My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024.06.03 CC Packet
Hugo
>
City Council
>
City Council Agenda/Packets
>
2024 CC Packet
>
2024.06.03 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2024 3:49:14 PM
Creation date
6/14/2024 10:05:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Document Type
Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
6/3/2024
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
176
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Council Meeting Minutes for May 20, 2024 <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />City because of issues related to compatibility and appearance. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Rachel Juba provided background information. The City <br />enacted an ordinance due to the legislature requiring Xcel Energy to buy electricity from solar <br />farms in their distribution system. In 2023, because of community concerns, restrictions to solar <br />farms on setbacks and landscaping had been added. There had been two applications, and staff <br />received the same feedback on both of them regarding how they did not fit into the character of <br />the area. Rachel indicated she was aware that other communities have the same issues. She <br />recommended the City Council discuss whether to revise or add any regulation, restrictions, or <br />prohibitions to the ordinance. If the City Council wanted to amend the Solar Farm ordinance, <br />staff had drafted an interim ordinance placing a moratorium on new development of Solar Farms <br />and direct a study to be conducted. <br /> <br />Klein talked about having the same issues even after the ordinance was made more restrictive <br />saying there would always be pushback with a visual changed. He questioned whether a <br />moratorium and more restriction would make a difference. <br /> <br />Petryk asked about residential solar panels. Rachel explained that accessory solar was allowed <br />and would not be part of the moratorium. Rooftop solar panels and pole mounted panels were <br />allowed to the same square footage as an accessory building, and permits were required. <br /> <br />City Administrator Bryan Bear explained that changes to the ordinance were led by community <br />opposition, and despite adding more restrictions, it didn’t change. Bear said the question should <br />be asked whether there were locations in Hugo for these. Requirements could be changed, or <br />solar farms could be prohibited completely. Any amendments to the ordinance would require a <br />public hearing at the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Miron noted that one solar farm had been approved, and one denied. He said the common issue <br />was the character piece and he would be ok with taking a pause and having more conversations. <br />He said the ordinance was robust and restrictive, but the character piece needed more discussion. <br />He suggested a joint workshop with the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Strub agreed with Miron and wondered how to quantify neighborhood character saying the last <br />applicant had jumped through hoops but was denied because of a subjective issue. <br /> <br />Petryk asked for clarification on where soar farms were allowed. Rachel replied they were <br />allowed in Long Term Agriculture, Agricultural, Future Urban Services, and districts in <br />floodplains or wetlands, and there was a limit of five acres in size. Petryk talked about the visual <br />impact saying it would be difficult when you have people looking down. She agreed it would <br />not hurt to take a pause. <br /> <br />Klein talked about property owner’s rights and being allowed to put in a business that was <br />conducive to the property. Klein said solar farms made sense in some instances, and he had no <br />problem taking six months to review the ordinance. <br /> <br />Miron said a six-month review was not a long time, and it would also protect potential <br />applicants.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.