Loading...
4.c 5 Jim Martin letter to PC 1 Jim Martin 13860 236th St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 March 21, 2016 SUBMITTED VIA E-MAIL Planning Commission City of Scandia 14717 209th St. N. Scandia, MN 55073 RE: CUP Application of Ameresco/Green Mark for Oldfield Avenue Solar Garden Dear Planning Commissioners: The memorandum from Planner Sherri Buss to the Scandia Planning Commission, dated February 23, 2016, addresses the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), submitted by Ameresco, for a five-megawatt solar farm on Oldfield Avenue North in Scandia. The memo describes the project proposal, summarizes the criteria for granting a CUP, and evaluates the request based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the solar gardens ordinance and other applicable ordinances. The memo includes numerous conditions that are to be met by the applicant and concludes with findings and recommendations of the Planner. I have serious concerns that the issues of screening and the impact that the facility is likely to have on adjacent properties and scenic views are not adequately addressed. I am also concerned by the fact that the memo includes information that is inaccurate, statements that are misleading and recommendations that appear arbitrary and inconsistent. On page 10 of the memo, paragraph 4, in the Planner’s findings it is stated that the City will require screening for the proposed solar array to protect views of the site from Oldfield Avenue and adjacent residences. However, condition number 11 on page 12 states: The revised project plans shall include a landscape plan that provides for screening of approximately 50% of the view of the site from Oldfield Avenue on parcels 02.032.20.23001 and 02.032.20.32001. Earlier on page 6 of the memo the Planner observes that a condition should be included, similar to the Forest Lake Holdco solar garden on Highway 97, requiring 40% screening of the site. These screening percentages are arbitrary, inadequate and not consistent with the language in the ordinance. Additionally, the Oldfield site is very different from the Highway 97 site. The elevation of Highway 97 site is lower than the surrounding landscape and is located on a heavily traveled trunk highway. The Oldfield site slopes upward from the road and is located on a quiet rural city street adjacent to a well-established residential neighborhood. 2 Scandia Zoning Regulations, Chapter Two, Section 4.34, Subd. (4) (G) provides that solar farms shall be screened from view from the public right of way to the extent possible. The ordinance makes no reference to a percentage of screening that is acceptable. The ordinance uses the word “shall”, which means that screening is mandatory. It seems clear that the intent of the ordinance is that the developer will screen the solar panels from public view to the extent possible by taking whatever measures are necessary (i.e. possible) including setbacks, beaming, vegetation, landscaping or a combination thereof. It should also be noted that the ordinance specifically states that the solar garden shall be screened from the public right of way. Although the site is located on Oldfield, the view of the site from 237th Street North, which approaches the site from the west, also needs to be taken into account. Given that the site has considerable slope rising to the east from Oldfield Ave., additional measures will be needed to screen the view of the solar installation from 237th Street. To accomplish this the developer will likely need to plant several rows of trees and other vegetation, running from north to south and parallel with Oldfield Ave. The developer should be required to plant mature trees and shrubs such that full year-around screening will be provided in the first year. At Section 4.34, Subd. (4) (F) the ordinance states that ground mounted solar energy systems shall not exceed fifteen feet (15’) in height. The ordinance does not address the current situation in which we have a sloping site with significant rise from the right of way. The elevation of Oldfield Road at the intersection of 237th Street is between 930 and 940 feet. The site rises to a maximum elevation of 980 feet. The effective height of the solar panels as viewed from Oldfield Ave., or as view from 237th Street is as much as forty feet, or more. The applicant should be required to develop a three-dimensional screening and landscaping plan that addresses the site topography. On page 6 of the memo the planner states that “The applicant did not include a vertical sketch elevation of the premises drawn to scale that shows the proposed system and relationship to structures on adjacent lots within 150 feet of the parcel boundary because there are no structures within 150 feet of the site boundary.” This is incorrect. There is a structure on parcel 03.032.20.11006. According to measurements made using the Washington County public GIS site the structure is approximately 143 feet from the property boundary. For this reason the above- described vertical sketch elevation should be obtained from the applicant and made available for public review. Concerning Conditional Use Permits, Ordinance 169, Chapter Two, Section 8.1 reads as follows: The purpose and intent of a conditional use permit is to authorize and regulate uses which may be beneficial in a specific instance to the general welfare of the community, yet ensure that such uses are not detrimental to surrounding property, and are consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district in which such uses are located… It is further stated at 8.4 (3) The conditional use will not 3 be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values or scenic views. (The bolding is mine.) The planner states in paragraph 4 on page 10 of the memo that the proposed use will not have a negative impact on adjacent property values or scenic views. The planner provides no basis for this conclusion and offers no data to support this assertion. As a real estate appraiser (MN License No. 20204153), I find this categorical and unsubstantiated assertion by the Planner to be irresponsible and highly suspect. The Planner does not have an appraiser’s license, has no apparent professional appraisal expertise and provides absolutely no justification for making such a sweeping statement concerning property valuation. This claim is repeated in the draft resolution that is currently on the City of Scandia website. This is deeply disturbing and makes it appear that the planner and the city are biased in favor of the applicant to the detriment of the affected city residents. I cannot overstate how troubling this is. It shows utter disregard for the people who will have to live next to this facility for the next 25 years. Unlike the developer and the city they have a lot to loose and nothing to gain. This should not be taken lightly. The fact is that we (the city included) don’t currently know how much impact this installation will have on the value of neighboring properties. It seems a bit unfair that the city planner can declare unilaterally that the proposed use will not have a negative impact on adjacent property values or views, while the burden of demonstrating that property values will be negatively impacted is placed on the residents, who will have to pay for a complicated appraisal costing thousands of dollars. One thing that cannot be denied, however, is that views currently enjoyed by adjacent homeowners will change and that the rural character of the neighborhood will be altered for the foreseeable future. Indeed, common sense informs us that the view of an agricultural meadow and oak woods is an amenity and considerably more desirable than a view of acres of solar panels. During the planned upcoming site visit I strongly encourage members of the Planning Commission to visit the home owned by Steve and Donnette Yehle at 14210 237th Street N. stand on the front porch and observe the view of the existing meadow and oak woods to the east. Then picture this field of view replaced by acres of solar panels. Next visit the home at 141195 237th St N. owned by Travis and Aimee Roddel and do the same. I don’t believe that you will be able to say honestly that these two properties will not be negatively affected by this installation. During the Planning Committee meeting on March 2 the Planner stated that if all conditions are met by the applicant the city must issue the CUP. This statement is misleading. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission and subsequently the City Council have considerable discretion to find for disapproval of the CUP. As I have discussed above, this sloping site is a poor choice for a solar farm, it will be extremely difficult to screen from public view and there is a high likelihood that the 4 adjacent properties will be negatively impacted. The planning commission has adequate grounds to find for disapproval of the CUP. Converting from a fossil fuel dependent economy to an economy that runs on clean and renewable energy sources, such as solar, is a worthy and necessary endeavor. Nevertheless, not all sites and not all locations are going to be appropriate for solar generating stations. Such is the case with the Oldfield site. After giving this matter careful consideration I’m confident that this project will be deemed to be detrimental and injurious to the use and enjoyment of the residential properties in the immediate vicinity. Thank you for considering my comments. Please contact me by phone at 651-433- 5254 (h) or 651-214-2341 (c) if you wish to discuss. Sincerely, Jim Martin cc: Neil Soltis, City Administrator 5