Plan Commission gives staff direction to pursue a middle‑option solar ordinance and use table, urges guidance on historic districts

Planning staff asked the Monona Plan Commission for direction on a prospective ordinance to regulate solar energy systems (discussion of possible changes to Chapter 480). Commissioners generally favored a middle‑ground approach — clearer definitions and standards without overly prescriptive product‑level rules — and asked staff to return with a redline ordinance, a use table by zoning district, and specific language for historic districts.

Alder Holpfist and planning staff framed three options: a detailed, broad option that defines system types and detailed siting/visibility standards; a district‑by‑district approach that embeds shorter rules in each zoning district; and a lighter, short‑form approach that defines systems and clarifies applicable state statute language but remains compact. Staff described the middle option as the most useful for covering common cases while avoiding overreach into rare edge cases.

Commissioners discussed ground‑mounted residential arrays, impervious surface and accessory‑structure limits, rooftop panels and height allowances, battery storage, and small‑scale wind. Chair members reiterated that atypical or higher‑impact installations should have a mechanism to come before the commission for a discretionary review rather than forcing applicants to pursue a formal hardship variance procedure at the zoning board of appeals.

Rob, who works with utility and community‑scale installations, recommended the “middle” option as a practical balance: “A being the middle option,” he said in the discussion, and commissioners asked staff to ensure the code explicitly requires any conditional or exceptional proposals to come before the planning commission so commissioners can weigh design and community impacts.

Commissioners also asked staff to research peer municipalities’ approaches, to include battery storage considerations, and to prepare product‑board or sample‑product requirements when a visible design choice must be approved. Historic district proposals were flagged for special handling and the commission asked that language route historic‑district reviews to the Landmarks Commission (section 04/8020 language suggested by staff).

Staff will prepare a redline ordinance and a use table for review at a future meeting; commissioners asked that staff aim to present options with product samples when remedies or approvals would affect public‑facing materials.