decreases in proximity to low -density residential uses. Mixed Use Zoning Ordinance Page 2 of 3 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Discussion Planning Commission Meeting Prepare Mixed Use Ordinance after Commercial and Residential are Complete? If the Commission is supportive of utilizing the residential and commercial district standards which are yet to be established, it may beg the question whether the mixed -use ordinance should be prepared after the commercial and residential districts are completed. This will provide more context for the ordinance. If the Commission wishes for separate standards for Mixed Use (not utilizing the commercial/residential districts), it would be possible to move forward with the ordinance. Action Requested/Next Steps The Planning Commission should discuss the topics above and provide feedback. Depending on the wishes of the Commission, staff will return to the September meeting with the draft ordinance, or edit the Implementation Workplan and bring the ordinance back following adoption of the residential and commercial districts. Staff will, like previous ordinances, seek feedback from relevant stakeholders as well. Attachment Draft Future Land Use Map (MU is identified with pink) Mixed Use Zoning Ordinance Page 3 of 3 August 12, 2008 Planning Commission Discussion Planning Commission Meeting HIGHWAY 55 p4 HACKAMORE Independence Map 5-2 City of Medina Future Land Use Plan Guide Plan Permanent Rural Rural Res -Urban Reserve Low Density Res 2.0 - 3.49 U/A Medium Density Res 3.5 - 6.99 U, High Density Res 7 - 30 U/A Mixed Use 3.5 - 6.99 U/A Mixed Use - Business 7 - 45 U/A Commercial General Business Industrial Business Private Recreation (PREC) Parks and Recreation Open Space Public Semi -Public 0 U/A Closed Sanitary Landfill ROW-E This map is not perfectly precise. Actual boundaries may vary, and should be field verified. Map Date: February 15, 2008 Parceld current as of October 2006 UTM, Zone 15N, NAD 83 Scale: 1:30,000 DRAFT 0.25 0.5 1 Mile