Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-20 PACKET 08.B. EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 21, 2015, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.5 Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 Ecoplexus has applied for a conditional use permit for a community solar garden on approximately 80 acres of land located one quarter mile south of 70th Street (CSAH 22) and one quarter mile north of 77th Street and east of Laverne Avenue. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Johnson asked why this application is being reviewed now because it is missing some key information regarding the design of the system. McCool responded that Xcel Energy’s and Ecoplexus’ engineers are working on the design for the proposed project. The applicant reported that the design has not been completed for review at this point in time and that they do accept the conditions in the report that all electric utility lines must be underground and will convey that to Xcel Energy. If they can’t meet the conditions of approval, the project won’t happen or they will need to come back to the Planning Commission to amend the conditions of their conditional use permit. Zopfi asked where the Kohls’ property is located. McCool pointed out their 80 acres of land on the map. Brittain noted that there is a large area without solar panels on the property and asked if the system could expand. McCool responded that they would need to apply for a conditional use permit for any expansion. Brittain noted that with cellular towers there is typically an equipment building for electro-mechanical infrastructure and asked if that is a city requirement. McCool responded that the city ordinance does not require those buildings; the developers of the communication systems have always proposed it, so it is part of the conditional use permit review. Nathan Rogers, 650 Townsend Street, Suite 315, San Francisco, California, 94103, stated that he is also joined by Mary Matze of Landform Professional Services, who has been helping with the site plan and surveying. He gave information on Ecoplexus and provided a slideshow presentation on solar gardens. He explained the difference between solar gardens, where there are subscribers who sign a 25-year lease to purchase power from the garden, and solar farms, which are power plants where the utility is buying the power at wholesale cost. He stated that he spoke with Mrs. Kohls last week and she asked for evergreen landscaping on the east side of this property and they are amenable to that. He then stated that as an alternative to chain link fencing, they are looking at agricultural or deer fencing. He noted that if fencing is required by city code, then their fencing will comply with that code requirement. He displayed pictures of the type of fencing they are proposing. Rogers explained that the panels are wired, and the wires run under the panels and are connected at the combiner boxes at the end of each row. They run to the inverters and transformers and then run underground until they meet with Xcel’s existing distribution infrastructure on 72nd Street. He also stated that the facility conforms to the valuation standards. He then explained the benefits of solar energy gardens. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 December 21, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Johnson asked if he is confident that Xcel will be able to bury these lines as required, but it is just a matter of cost. Rogers stated that is correct. Zopfi asked what the percentage of renewable energy that Xcel is required to put on line by 2020. Rogers responded 31.5 percent with an additional 1.5 percent specifically for solar. Brittain asked about the coverage on this particular acreage and if there is an intention to expand. Rogers responded that the output of the solar garden is limited by program regulations. There were debates about that at the Public Utilities Commission, because there were proposals for 10 to 50 megawatt solar farms, which is not in the spirit of the legislation, so the agreement that was reached between the industry, Xcel, and the Commission was five megawatts. Five megawatt solar farms require about 30 acres; this proposal is for about 37 acres, which could shrink. Brittain asked as the efficiency of solar panels goes up over time, will fewer solar panels be needed or will they allow the same footprint to output more energy. Rogers responded that while solar panels have grown incrementally more efficient over time, he does not see that happening. He also stated that they have in place with the landowner to lease 40 acres, and they are limited under the law from exporting more than five megawatts of capacity at any one time. Brittain asked why the setback shows zero feet on the north side. McCool stated that the fencing can go right up to the property line, but the solar collector panels are required to setback 20-feet for a side property line and 50-feet from the rear lot line. The applicant’s site plan shows that the solar collector field complies with the minimum setback requirements. Fox asked about feeder lines. Rogers stated that they believe they are near enough to a substation, noting that theoretically, you can build anything anywhere. In Minnesota the program rules require that there can’t be more than a million dollars’ worth of upgrades. This project is currently undergoing an interconnection study by Xcel and they are looking at the conditions of the local grid to determine what kind of equipment is needed to safely accommodate this facility and how much it would cost. He noted that if they find out there is a single-phase line going down 72nd Street, they would have to rebuild it all the way to 70th Street, which could cost over a million dollars, and that would kill the project. Brittain opened the public hearing. David Hieserich, 7545 Laverne Avenue South, commented that this would be five megawatts when the sun is shining and there hasn’t been much sun lately. He asked how much noise the transformers generate. He also expressed concern about reflections, as he lives southwest of the proposed solar garden. He asked if the panels are moveable and track the sun or do they just stay in the position in which they were installed. Rogers replied that the inverters are the noisiest component of the facility and make an electrical hum that can be heard from about a hundred foot radius but they are located in the interior of the facility so are about 100 feet from the property line. From the perimeter of the facility, it should be completely silent. He stated that this most likely will be a fixed tilt system as tracking systems are more expensive and generally there is not enough sun to warrant the added expense. He then stated that the glare from the panels is similar to what comes off a body of water. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 December 21, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Gene Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive South, asked what types of vegetation they plant and how is it maintained to keep the property weed free. Mary Matze, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Minneapolis, responded that they have proposed a MnDOT native species mix to go underneath the panels. It is a shade-tolerant mix and will probably not grow much higher than the bottom of the panel height, which is about two feet. Ecoplexus comes in to maintain the site throughout the year to ensure that vegetation does not grow above the height of the panels so the site looks nice and the panels aren’t shaded. Rogers stated that there is an economic interest for them to keep the site tidy because the panels are very shade sensitive. He explained that they subcontract for mowing services. Beverly Moreland, 8679 Greystone Avenue South, stated that she does not live in that area but has a friend with children whose house is backed up to the field. She asked if the fence would completely encircle the area. She also stated that the big white containers and the solar panels would be an eyesore. Rogers stated that the fence will go all around the facility itself and the boxes and transformers are locked. Brittain noted their amenability to additional landscaping on the eastern portion of the site and asked if that could be done for other areas. Rogers responded that they are not opposed to that but during the growing season the western and southern portions of the property will be obscured by crops. Victor Pruesser, 7540 Laverne Avenue South, asked how the solar garden would affect their property values. Rogers stated that he has worked with property appraisers in other states and has learned that the main elements that drive down property values are nuisances such as odors, noise, toxic emissions, pollutants, and adult business; solar energy does not feature any of those with the exception of a noise that would not be audible beyond the property line. In North Carolina where there are lots of these facilities, they have commissioned a number of match-pair analyses, which look at identical properties with only difference being that one is near a solar farm, and in each of those cases they did not discover any discernible difference in property values. Jim Hunter, 11200 Upper 74th Street South, stated that his house is about 20 feet from the property line of the 80-acre parcel. He is opposed to having the solar garden next to his property. He stated that Old Cottage Grove is an historic area, was the original community of Cottage Grove, features farmland and historic buildings, and he would like to preserve that. The residents in the area are worried about the impact on their property values. He stated that this also does not conform to the City’s current comprehensive plan, which says “maintain small town character” and “what people like best about Cottage Grove, the residents have repeatedly stated that they value the small town feel. A key challenge will be to retain the small town character. As the city grows, the ability of residents to identify with individual neighborhoods will increase in importance.” He stated that he has lived there for 28 years. He expressed concerned about increased traffic on 72nd Street. He does not want to look at solar panels. He requested that if something this passes, that there be something in writing stating that the rest of the 80 acres cannot be developed in the same way. He does not believe this matches what Cottage Grove wants. He noted that this 80 acres is highly productive cropland and during the growing season removes 640 tons of carbon dioxide from the air and produces enough oxygen to supply a year’s breathing for 10,400 people. He stated that there are other areas in the city to put solar gardens that aren’t on prime agricultural land, such as the gravel pits on Grey Cloud Island, buffer areas between industrial and residential areas, and by 3M. The federal government put this solar garden initiative together and envisioned small Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 December 21, 2015 Page 4 of 6 community-based solar gardens with up to one megawatt on less than five acres to serve just the local community and the developers are trying to make more money by turning agricultural land into a power plant without rezoning to industrial. Rogers responded that they would be amenable to a condition that states that the facility shall not exceed 40 or 45 acres in size so there is assurance in writing that the facility would not grow in the future. Regarding traffic to and from the site, after construction there will effectively be none. The site would be accessed site a few times a year for maintenance by a local landscape company. He then stated that the community solar program is a state program, not federal. Hieserich asked how this site was chosen, noting that there are better locations. He thinks the panels should be on the top of buildings or over a parking lot but not on prime land. Teri Hunter, 11200 Upper 74th Street South, stated that a conditional use permit allows the city to consider uses which could be essential or desirable but residents can challenge a conditional use permit. She questions whether this is essential and stated that it is not desirable. She noted that their house is 20 feet from the fields and she does not want to look at solar panels. She also stated that they own three other buildable lots that border this property. She believes this will cause the loss of good agricultural land. She stated that in Monticello they were going to do a solar garden and got turned down by the Public Utilities Commission because it was too close to a residential area. She also does not see how the City is going to benefit from this. On a tax basis, there are better returns on almost every other development that could occur there. A solar garden would provide only 5 to 12 percent of the revenue that we receive from any other development option. The best option for most communities when planning solar gardens is to put them on the worst land like brownfields, former gravel operations, and buffer zones between industrial and residential areas. What communities do not want is a solar farm separating built up and expanding areas and causing leapfrog development and increasing the cost of infrastructure. Since solar farms pay little compared to other developments, those costs would have to be picked up by the taxpayers. Mike Roberts, 7559 Laverne Avenue South, asked about the useful life of the panels and the decommissioning plan. He also asked if there is a plan if it gets abandoned or does not pay out. He would personally rather see a 37-acre solar farm than 80 acres of residential development. McCool stated that the applicant provided a copy of the decommissioning plan, which was included as part of the Planning Commission packet. He explained that if a community solar garden discontinued its operation, it is required that they remove all facilities and improvements on the property and return it to its original state. As part of that, the City would require a financial guarantee that would cover the costs of removal. Rogers stated that they model half a percent of degradation per year so at the end of 25 to 30 years, the panels are still roughly 80 percent efficient. Derek Rasmussen, 7243 Langly Avenue South, stated that his property abuts 72nd Street, which would be the access to the solar farm. He asked about the feeder wires servicing this project. Looking at the site plan, it looks like the most logical place to tie in the electrical from the solar field is on the corner of 72nd Street and believes that is single-phase power from Lamar up to that point. He understands that it is going to be underground to the existing overhead lines but he is afraid that Xcel is going to want to upgrade the lines on that street to a large power pole with three-phase power. He asked if they can tie into a single-phase utility line with Xcel. Rogers stated that the single-phase would most likely need to be upgraded to Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 December 21, 2015 Page 5 of 6 three-phase but it is in the city’s ordinances that all electrical lines have to be underground. It is possible to put three-phase underground. He noted that if they find out that the costs of upgrading to a three-phase system to underground do not warrant this project, they would have to jettison this project. Brittain asked if Xcel had to upgrade from that connection point at 72nd Street, would that entire run be required to go underground. McCool responded that is staff’s opinion. We are interested in understanding what their system is and how it connects. John Anderson, 11206 72nd Street South, stated that he has lived in Old Cottage Grove for 49 years. He stated that this will be in Old Cottage Grove and not in the urban area where there are curb and gutter on both sides of the roads. These roads are very narrow, the driveways are very short, and the property lines are really close to the road. He asked whose yards would be affected by the buried power lines. He expressed concern about having his driveway torn up to bury power lines. He is opposed to this application and feels it would be a negative to the community. The East Ravine is planned for development within the 25-year life expectancy of this solar farm. He asked that the Planning Commission follow suit with the same ruling they did with 100th Street. Brittain asked for clarification on the utility easements. McCool stated that he would need to look at the plat for the area to determine the right-of-way widths and if any drainage and utility easements exist. Brittain asked where Xcel would bury lines. McCool stated that the roadways are narrow, about 24 feet wide, but there is a boulevard area from the roadway edge to the property line. McCool thought maybe the public right-of- way widths in Old Cottage Grove might be 66 feet in width. Brittain asked if Xcel would be responsible for repairing and replacing whatever they disturb in order to bury the lines. McCool said that was correct. Jim Rice, 7363 Langly Avenue South, stated that Laverne Avenue borders their property to the east and Laverne is a non-maintained road at that point. He agrees that we need to look at this type of energy, however, there are few families that will be directly affected. He thinks that the impact on property values should be taken into consideration, as was taken into consideration on 100th Street. Matze pointed out that the major difference between this application and the application discussed earlier this evening is that this is in the area that has been identified where solar gardens would be allowed by the City Code. She stated that they proceeded with this application because it is consistent with the current comprehensive plan, zoning, and city code. They really look at what communities are doing and try to understand what ordinances allow and what the comprehensive plan plans for. They want to work with communities to address concerns, such as through landscaping or screening. This is in a location that was identified as a solar development area and that is why they proceeded with the application. No one else spoke. Brittain closed the public hearing. Fox stated that his response about the property that could be completely surrounded by solar panels, that area was excluded by the ordinance intentionally for future development. His property specifically the setback was 20 feet from his property line; this one is setback over 700 feet back from the property lines, so there would be an approximate 800-foot buffer from the edge of those properties. He believes that would probably impact the other property values Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Ecoplexus Solar Garden – Case CUP2015-056 December 21, 2015 Page 6 of 6 more than this proposal will. He does not see a buffer of almost a thousand feet having much of an effect on values. Brittain stated that one thing to keep in mind is that the Planning Commission is bound by our zoning ordinances and the application that was heard earlier tonight was for a zoning amendment, not a conditional use permit. The Commission’s decision on this application has to be based upon whether it is consistent with the city code and comprehensive plan. The public comment is very useful in attempting to understand how different developments will affect a surrounding community and any type of mitigating factors that can be done to help with that. Brittain made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Awad seconded. Johnson stated that there are still some unknown factors such as the Xcel lines and the project costs, so he still believes it is still too early to vote on this. Brittain responded that there are conditions of approval for this application that would fully meet all city ordinances and the applicant has agreed to meet those conditions. Many times the expense to go through the extra design phases isn’t warranted if the applicant cannot get the conditional use permits needed to proceed. The City Council has different types of leeway than the Planning Commission, but from a zoning perspective, if this meets our zoning ordinances and the conditions set within them, it is up to the applicant to make it work and if they can’t make, then the project cannot be done. Graf commented that this goes exactly in line with his earlier questions about opening up the transitional planning area, that if we were given other applications that met the criteria in that area, we would be bound to recommend those for approval. The reason he made the motion to not open the transitional planning area is the same reason why this should be approved, because it does meet the requirements as set forth in the ordinance. Motion passed unanimously (8-to-0 vote).