7.a Staff Report-Repealing the Development code section on solar farms and community solars gardens
Staff Report
Date of Meeting: September 5, 2017
To: Planning Commission
From: Neil Soltis, Administrator
Re: Repealing Development Code Section 4.34 Solar Farms and Community Solar Gardens
Background: The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the City Council meeting held on
August 2, 2017.
DISCUSSION ON COMMUNITY SOLAR FARMS ORDINANCE
At the June Work Session, Council asked staff to research the requirements for placing a
moratorium on the solar garden ordinance. Administrator Soltis provided a League handout
that explained the procedures. State statute permits a city to establish an interim ordinance
while the city is conducting studies that may lead to an amendment of the ordinance. In 2016
the City placed a 3-month moratorium on applications so that the Planning Commission could
review the ordinance. Changes to standards such as screening and setbacks were made. Soltis
said that there must be a specific reason or study identified to enact a moratorium.
Council member Kronmiller said that he has concerns about environmental impacts, with
questions that should be answered before approving any more solar gardens. Council member
Hegland said that the solar developments seem to be an aggravation, remove property from the
market that could be developed, and the City should get out of the solar business completely.
Mayor Maefsky said that the initial intent of the solar ordinance was to provide an alternative to
farmers from selling off their land for development; however, that has occurred in 1 of the 6
community solars gardens that have been approved. Council member Schneider said that he
sees the issue both ways and could either take or leave them. He said there could be an issue if
some property owners can have solar gardens and now others cannot.
Administrator Soltis provided an aerial view of Scandia noting that solar gardens need to be in
the vicinity of Xcel’s distribution line and that substantial portions of the City near the Xcel
distribution lines are located in Shoreland districts where solar gardens as not a permitted use.
Consequently, the potential for additional gardens may be limited. Soltis added that the
screening requirements have evolved from screening from the road to screening from adjoining
properties which potentially increases the cost to the point that solar providers are not willing
to develop parcels due to the investment in meeting the landscape requirement.
Hegland, seconded by Maefsky, moved to terminate (repeal) the solar ordinance.
Discussion: Soltis explained that the 6 solar gardens already approved by Conditional Use
Permits would be allowed to be built. The implications could be a loss of revenue stream
collected by additional solar energy production taxes. The 6 approved solar garden, totaling 20
megawatts, are projected to provide $8,000 per year once they are producing. Maefsky said
that having 6 solar gardens shows that Scandia has done its part in providing for green,
alternative energy.
Maefsky called for a vote on the above motion: Hegland, Kronmiller, Maefsky – yes. Schneider –
no. The motion carried 3-1.
Issue: Under state law (Minn. Stat. 462.357, subds. 2, 3 & 4) provides the following requirements
for amending the ordinance which would release the section of the development code :
• The governing body may adopt and amend (and a repeal of a section of the zoning
ordinance is in effect amending that ordinance) a zoning ordinance by a majority vote of all
its members, but subject to the requirements of subds. 3 & 4 (subd. 2).
• No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing
has been held by the planning agency or by the governing body (subd. 3).
• An amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body; an
amendment not initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency
for study and report and may not be acted upon by the governing body until it has received
the recommendation of the planning agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days
have elapsed without a report of the planning agency. (This was the process initiated at the
last CC meeting for amendments to the lighting performance standards to the Development
Code).
Options:
1. After the public hearing make a recommendation to the City Council by motion
2. After the public hearing take no action on a recommendation