Loading...
7. 2022.10.04 - Memo on Solar Farm Moratorium Study TKDA ® | 444 Cedar Street Suite 1500 | Saint Paul, MN 55101 651.292.4400 • tkda.com An employee -owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity. Memorandum To: Scandia Planning Commission Reference: Solar Farm Study & Moratorium Copies To: Brenda Eklund, Clerk Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator Project No.: 18408.000 From: Evan Monson, Planner Routing: Date: September 28, 2022 SUBJECT: Discussion on Solar Farm Moratorium and Study MEETING DATE: October 4, 2022 BACKGROUND There are a number of existing Distribution Solar Energy Systems in the city, often referred to as ‘solar farms’. After considering a potential ordinance amendment that would open certain shoreland areas, the City Council looked at reviewing the current zoning regulations of such uses. The City Council recently issued a moratorium on new solar farms within the city. The moratorium outlines a scope of what to include in the study, such as:  The zoning districts in which distribution SES shall be permitted in  The density and concentration of distribution SES  Better addressing concerns with screening  Better understand the effect of distribution SES on other uses and environmental conditions in surrounding areas  Appropriate conditional use permit requirements  Other items, as needed The city conducted a survey over the last month in order to get some feedback on the issue. Included in the meeting materials is a slideshow showing the results of the survey, which is also summarized on the following page of this memo. Solar Farm Moratorium & Study October 4, 2022 Scandia Planning Commission Page 2 SURVEY As expected, most respondents of the survey were residents of the city (95%). Comments were mixe d regarding the issue, as there were respondents who were strongly supportive of solar farms, as well as respondents strongly in support of not allowing additional solar farms. In regards to question 3, which asked if increasing the screening level upon installation to 90% or more would change people’s opinion, 42% were supporting or strongly supporting more solar farms in the city, and 47.8% opposed or strongly opposed. 9.2% were neutral. In the open-ended questions, multiple comments noted frustration with early solar farm installations tha t were installed when screening standards were lower. Question 4 asked if solar farms should be allowed in other zones in addition to AG C; 49.3% opposed or were strongly opposed to allowing them in other zones, while only 32.4% supported or strongly supported. Nearly 13% were neutral. Some of the open-ended comments suggested allowing solar farms in commercial, industrial, or mining overlay zones in the city. Question 5 asked if respondents supported more restrictions on solar farms, such as limiting them to larger lots. 37.2% were supporting or strongly supportive of more restrictions, while a third of respondents were opposed or strongly opposed to more restrictions. 21.7% were neutral. A number of comments received noted more immediate screening, such as berms and mature trees, larger lot requirements, and increased setbacks could be solutions. Some comments received noted that the city should respect the rights of property owners to choose if they want solar farms on their land, and noted they preferred solar farms to commercial or dense residential development. Question 6 asked if requiring native plantings, crops, or beehives be integrated with solar farms would improve views of solar farms. Just over 55% noted their opinions would improve or strongly improve, while only 20.3% noted it would not improve; 15% were neutral. Some respondents though that more native plantings and crops could help better integrate solar farms with the surroundings. Overall, survey respondents opposed more solar farms by a slight m argin over allowing more. Given the number of responses were about 5% of the city’s population, the survey results are not an exact measure of everyone’s views, though this does give the commission important data to work with. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS In July, we had looked at ordinances in other ‘peer’ communities to compare and contrast what is and is not allowed or required for solar farm installations. Some of the most restrictive peer communities limited solar farms to zones that are not prevalent, such as industrial. For reference, Scandia has only one industrial park, located east of the village center. A number of communities limited solar farms to large lots; requirements ranged from 5 acres to 10 acres as the minimum needed; the city does not have a size requirement currently. Setback requirements varied from community to community, with many having similar distances to what we require currently. Scandia’s current requirements are a 75 foot setback from property lines, 350 foot setback from residences, 500 feet from the centerline of minor arterial roadways, and 200 feet from the centerline of all other roadways. Screening varied from community to community, with many not having specific standards (‘screening shall be determined by the city’). One example with specific standards was North Branch, who required two rows of conifers of 8 feet in height upon installation be used to screen solar farms, or a combination of berms + plantings if the conifers alone could not screen the installation. Given the respondents of the survey taking issue with a perceived lack of immediate screening, something similar this could be adopted. Solar Farm Moratorium & Study October 4, 2022 Scandia Planning Commission Page 3 NEXT STEPS The commission should discuss the results from the survey, and re-review the findings from the ordinances of the ‘peer’ communities. Based off discussion, the commission can ask staff to draft some specific ordinance language to review and consider at an upcoming meeting. Solar Farm Moratorium & Study October 4, 2022 Scandia Planning Commission Page 4 MOVING FORWARD The commission is encouraged to review the different requirements for solar farms listed above; especially if there are certain items/aspects to focus on for upcoming meetings. Upon closing of the survey, the findings will then be reviewed at a future meeting.