Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07P Open Forum Response - Michael Mingo Regarding Solar Garden Conditional Use Permit City Council Action Request Form Meeting Date 7/20/2016 Department Community Development Agenda Category Regular Agenda Title Community Solar Garden at 10990 Manning Avenue South Staff Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 2016-XXX approving a conditional use permit for the construction of a five megawatt community solar garden on 41.86-acres of land located at 10990 Manning Ave South (State Highway 95). Budget Implication N/A Attachments Council Memo Draft Resolution No. 2016-XXX Excerpt from unapproved minutes of 6/27/16 Planning Commission meeting Site Plan Conditional Use Permit Application City memo regarding property valuation impacts Applicant letter regarding property valuation impacts Letter from Applicant’s Attorney TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Charlene Stevens, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner DATE: July 15, 2016 RE: Myers Solar Garden - CUP Proposal SEV MN1, LLC a subsidiary of Sunrise Energy Ventures, has applied for a conditional use permit for the proposed construction of a five megawatt community solar garden on 31 acres of a 42- acre parcel of land (PID 25.027.21.43.0001). The project is located at 10990 Manning Avenue South (State Highway 95). Location Map Site Orthophoto Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 2 of 13 Review Process Application Received: June 2, 2016 Acceptance of Completed Application: June 2, 2016 Tentative City Council Date: July 20, 2016 60-Day Review Deadline: August 1, 2016 120-Day Review Deadline if exercized : September 29, 2016 Background The City Council, on October 7, 2015, unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 948 allowing solar collection systems. As part of the ordinance is a map referenced as “Exhibit A” that identifies the areas of the community in which commercial solar gardens are permitted by conditional use permit. “Exhibit A” is shown below. Exhibit “A” in Ordinance No. 948 The detail below identifies the project area in relation to the permitted solar farm areas identified on “Exhibit A.” Planning Commission The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their meeting on June 27, 2016. The public hearing was opened for public testimony and testimony from the applicant and the public was re- ceived and entered into the public record. One resident spoke in support of the application and seven Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 3 of 13 opposed. Issues raised by the residents included impact on property values, hazardous materials and possible contamination of groundwater, barbed wire on the fence, the view of solar panels and trees not large enough to provide screening, too close to houses, commercial use that is not com- patible with rural residential properties, traffic issues and use of private roads, heat coming off the panels, and noise. An excerpt from the minutes of that meeting are attached. After discussion, the Planning Commission, on a 6-to-2 vote, recommended that the City Council approve the condi- tional use permit subject to conditions. Planning Considerations Project Siting The project is located within the permitted zone identified in “Exhibit A.” Project size The project is proposed on property greater than five acres, which is consistent with the ordinance criteria. Metropolitan Urban Service Area The subject property is located outside the MUSA, which is consistent with the ordinance criteria. City utilities are not planned to be extended to this area of the community for several decades. Land Use and Zoning The property is guided and zoned as Rural Residential. Site Plan The site plan below shows the general layout for the proposed five megawatt community solar garden. The proposed development would encompass 31 acres of the 42-acre site. Proposed Community Solar Garden Site Plan Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 4 of 13 Site Access/ Transportation The existing access to the residential property is via a bituminous driveway that connects to State Highway 95. Existing Driveway Detail Access for the community solar garden is proposed to be via the existing unimproved farm road north of the residential driveway that connects to State Highway 95 (Manning Avenue). Because this is a state highway, review by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is required. MnDOT reviewed the requested access drive for this project and is requiring it to be via the existing driveway location. Proposed Access Road Detail Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 5 of 13 The proposed solar garden location does not impact any existing or planned public roadways. Solar Garden Arrangement Five banks of solar arrays are proposed to be located along the east and west sides of the property surrounding the principal structure. Array Location Detail The applicant is proposing to mount fixed-position solar collection panels on metal racking struc- tures that are affixed to the ground using either driven posts or helical ground screws. The overall height of the solar collectors will be 10 to 12 feet. These types of ground-mounted systems allow stormwater infiltration under the solar panels and minimized ground disturbance. The ground be- neath and around the solar collector panels will be seeded with a low-growing native seed mix that will require periodic mowing to prevent woody species from growing. Illustrations of the ground-mounted systems and solar arrays are shown below. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 6 of 13 Solar Array Example Solar Collector Array Illustration Setbacks As proposed, the developed portions of the gardens meet the required setbacks of from property lines. These setbacks are the same as those established for principal structures within the zoning district. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 7 of 13 Neighboring Properties Rural residential properties and dwellings are located on all sides of the subject property with varying proximities to the proposed community solar garden. The closest residential dwelling is 25 feet from the southeast property line of the site, which is 45 feet from the solar garden setback. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 8 of 13 An analysis was completed on the proximity of the nearest adjacent home to the proposed and previously approved solar array fields in the community. The tables below identifies the noted distances. Neighboring Properties Address Setback Type Distance Property Line Total Distance 10940 Manning Avenue Side 45 feet 70 feet 11000 Manning Avenue Side 145 feet 170 feet 10753 Lehigh Avenue Side 110 feet 135 feet 10823 Lehigh Avenue Side 290 feet 315 feet 10825 Lehigh Avenue Side 570 feet 605 feet 10670 Lehigh Avenue Side 65 feet 90 feet 10820 Lehigh Avenue Side 20 feet 45 feet 12060 110th Street Front 220 feet (to road) 300 feet Project Distance between nearest home and solar gardens Borner 1,060 Feet CGSun 712 Feet Ecoplexus 753 Feet Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 9 of 13 Neighboring resident Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue, met with staff on June 24 to discuss the project and voice his opposition to the solar array next to his property. Mr. Mingo is concerned that the solar will devalue his property and will have a negative effect on his property value. He is concerned about the negative visual impact the solar field as well as the fence with barb wire will have on his property. He is concerned with how close the solar field will be to his home. He also expressed concern about the fact that the solar field will be on two sides of his property, not just one side like other projects may impact. He is opposed to the solar array that is located adjacent to Manning Avenue, but finds the solar array at the back of the Myer’s property less devaluing to his property and less obstructive to the use and enjoyment of his property. Property Value Impacts During the June Planning Commission meeting, the question of the impacts of the proposed solar garden on adjacent property values was posed. The City completed research on this topic and the response is attached to this report. The applicant has also provided feedback on this topic and submitted documentation, which is also attached. Tree Removal The applicant has reported that no existing trees will be removed in conjunction with the construc- tion of this project. Screening The applicant has submitted a detail identifying the existing natural vegetation areas that will pro- vide visual screening of the gardens from adjacent properties during leaf on seasons. Visual Screening Detail Attached to this report is a detailed photo documentation of existing leaf-on screening from adja- cent properties. The detail below identifies the properties addressed in the attachment. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 10 of 13 The applicant is proposing to plant 36 Balsam Firs and White Spruce that are eight to ten feet tall along portions of the solar arrays for additional screening. The planting areas are detailed below. Proposed Planting Plan The City received comments from adjacent residents concerned about the proximity of the pro- posed solar arrays to their existing residences and the screening of the solar project during the leaf-off seasons. Based on this information, it is recommended that six-foot high with 3-to-1 side slopes be constructed in the areas highlighted in yellow, and that the tops of said berms be planted with a variety of 8-to-10 foot tall coniferous trees planted a minimum of 15 feet apart along the length of the berms. A grading and erosion control permit would be required for this activity. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 11 of 13 Recommended berming and screening areas Perimeter Fence The applicant is proposing to install a black-coated galvanized chain-link fence around the perim- eter of the proposed community solar garden facility. The fence will be six feet in height with three strands of barbed wire above the chain-link fence. All fencing for the project must be placed at the toe of the slope along the required berming on the sides adjacent to the solar arrays. Grading and Drainage Grading for the community solar garden will include creating gravel service roads among the sections of solar arrays and pads for electrical inverters and installing the required landscaped berming along the perimeter as shown above. Based on the required berming, the grading plan and landscaping plan will need to be revised prior to building permit application. Wetland and Streams No wetlands have been identified on the site. One Intermittent Public Waters Stream crosses the site just east of the existing residence. This stream is not proposed to be impacted by the project, and a buffer of at least 50 feet will be maintained from its edge. Decommissioning Plan The five megawatt array of fixed-positioned photovoltaic panels will generate electricity that will be purchased by Xcel Energy under a 25-year contract. Decommissioning will include removing all photovoltaic panels, inverters, transformers, above-ground electrical collection systems, secu- rity fencing, lighting, and supply structures for the project. Dismantling and repurposing, salvaging, recycling or disposing of the solar energy materials, equipment and improvements will be properly performed. The land will be returned to agricultural production and the reclaimed topsoil will be Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 12 of 13 restored to previous grade elevations. Decommissioning is estimated to take approximately six months to complete. One of the questions posed to staff, was if the solar panels contained any hazardous materials that could be disturbed by the decommissioning of the arrays. Hazardous Materials The Planning Commission and the several neighbors have raised concerns about the potential for site contamination during construction, use and decommissioning of the site. The Applicant reports that the panels do not contain hazardous materials, and will be recycled upon decommissioning. Connection to Xcel System The interconnection system design has yet to be completed and would be required prior to build- ing permit issuance. It is recommended that conditions of approval require that all power lines be placed underground within the interior of the community solar garden property, but also that the utility company must place all new power lines necessary to facilitate the interconnection between the community solar garden and the utility company’s electric grid underground. Details of this interconnection between the community solar garden and the utility company’s electric grid must be submitted to the City at the time the applicant files their building permit application. Tax Implications The 42-acre property is currently enrolled in Green Acres program and has deferred taxes. Addi- tionally, the parcel is enrolled in the Rural Preserve program and has deferred taxes through that program as well. The tax classification for the property is Agricultural Homestead. Minnesota State Statute 272.0295 establishes a solar energy production tax for solar gardens that are larger than one megawatt. The facility is required to pay $1.20 per megawatt hour in taxes to the county in which the system is located. Based on this statute, the property tax classification would change from Residential Agricultural to Residential Commercial, which is taxed at a higher rate. According to the Washington County Tax Assessor, the Green Acres and Rural Preserve eligibility would also be sacrificed by the commercial conversion. This action requires the payment of current taxes and the past two years of taxes. Ordinance Requirements When reviewing conditional use permits, the Planning Commission looks to Title 11-2-9F, Criteria for Issuance of Conditional Use Permits, as the guiding doctrine for review. This section states that in granting a CUP, the City Council shall find that: 1. The use will be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and with the purpose, intent and applicable standards of this Title. 2. The use shall be located, designed, maintained and operated to be compatible with the existing or intended character of that zoning district in which it is located. 3. The use shall not depreciate values of surrounding property. 4. The use shall not be hazardous, detrimental or disturbing to present and potential surrounding land uses due to noises, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water pollution, vibration, general un- sightliness or other nuisances. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Charlene Stevens Myers Solar Garden – Planning Case CUP2016-044 July 15, 2016 Page 13 of 13 5. The use shall generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets as defined by the transpor- tation element of the Comprehensive Plan. The use shall not create traffic congestion, unsafe access or parking needs that will cause inconveniences to the adjoining properties. 6. The use shall be served adequately by essential public services, such as streets, police, fire protection and utilities. 7. The use shall not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and shall not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the City. 8. The use shall preserve and incorporate the site's important natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use shall cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 10. The use shall not adversely affect the potential development of adjacent vacant land. The City’s Technical Review Committee reviewed this application under those criteria. The Com- mittee found the CUP criteria could be met and the conditional use permit should be approved, subject to conditions. The applicant’s response to the ordinance criteria is attached. The adjacent neighbors have questioned the general unsightliness and compatibility of a com- mercial scale solar project with the rural residential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Graff stated that she had concerns that criterion 2, 3, and 4 of the review standards were not being met and were reasons for her negative vote on the approval motion. The applicant has submitted a letter from their legal counsel addressing the application in relation to the ordinance criteria. That letter is included in the packet. Public Hearing Notices The public hearing notice was published in the South Washington Bulletin on June 15, 2016. Public hearing notices were mailed to 17 property owners within 500 feet of the 42 acre site on June 15, 2016. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve a conditional use permit for the construction of a five megawatt community solar garden on 41.86-acres of land located at 10990 Manning Ave South (State Highway 95) (PID 25.027.21.43.0001), subject to the conditions listed in the attached draft resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-XXX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIVE MEGAWATT COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDEN ON 31 ACRES OF A 42-ACRE PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 10990 MANNING AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, SEV MN 1, a subsidiary of Sunrise Energy Ventures, applied for a conditional use permit to allow a five mega-watt community solar garden on 31 acres of a 42 acre parcel of land (25.027.21.43.0001), which is legally described below: ALL THAT PT OF S1/2-SE1/4 LYING S OF N 351.05FT & W OF E 1913.0FT THEREOF AND THAT PART LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 693.77 FEET OF THE EAST 1913.0 FEET THEREOF EXCEPT THE NORTH 247.5 FEET OF THE SOUTH 264 FEET OF THE EAST 412.5 FEET THEREOF SUBJ TO & TOG WITH EASE SECTION 25 TOWNSHIP 027 RANGE 021 Commonly known as 10990 Manning Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Washington County, State of Minnesota. WHEREAS, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and a public hearing notice was published in the South Washington County Bulletin; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 27, 2016; and WHEREAS, a planning staff report, which detailed specific information on the property and the application request was prepared and presented; and WHEREAS, the public hearing was opened for public testimony and testimony from the appli- cant and the public was received and entered into the public record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on a 6-to-2 vote, recommended approval of the appli- cations, subject to certain conditions listed below. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, hereby approves the conditional use permit to construct a com- munity solar garden on 31 acres of a 42-acre parcel of land with the capability of generating up to five megawatts of electricity, to be located on the property legally described above, subject to the following conditions: 1. All applicable permits (i.e., building, electrical, grading and right-of-way) and a com- mercial plan review packet must be completed, submitted, and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Detailed construction plans must be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Fire Marshal. 2. The applicant is responsible to remove any gravel, dirt, or debris materials carried from motor vehicles exiting from the community solar garden site and landing on that segment of Highway 95 (Manning Avenue). Resolution No. 2016-XXX Page 2 of 3 3. The applicant’s decommissioning plan must comply with City ordinance regulations. Upon the City’s acceptance of the decommissioning cost estimate, the applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow, bond, or irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to 125 percent of the accepted decommissioning estimate. The finan- cial guarantee must be remitted to the City before a building permit will be issued. 4. All on-site and off-site electric power lines necessary to interconnect the electric power created from the community solar garden to the utility company grid system must be underground. The only exception, if necessary, is at the connection point where the community solar garden underground electric line needs to be connected to the utility company’s existing power pole/local distribution line. Details of this in- terconnection between the community solar garden and the utility company’s elec- tric grid must be submitted to the City at the time the applicant files their building permit application with the City. 5. Upon final inspection by the City, the applicant shall provide an as-built survey of the project. 6. The project must comply with the City’s Solar Collector System Ordinance regula- tions. 7. All solar modules must meet the minimum setbacks or greater to accommodate the required berming and landscaping. 8. Additional access onto State Highway 95 (Manning Avenue) is prohibited. Tempo- rary access during construction would be permitted with the approval of MnDOT. 9. Access to the site from Lehigh Avenue or any adjacent private drives is prohibited. 10. Tree removal from the perimeter of the site is prohibited. 11. The applicant shall construct berms that are six feet in height with a six-foot wide top and 3-to-1 slopes in the areas highlighted in yellow on page 11 of the City Coun- cil memorandum report dated July 15, 2016. The tops of said berms shall be planted with a variety of coniferous trees that are six to eight feet tallanda minimum of 15 feet apart along the length of the berms. 12. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan prior to building permit application. 13. Prior to building permit application, the grading plan shall be revised to reflect the required berming. The grading plan shall address all erosion control items and pre- sent best management practices. 14. The applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit prior to any grading activity. 15. The property owner or the operator of the community solar garden will be required to plant additional similar sized trees or install a privacy fence in order to mitigate the problem of glare from the solar facility. Resolution No. 2016-XXX Page 3 of 3 16. The required trees must be replaced if they are dead or dying during the tenure of the occupancy of the solar garden on the property. Prior to building permit applica- tion, a bona fide cost estimate of the landscaping improvements must be submitted in conjunction with a letter of credit approved by the City in the amount of 150 percent of such estimate. Upon completion of the landscaping requirements, the applicant must inform the City in writing that said improvements have been completed. The City will retain 30 percent of the financial guarantee for a period of one year from the date of notice to insure the survival of the plantings and the required as-built survey has been submitted. No building permits will be issued until the required financial guarantee has been received and accepted by the City. 17. All fencing for the project must be black coated and be placed at the toe of the slope along the required berming on the sides adjacent to the solar arrays. Security top wires on the fencing if utilized would be permitted to be constructed of galvanized materials. 18. The applicant shall prepare a stormwater management plan and submit it to the City and South Washington Watershed District for review and comment. This plan must be approved before the City will issue the building permit for the proposed commu- nity solar garden project. Passed this 20th day of July 2016. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Joe Fischbach, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE JUNE 27, 2016, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.1 Myers Solar Garden – Case CUP2016-044 SEV MN 1, a subsidiary of Sunrise Energy Ventures, has applied for a conditional use permit to develop a 31-acre community solar garden with a five-megawatt array of photo- voltaic panels to be located at 10990 Manning Avenue South. Levitt summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. William Weber, Sunrise Energy Ventures, 601 Carlson Parkway, Minnetonka, MN, stated that the staff report was complete and accurate, and he will answer any questions. Graff opened the public hearing. David Steinberg, 10820 Manning Avenue South, stated that his property line is 45 feet from the solar array. He expressed concern that the solar panels are made from silicon and dan- gerous chemicals that could possibly be harmful to the environment and surrounding area. The land where the solar arrays will be located slopes down to his property and if the panels are damaged, contaminated water could enter his wells. He does not believe that the six-foot tall trees will be big enough to screen the six-foot high fence with three barbed wire strands. He stated that he moved to the country and does not want to live next to a power plant. He is also concerned that this could decrease his property values, and that there will be increased noise bouncing off the hard surfaces. The trees would only slightly obscure his property during the summer, and in the winter the trees would not have leaves; it could take years before the trees are large enough to conceal the solar garden. He does not believe this is a good location for this type of use, and that there are plenty of other places, including the property that was recently denied. Louise Smallidge, 10992 Point Douglas Drive, stated that their farm borders the property pro- posed for a community solar garden, and that she and her husband are in favor of this project and hopes that it moves forward. Dennis Galloway, 10670 Lehigh Avenue South, stated that he is opposed to the proposal as it will be an eyesore. He noted that his property is 65 feet away from the property line. He agreed with Steinberg’s testimony. He asked how a solar garden would impact property values. He also expressed concern about the proposed six-foot fence with three strands of barbed wire, which would make the property look like a commercial site. Mike Mingo, 10940 Manning Avenue South, stated that at the May Planning Commission meeting there was a hearing on a proposed community solar garden on the Wilson property along Highway 61, which the Commission denied due to the impact the panels would have on a future frontage road and commercial property. A month later, there is an application for an industrial site in the middle of residential properties. He expressed concern about how it would affect the residential area today, not in the future. He stated that this is rural agricultural prop- erty and he does not believe anybody moved out to the area to have a six-foot fence with razor Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Solar Garden – Case CUP2016-044 June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 5 wire on top of it. He pointed out the location of his property and stated that there would be solar panels on the north and west sides. The solar panels would be only 40 feet from his house, his detached garage would be 12 feet from them, and a pole barn that would be 16 feet away. He does not know how the Commission can justify approving a commercial devel- opment that close to residential properties. He believes that property values would go down. He stated that there is no room on the property for this business to go in. He expressed con- cern about allowing access to the property from Manning Avenue. He then stated that the City has approved a couple solar gardens farm fields near 70th Street, noting that those locations are away from residential properties. There was opposition to those projects but those solar arrays would not be next a house as these will be. Mingo stated that his property is south of the solar panels and is concerned that there could issues from heat off the panels. He also stated that scientists are researching if solar gardens create hot spots on the planet. Mingo noted that there is other properties in the City that could accommodate solar gardens that would be away from residences. He realizes that there could be development in this area but anticipated it would be residential, not commercial. Most of the neighbors are opposed to this project. His property is higher up and will overlook the solar garden. He stated that his view of the area would be impacted by planting the trees proposed to help screen the panels. Darlene Lanners, 10747 Lehigh Road South, stated that the solar garden would not be visible from her property and that she supports solar energy but does not believe this project would fit in this area. She asked who would benefit from this community solar garden. She noted that Myers would receive revenue from leasing his property but he currently receives revenue from the crops that are grown on his property. Crops do not intrude on anybody’s view. She ex- pressed concern about traffic impacts on Highway 95 from this project. She asked if the pro- posed road would be the only access. She stated that she lives on a private drive and does not want construction equipment coming down that road. Lanners stated that it is not fair to put this in a residential area and she opposes the proposed project. Ed Frandrup, 10795 Lehigh Road South, stated that his property is straight down the valley and there is a very good chance that they will be able to see the solar garden from their loca- tion. He is also concerned about traffic coming down the private road and the impact on their property value. This project would only benefit one person and would hurt the community. He stated that he is against the application. Chuck Lanners, 10747 Lehigh Road South, is concerned about Highway 95 at Lehigh with additional traffic from construction and maintenance vehicles. He believes there are better locations for a solar farm that are not close to residential properties. Weber provided clarification on some of the points brought up. He stated that there is no evi- dence that any hazardous material in the panels could get out, as it is a sealed system. He explained that the fence will be inside the line of new trees that will be planted. They selected tree planting locations that should minimize, mitigate, and soften the few views there are to this site. He displayed photos showing the existing hedgerows and natural screening on the various properties, which already help to screen the property, and explained their landscaping and screening plans for each of those properties. He noted that they are concentrating most of their plantings on the area adjacent to the Mingo property as it would have the best view of the site. Weber stated that before they receive a building permit they will go through the re- quired submittals for historic review, hazardous material on-site review, wetlands, and surface Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Solar Garden – Case CUP2016-044 June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 5 water drainage. They will apply for an access permit from MnDOT where the field access is currently. Traffic to the project site once construction is completed will be minimal, one or two pickup trucks per month to check the computers on the invertors and about every four to six weeks for grass mowing and trimming. There will be more access during the construction period, which will take about two to three months. They will instruct the suppliers to come in from the north. Their proposed access point would be the safest option due to site lines on Highway 95. Weber stated that there is no noise generated by solar panels, and there will be no reflection as they are designed to absorb sunlight, not reflect it. He then stated that there are no solid studies that they know of across the country about the impact to property values. Sunrise has a project near Indianapolis that is across the road from a suburban subdivision, and have asked those neighbors, after a couple years, about the impact of the project on their properties; the neighbors’ responses were neutral or positive. Revenue to the landowner was misstated; this is a community solar garden meaning that anybody can get a free subscription to the solar garden. He explained that subscribers are buying your electricity through the grid indirectly from the solar garden. The effect to the subscriber is that there will be about a 10 percent reduction in the electricity bill for each meter. The Smallidges have nine meters and can have nine subscriptions. They spend about $10,000 per year on electricity and will get about a $1,000 discount on their electricity. He then noted that property taxes are paid to the City, County, and School District, and a production tax is paid to the City. The actual revenue to the City will go up slightly compared to agriculture use. He stated that the only traffic will be off of Highway 95; there will be no traffic whatsoever onto Lehigh Avenue and there is no access from Lehigh to this site. Weber noted that there may be better locations for a commu- nity solar garden, but this location is in the City’s solar zone. The message they have heard consistently from the City is to find a site in the solar zone. This site and proposal meet or exceed all the requirements of the ordinance. They believe that they have mitigated the effects on the nearby properties and think this will be a good neighbor. Dave Heggen, 10753 Lehigh Avenue South, stated that his property is by the loop driveway. He bought his property to get out into the country. His house is at about a 10-to-12-foot eleva- tion above the property line where the solar panels would be installed, and the current tree line has bush maples that grow about 15 feet tall. His concern is that he has two bedrooms that will look right over the top of the trees and they will be able to see solar panels. He does not want to see the panels, and a tall barrier is needed to screen them from his house. Steinberg again expressed concern about contamination from the panels, even though they are sealed, which could be damaged from hale or vehicles sliding off the road. There may not be an issue now but there could be in the future because there is no research yet on whether or not solar panels are hazardous. He also stated that the plantings would be tall enough to screen the view of the panels. In addition, the fence will stop wildlife from crossing the property and could push them onto the roads. He does not want a commercial use on agricultural prop- erty. He then stated that Myers asked for his support for a variance to put up a large accessory structure with living space to house his family, and promised that he would continue the agri- cultural use as he wanted his kids to grow up in a rural farming area. He then asked if this proposal would affect that structure. Darlene Lanners stated that when Myers talked to them about putting up a pole barn structure for his in-laws, he told them that he wanted to be in the country and will keep it farmland. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Solar Garden – Case CUP2016-044 June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Galloway also was approached by Myers about the large structure and told him that he wanted the property to stay as farmland. He also stated that he just planted eight-foot high trees that will take at least ten years before they will be large enough to screen anything. He asked if the property is zoned agricultural and if a commercial project could be located in that zoning district. No one else spoke. Graff closed the public hearing. McCool stated that the property is zoned R-1, Rural Residential. Levitt noted that it is not being rezoned for commercial; the use is allowed in the ordinance as a conditional use within that zoning classification. Rasmussen stated that he does not feel it is appropriate to impose a utility scale solar project in a rural residential area without the full support of all the neighbors. He does not agree with any of the approved solar gardens and questions how well the ordinance was thought out. He agrees with the neighbors’ concerns. These neighboring residents will be much closer to the solar panels than the neighbors of the approved projects. He does not agree with the six-foot high fence with barbed wire on top, which gives a very industrial feel, and does not believe there is anything dangerous about the project that would require the barbed wire. An agricul- tural-style fence would be more appropriate for this part of the community. Rostad stated that there is some discrepancy between the staff report and what the applicant has indicated for the new trees they are planning to plant. The applicant talked about six-foot tall trees but the staff report and the recommendations indicate trees that will be eight to ten feet tall. If this project is approved, he would like to ensure there is agreement on the trees and thinks the taller sizes would be more appropriate. His biggest concern regarding the solar gardens is their impact on neighboring property values, which is one of the ordinance criteria. Haagsman stated that while it is good to have the neighbors’ opinions, which he does take seriously, a few months ago the Commission recommended approval of a restaurant that everyone in the neighborhood opposed because the proposal met the ordinance criteria. This proposal also meets all codes, and the property is in the solar zone. He understands the point that all the neighbors supported the previous application that failed all, and this proposal has engendered some resistance. He favors this project because it meets all the requirements the City has set forth. Rostad stated that he agrees they have met most of the requirements but he does not have any evidence that they have met the requirement regarding depreciation of values of neigh- boring properties. Even if the Planning Commission recommends approval, he would like evidence presented prior to the City Council meeting regarding the values of the surrounding properties. Rasmussen stated that relating to property values, this is a non-typical type of development and while he is not a real estate expert, he believes that would have a negative effect on property values. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Myers Solar Garden – Case CUP2016-044 June 27, 2016 Page 5 of 5 Fox stated that the property owner has rights, which are set forth by the ordinance. Most of the application does meet the criteria. He noted that the Planning Commission makes a rec- ommendation on applications, and the City Council makes the final decision. The Council will listen to the Commission’s discussion and the public testimony to make that decision. He noted that this property is in the solar zone and would be allowed subject to conditions. The proposal does meet the ordinance criteria, and the applicant is adding more screening than is required. Fox made a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Haagsman seconded. Rostad stated that to clarify his pending vote, he thinks the project has its merits but he would like to see some evidence presented to the Council regarding effects on property values. Motion passed on a 6-to-2 vote (Graff, Rasmussen). Rasmussen explained that he feels for the neighbors who chose to move out to the country and rural neighborhoods and now will a utility-scale solar development in their backyard. Graff stated that she does support solar but the reasons she voted against this application were sections 2, 3, and 4 of the ordinance criteria. She is not sure this property is compatible for this size of a solar garden. She is not assured that it will not depreciate property values. She would like to see other site protections because of its unsightliness to the neighboring properties, including additional screening or different protections for those neighbors. TO: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development Director/City Engineer FROM: John Tingley, Administrative Intern DATE: July 13, 2016 RE: Discussion of Solar Farms and Their Effects on Property Values Solar Farms are becoming a popular way for power utilities to reach renewable energy goals set by state legislatures and federal regulators. With Solar Farms being a relatively new phenome- non, there has been little study and no scientific studies on their effects on property values. However, limited studies have been done, which show no correlation between the two. In addi- tion, wind farms, which are generally viewed more negatively as aesthetically unappealing, have shown to have no net impact on property values nearby. There are no known examples of some- body’s property value declining directly from its proximity to a solar farm in Minnesota. No Correlation between Solar Farms and Declining Property Values A study in North Carolina by a state-certified appraiser found no impact on sale prices for resi- dential, agricultural, or vacant residential land that adjoins existing or proposed solar farms. Using a technique called matched-pair analysis, he looked at different solar farms throughout North Carolina and appraised values of properties nearby, and concluded that a solar farm is a compatible use for a rural/residential transition area having no impact on nearby property values. http://www.chathamnc.org/RezoningSubdivisionCases/2014/9-15- 14_BOC/Strata%20Solar%20No%204%20US%2064%20W/CUP%20Application/Appraisal%2 0Consult%20on%20Pit%2064%20Solar.pdf No Correlation between Wind Farms and Declining Property Values In ten major studies of 1.3 million property transactions over 18 years have found no connection between wind farms and property values. In particular a 2013 update of the 2009 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Study with the University of Connecticut collected data from more 50,000 home sales among 27 counties in nine states all within 10 miles of 67 different wind facilities and 1,198 sales were within 1 miles of a turbine. The study found no net effects due to the arrival wind farms to the community. http://www.energyandpolicy.org/wind-energy-does-not-hurt-property-values/ No Examples in Minnesota of Declining Property Values due to Solar Farms Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216B.1691 passed by the state legislature in 2013, all public utilities in Minnesota who sell electricity must generate 1.5 percent of its electricity from solar sources by 2020. Because of this, solar farms are beginning to pop up all over the state. Solar Farms have been or are being built in counties such as, but not limited to, Wright, Chisago, Lyon, Winona, and Blue Earth Counties. In particular, a 100-megawatt solar farm under construction Discussion of Solar Farms and Their Effects on Property Values July 13, 2016 Page 2 of 2 in Chisago County will be the largest solar farm in the Upper Midwest. The project includes landscaping and fencing around the entire 800-acre farm. http://ecmpostreview.com/2016/02/03/chisago-county-solar-farm-will-be-among-largest-in-u-s/ Solar Farm projects producing 50 megawatts or more are approved and regulated directly by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. However, some projects have run into moderate neighborhood opposition, such as a solar farm built in Lyon County near Marshall, MN. Some residents, who thought their property was being devalued by the solar farm, went to the Lyon County Board of Commissioners to ask for their assessed values for taxable purposes be de- creased because of the solar farm. The Board determined they could not decrease the assessed values citing a lack of proof and lack of knowledge of cases throughout the state showing that someone’s property was actually devalued from a solar farm. http://marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/585604/Solar-farm-neighbors-voice- concerns-on-property-values.html?nav=5015 There is also an example of neighborhood opposition in Wright County. A 70-acre solar farm is currently being developed of which 11 acres of woods were cleared to prepare the site, which the Township was told would not be cut down. In addition, the Township and County were told that power would be run underground for the project but have since witnessed overhead lines being erected. The County and Township have no course for repercussions as this site is part of the larger Aurora Project that is being regulated completely by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, giving local government little say. Because of this, Wright County has passed a moratorium on new solar farm construction for the next year. http://kstp.com/news/solar-farm-debate-buffalo/4128568/ July 7, 2016 Ms. Jennifer Levitt Community Development Director City of Cottage Grove 12800 Ravine Parkway South Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 Re: Application to Build a Community Solar Garden Dear Ms. Levitt: During the recent Planning Commission review of our Conditional Use Permit application to build a community solar garden on the John Myers property, members of the public asserted without evidence that the facility would decrease the value of their residential properties. We contend that no conclusive evidence is available to support that claim. Furthermore, we present the following two points that suggest that the effect is neutral if not positive. McGrath Property Sale The first point is the recent sale of the McGrath property located at 11000 Manning Avenue, adjacent to both of our prior and current solar garden applications. The McGraths told us in a telephone conversation that a buyer placed an offer on their house and 17 acres, which had just gone onto the market. The McGraths then discussed with the prospective buyer the potential of a solar garden to the rear. The property then sold for the amount initially offered by the buyer. This occurred prior to the time that our Conditional Use Permit application was denied by the Council. Thus, there was no change in value from before to after the buyer became aware of the potential solar project. A more reliable case study would not be possible, as this one is immediately recent, local and based on the same type of development as we now propose. Kirkland Appraisals Study Mr. Richard C. Kirkland, MAI, a professional appraiser in North Carolina, performed an extensive study in 2014 and concluded that “there is no impact in sale price for residential, agricultural or vacant residential land that adjoins existing or proposed solar farms.” In some cases, properties near a solar farm had higher sale values than similar properties elsewhere. Mr. Kirkland conducted a “matched-pairs” analysis of 20 residential properties adjacent to four solar farms in rural or semi-rural locations in North Carolina. A matched-pairs analysis involves comparing two similar properties with only one difference of note so that it can be determined whether or not that difference has any impact on value. In his study, he evaluated residential properties adjoining a solar farm versus similar residential 601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 612-293-9900 dean@Sunriseenergyventures.com Ms. Jennifer Levitt July 7, 2016 Page 2 properties that do not. He also studied matched pairs of undeveloped residential and agricultural land. The sizes of the solar energy farms studied were 38, 45, 100 and 15 acres. Our project would encompass 31 acres. The sizes of the residential lots studied typically ranged from one to five acres, which are comparable to the properties abutting our project site. Mr. Kirkland also studied land uses adjacent to 22 solar farms and concluded that housing and solar farms are a harmonious relationship. Moreover, he found that some housing developers include a shared solar facility in their projects to aid marketing. North Carolina is the fifth leading state in terms of installed solar energy project capacity. We have provided a digital copy of this study for your reference. Conclusion Based on these two sound points of reference, we believe that our proposed community solar garden meets the City’s CUP condition #3, “The use shall not depreciate values of surrounding property.” Any conclusion to the contrary must be based on facts, not conjecture. Our application also conforms to all of the other requirements of the City’s solar ordinance and Conditional Use Permit regulations. We believe that the community solar garden will be a good neighbor in every respect, and we have gone beyond the requirements of the City’s solar ordinance to mitigate the few perceived visual negatives. We humbly seek your recommendation of approval for our application. Thank you. Sincerely, Dean Leischow Chief Executive Officer 601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55305 612-293-9900 dean@Sunriseenergyventures.com Kirklan d Appraisals, LLC Limiting Conditions and Assumptions