2018.10.01 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FastSun 4, LLC. Solar Farm IUP Page 4 Staff updated the IUP to include the following: 1. Review every five years. 2. The applicant shall provide: a. An insurance policy. b. A stormwater management plan to be reviewed and approved by City staff. c. A landscape maintenance agreement shall be reviewed and approved by staff. d. A cash escrow per the grand total amount for decommissioning and site restoration estimate. There were ten people that spoke during the public hearing. A majority of the same concerns from the July 23rd meeting were stated, with a strong concern that it did not fit the character of the area. Additional comments included: 1. Concerns about the glare from the solar panels. 2. Concerns that the trees and the size proposed would not be tall enough to screen the solar farm. 3. Concern about the voltage from the transformer box and electromagnetic interference (cell phones, internet, etc.) from the solar farm. The applicant provided the Planning Commission with material data sheets for the materials that are inside the solar panels. He also stated that the solar panels would be built to City and State building code requirements. He provided the Commission with data regarding solar farms on the east coast that were in the line of a hurricane and that they sustained only minor damage. He stated that the voltage from the transformer is the same as one you would see in the urban area of town. He stated in terms of the electromagnetic interference there have not been any reports in interference and the Minneapolis Airport has several solar panels on the parking ramp. He stated that there will be three additional power poles installed along 165d' Street to serve the solar farm and provide the power to Xcel Energy. A Planning Commissioner asked it is was possible to have two staggered rows of evergreen trees along the west side. The applicant stated if would be difficult in some areas because of the space between the driveway and the property line. The Commissioner asked if the solar farm could be moved to the east. The applicant stated that may be possible. The Planning Commission discussed the project and the additional items submitted. There were two Commissioners that stated, although the applicant has provided the additional information requested there is one criteria of approval they did not met in there mind, which was the character of the area. This was in the terms that the solar farm did not fit in the neighborhood in the area it was proposed. One Commissioner stated that there may other uses that are allowed in the zoning district that may be larger and have more impact on the neighboring properties. Three Commissioners agreed that the applicant had provided sufficient information and that the proposal meet the criteria for approval of an interim use permit. 4