4.c 1 b PCMemoOldfieldSolarAdditionalSubmittals
Memorandum
To: Scandia Planning Commission Reference: Oldfield Avenue Solar Garden CUP
Neil Soltis, City Administrator
Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk
Ryan Goodman, City Engineer
Christoph Heinzer, Ameresco,
applicant
Granton J. Larson, owner
Greenmark Solar, developer
Project No.: 16022.006
From: Sherri Buss, RLA AICP,
Planner
Routing:
Date: March 28, 2016
The Planning Commission reviewed the application for a Solar Garden on Oldfield Avenue at 237th
Street at its meeting on March 1. The Commission requested additional information from the applicants
related to site topography, visibility of the solar array, existing and proposed screening, and
connections to Xcel infrastructure. The Planner sent a request for the following items to the applicant
via email after the meeting on March 1:
1. Cross-sections through the site that provide vertical sketch elevations accurately drawn to scale
that show the following: Oldfield Road elevation, ground elevations/topography of the site,
locations and height of solar panels, adjacent homes. The purpose of the cross-sections is to
show clearly the relationships of site topography and location/height of the solar panels in
relation to Oldfield Road and adjacent homes.
I would suggest 2 cross-sections/vertical elevation sketches: one east-west cross section at
236th Street so that adjacent homes are shown, and a second cross section north-south through
the middle of the site.
2. Visual simulations of the site that show the site at full proposed development from the north,
south, east and west, drawn to scale, including the proposed solar garden structures on existing
topography, existing screening, and any proposed screening. Please add a map that indicates
the location of the views. The views from the west and south should be the view from the
nearest residence, and a simulation from the west should show the view from Oldfield Road
approaching the site from the south.
3. There was a lack of clarity last night about the location of the substation that the solar garden
will connect to, and whether Xcel has existing infrastructure that extends to the site along
Oldfield Road, or whether your project will require acquisition of additional ROW in order to
connect with Xcel’s infrastructure. Please provide a map showing the substation or other
location that the solar garden would connect to, and areas where the project will require
Scandia Planning Commission
Oldfield Community Solar Garden CUP Page 2 April 5, 2016
additional ROW (review the city engineer’s comments in the staff report—he has estimated
where he believes the project will need additional ROW).
The applicant submitted a packet of material to the city on March 21 that included the information that
the Planner requested on behalf of the Commission. The information is included in the packet for the
April 5 meeting. Staff have reviewed the submittal. The City Engineer had additional questions for the
applicant related to the location of Xcel infrastructure and the route of proposed connections. The
Engineer revised his recommendations based on the communications with the applicant. His
comments and a copy of the revised conditions are attached.
The Commission also requested that the Planner contact the City’s Assessor to obtain his comments
about the potential impacts of solar farms and gardens on property values. A summary of his verbal
comments is attached.
Review at the Planning Commission Meeting on April 5
Screening/Glare Issues
The discussion of this application on April 5 will focus on the issues of concern identified in March. As
you review the additional materials and site, it is important that the review focus on whether the
applicant’s site plan meets the ordinance requirements for screening, and whether there are reasonable
conditions that can be placed on the project in order to meet the conditions.
The ordinance standards for screening are the following:
Solar farms and community solar gardens shall be screened from view from the public right of
way to the extent possible by setbacks, berming, existing vegetation, landscaping or a
combination thereof.
All solar farms and community solar garden facilities shall be designed and located in order to
prevent reflective glare toward any inhabited buidings on adjacent properties, as well as
adjacent street right-of-way. Steps to control glare nuisance may include slective placmenet of
the system, screening on the side of the solar arry facing the reflectors, reducing use of the
reflector system, or other remedies that limit glare.
Therefore, your review should focus on the following:
Will the proposed solar array be visible from Oldfield Avenue or other public rights-of-way?
Where will it be visible? Should alterations to existing topography or vegetation be prohibited to
preserve existing screening? Are there places that screening should be added to limit the view
of the solar garden “to the extent possible.”
The solar array will face south. Are there homes or buildings on adjacent properties or roadway
areas that may experience glare based on the orientation of the array? If yes, where can
screening be required to limit glare?
Impacts to Property Values
Potential impacts to property values were a significant issue for another Conditional Use Permit
application in Scandia—the Zavoral Mine and Reclamation Project CUP. The City worked with its
Attorney and the land use attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities during the Zavoral EIS and
CUP review, to identify the objective standards and analysis that the City would require in the EIS and
would use to evaluate the CUP application in relation to the general ordinance criteria that the use
“shall not substantially diminish and impair property values and scenic views.”
Scandia Planning Commission
Oldfield Community Solar Garden CUP Page 3 April 5, 2016
Much of the guidance from the attorneys was based on court cases that interpret that phrase, which is
included in many zoning ordinance criteria for CUPs for a variety of uses. The attorneys concluded that
specific data about changes in values for comparable properties was required to provide objective
information to substantiate a determination that the project would substantially diminish property values.
The assessor’s comments speak to the need for specific comparable data as well.