OKAY. HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME.
[00:00:03]
TAKE ROLL.FIRST ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 3RD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
[Accept December 3, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes]
TAKE ANY DISCUSSION YOU GUYS HAVE ON THOSE.I WILL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE DECEMBER 3RD, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS LISTED.
I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE.
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
SPECIFICALLY THE SECTIONS 9.104 ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 9.110 COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS AND 9.111 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.THIS IS JUST KIND OF A FOLLOW UP TO OUR DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP.
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO FINDINGS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS PER 9.104F.
AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE SIX SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE THAT WE'RE AMENDING.
ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, NOT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, BUT COMMERCIAL, WELL ACTUALLY, TECHNICALLY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS FOR 9.104.
WE PREVIOUSLY REMOVED INTERIM USES, BUT WE STILL HAD A SECTION IN ADMINISTRATION FOR INTERIM USES.
AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO AMEND THAT TO BE CHANGED FROM INTERIM USE TO ZONING REVIEW PERMIT.
AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ITEMS THAT PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARINGS OR OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO FORMAL PLANNING REVIEW, JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
THESE ITEMS INCLUDE FENCES OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE CAR WASH, AS YOU RECALL, HAD TO COME IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN OVERHEIGHT FENCE, BUT WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR REQUIREMENTS THAT WE COULD HOLD THEM TO.
I KNOW EVERYONE'S VERY EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO THE YEARLY FIREWORKS TENT APPLICATION.
AND THEN OTHER ITEMS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNDER 200FT².
WE DON'T ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THESE.
SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
BUT IF YOU DON'T REALLY COME TO US, THAT KIND OF REVIEW NEVER REALLY HAPPENS.
AND THEN THE OTHER TWO ITEMS ARE PARKING AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ADDITIONS.
SO ANY AS THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY HAD TAKEN ON AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM, THIS IS GOING TO HELP BASICALLY ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR US TO REVIEW THOSE AND TO TRY TO CATCH THINGS PROACTIVELY BEFORE YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNERS EXCEED THAT MAXIMUM. SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF A REALLY GOOD TOOL TO HELP US PROACTIVELY ADDRESS THINGS BEFORE THEY TURN INTO ENFORCEMENT CASES.
AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM IS JUST WHEN WE PASSED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS LANGUAGE, WE DID HAVE ITEMS REQUIRING OWNER OCCUPANCY DEED RESTRICTIONS AND THEN RENTAL LICENSING FOR THE PROPERTY.
SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL WORK FOR THE APPLICANTS.
IT'S JUST KIND OF A TOUCH POINT FOR ADMIN TO BASICALLY CONFIRM THAT THEY DID RECORD THE DEED RESTRICTION AND THAT THEY DID COMPLETE THE RENTAL LICENSING. 9.106 DEVELOPMENT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
WE HAVE A FEW DIFFERENT AMENDMENTS.
THE FIRST IS CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
[00:05:06]
MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE.SO JUST LOOKING AT KIND OF HOW WE ORGANIZED THE ADU REGULATIONS, IT MADE SENSE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM SIZE REGULATION, JUST SO WE CAN GUARANTEE THAT AS PEOPLE CONSTRUCT ADUS, WE ARE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE INTENTION OF THE HABITABLE SPACE DEFINITION. ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDES FENCES, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF OVERHEIGHT FENCES, INSTEAD OF REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO HOLD THESE FENCES TO.
SO WE WOULD REVIEW THAT AS A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN I BELIEVE IF IT'S OVER SEVEN FEET, THEY NEED TO HAVE ENGINEERING, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO WE CAN GO INTO THE NEXT ONE.
THE NEXT ONE, THE NEXT AMENDMENT TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDES SOME CHANGES TO OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING BASED ON SOME OF THAT FEEDBACK AND THE DISCUSSION WE HAD AT OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE CALCULATING SPACE IS KIND OF, I'D SAY THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE OF ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS AND JUST BASICALLY FOLLOWS, I BELIEVE, RIDGEFIELD'S EXAMPLE. WHERE THEY AT THE COUNCIL, AT THEIR DISCRETION, CAN REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING TO LESS TO NOT LESS THAN 1.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES WITH SEVEN OR MORE UNITS.
AFTER CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE PRESENT AND FUTURE AVAILABILITY OF TRANSIT SERVICES, SHARED PARKING, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION AND OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS, AND THIS REALLY LEADS INTO THE NEXT AMENDMENTS TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS CONTAINING TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS TO TWO SPACES PER UNIT, WITH ONE OF THESE BEING ENCLOSED.
PREVIOUSLY, BOTH SPACES HAD TO BE ENCLOSED, AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, MOST OF OUR LARGER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OR MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE LAST, I DON'T KNOW, 5 OR 6 YEARS, I HAVE TYPICALLY GOTTEN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ROUTE PARTIALLY TO ALLEVIATE REALLY TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT.
AND IT WAS KIND OF STAFF'S CONTENTION THAT IF ALL THESE PROJECTS ARE CONTINUINGLY CONTINUOUSLY HAVING TO DO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT STANDARD, IT'S NOT A VERY EFFECTIVE STANDARD.
THAT SEEMS VERY REASONABLE COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.
BASICALLY, THE WAY WE WROTE THE CODE FOR ADUS IS IT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY REQUIRE OFF STREET PARKING, BUT IT SAYS THAT THE ADU AND THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT COMBINED HAVE TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE PARKING.
AND THEN WE JUST HADN'T SET A REQUIREMENT FOR ADUS TO HAVE ANY PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THE WAY WE PASSED THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, IT BASICALLY ALLOWS FOR OUTDOOR AREAS OR PAVING TO BE PAVED AND FOR THAT SPACE NOT TO BE ENCLOSED.
9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THERE ARE TWO THREE CHANGES TOTAL.
TWO APPLYING TO CAR WASHES, THE FIRST BEING A SOUND STUDY PREPARED BY AN INDEPENDENT LICENSED THIRD PARTY ENGINEER IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MPCA REGULATIONS AND SHOW THAT ADJACENT PROPERTIES WILL BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED, WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THE OPERATION.
AND THAT WAS KIND OF A BIG STICKING POINT WITH THE SOUND STUDY THAT THE CAR WASH HAD PROVIDED.
[00:10:10]
WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED UPON CONSTRUCTION, AND CITIES CAN'T ALLOW THE APPROVAL OF ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDS THAT UPON CONSTRUCTION.THEY THEIR STUDY SHOWED THAT WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THEM.
AND THIS IS THIS IS LARGELY VERY CONSISTENT WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER AUTO USES.
THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT ARE DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES.
BUT JUST WITH ZONING, WE REALLY WANTED TO KIND OF MAKE THINGS AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE.
SO JUST CONSISTENCY WAS THE GOAL WITH THAT.
AND THEN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, WE TWEAKED SOME OF THE USES FOR LIMITED BUSINESS DISTRICTS TO AGAIN ALLOW FENCES OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE THAT AGAIN WOULD BE REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BUT THOSE ARE MORE RADIUS BASED.
AND SO THERE WERE NO ACTUAL SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WERE REALLY ENFORCEABLE.
BASED ON KIND OF THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK, COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK, JUST A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD REGARDING AUTO USES, IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE TO BAKE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEDBACK, BECAUSE SO MANY OF OUR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS ABUT RESIDENTIAL.
SO WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION IN MAKING CAR WASHES AND MINOR MINOR AUTO AND MOTORCYCLE REPAIR, BOTH CONDITIONAL USES IN GENERAL BUSINESS.
AGAIN, FENCES EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE.
SO THOSE ARE ALL THE CHANGES WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THE THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
AND THEN THAT KIND OF JUST CONTINUES INTO THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS.
THIS IS KIND OF SOMETHING I WANTED TO GET YOUR GUYS'S FEEDBACK ON.
RIGHT NOW THEY ARE CURRENTLY PERMITTED USES IN I-1 AND I-2.
BUT RIGHT NOW STAFF IS ALSO PROPOSING TO MAKE THOSE CONDITIONAL USES.
I THINK THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE THE MINIMUM OF AN ACRE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A SMALLER CITY, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LARGER LOT SIZES. I THINK THAT IS PRETTY LIMITING IN ITSELF.
BUT I DO THINK THAT JUST BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE CAR WASH, I FELT LIKE IT MADE SENSE TO KIND OF MAKE THOSE CONSISTENT AND GIVE THE COMMUNITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE, OKAY, IS THIS SOMETHING WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE? AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGES ARE JUST MAKING FENCE AGAIN, FENCE IS GREATER THAN SEVEN FEET IN HEIGHT.
BUT REALLY WE WANTED TO BE THE AUTO USES TO BE CONSISTENT.
THE AMENDMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER.
WHEN THE AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGES TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THE EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY ARE COMPATIBLE.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, I WOULD SAY.
SO THREE AND FOUR DON'T NECESSARILY APPLY.
BUT THIS WAS LARGELY KIND OF BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT THESE REQUIRED FINDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.
YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
WELL, FIRST I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT THAT OVERALL I REALLY LIKE THESE CHANGES.
[00:15:04]
I THINK THEY'RE SMART, STRAIGHTFORWARD, EASY TO UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THEM.THE PART THAT I HAVE A QUESTION WITH IS WITH THE ZONING REVIEW PERMIT IN PARTICULAR WITH THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES UNDER 200FT².
SO HOW I'M JUST I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WOULD WORK.
SO IF I WERE A HOMEOWNER, RIGHT? AND I WANT TO PUT IN, LIKE A TOOL SHED THAT HAS 50FT² OR LIKE A LITTLE GREENHOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE'S NO BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THAT, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO BUT WHAT WOULD THE HOMEOWNER HAVE TO DO? I THINK THERE WOULD BE WE'D WANT TO SEE AN APPLICATION AND JUST KIND OF HAVE THEM DESCRIBE WHAT THEY'RE DOING, JUST SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE THAT IT'S KIND OF CONSISTENT WITH WHAT GETS BUILT.
I'D SAY THIS IS MORE SO TO ENFORCE, LIKE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM.
I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE A SURVEY FOR STRUCTURES UNDER 200FT², BUT I THINK WHAT I WOULD DO, TYPICALLY WHEN PEOPLE ASK IF THEY CAN BUILD X, Y, OR Z, I'LL LOOK AT THE GIS AND WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM, JUST KIND OF TRY TO DO A ROUGH CALCULATION.
AND IF THEY'RE CLOSE WITH THIS, IT WOULD BE UNDER 200FT².
IF I CAN TELL THAT THERE'S MORE THAN 200FT² OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AVAILABLE, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT THAT IS LARGELY SATISFIED THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE ZONING REVIEW. AND I THINK IT'S JUST KIND OF IT'S MORE SO JUST TO KIND OF BE PROACTIVE BEFORE THINGS TURN INTO ENFORCEMENT CASES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. LIKE, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF EMPOWER HOMEOWNERS TO KNOW THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING MEETS CODE.
AND I THINK THE ZONING REVIEW PERMIT IS A REALLY GOOD WAY TO DO THAT.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? I THINK SO.
SO AGAIN, A BIG CONCERN IS THE IMPERVIOUS STRUCTURES.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. YEAH. YEAH.
OKAY. AND THEN THE HOMEOWNER WOULD NEED TO, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT, YOU SAID SAY IT AGAIN.
JUST COMPLETE THE APPLICATION AND THEN JUST KIND OF PROVIDE A BRIEF NARRATIVE.
YOU'VE CROSSED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM.
OR, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S LARGER THAN 200FT², THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE SAYING NO TO THINGS, BUT THERE'S TIMES WHERE WE JUST HAVE TO.
OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY.
AND WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? OH, SORRY. YES.
LET'S OPEN UP THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR WE HAVE ANYBODY HAVE ANY PUBLIC.
LET'S CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION.
CAN WE GET A MOTION? YEP. I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WAIVE THE READING OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1709.
THERE BEING AMPLE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
I'LL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
AWESOME. TAKES US TO OUR NEXT ITEM.
[OTHER BUSINESS]
SO IN EARLY IN NOVEMBER, THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDED PURSUING SOLSMART PARTICIPATION.AND THAT WAS APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 25TH, 2024 COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE PRESENTED INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROGRAM. SOLSMART, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, IS A PROGRAM DESIGNATED OR DESIGNED TO PROVIDE NO COST TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HELP IDENTIFY BARRIERS TO RENEWABLE ENERGY AND IMPLEMENT NATIONAL BEST PRACTICES REGARDING EXPANDING SOLAR ENERGY USE.
[00:20:07]
THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT BECAUSE OF THE SEVEN COUNTY METRO, THE MET COUNCIL ACTUALLY HAS A DESIGNATED STAFF PERSON THAT A FEW DIFFERENT STAFF, PEOPLE THAT DO THAT CAN KIND OF FACILITATE THE SOLSMART PARTICIPATION.[INAUDIBLE] COMMUNITIES ARE RECOGNIZED THROUGH A DESIGNATION PROGRAM.
WE'RE, BASED ON PRACTICES AND BEST ACTIONS, THEY CAN ACHIEVE A BRONZE, SILVER, GOLD OR PLATINUM.
AND THERE'S A SERIES OF CATEGORIES SUCH AS PERMIT PERMITTING AND INSPECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING, GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT.
THERE WERE BASICALLY TWO PREREQUISITES REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATING.
FIRST IS CREATING AN ONLINE SOLAR PERMIT AND INSPECTION CHECKLIST AND PREPARING A SOLAR STATEMENT, WHICH CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE SOLAR STATEMENT AUTHORIZING OUR PARTICIPATION.
AND THEN I'VE WORKED WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL AND SARA AND SOME OF OUR OTHER STAFF TO KIND OF PUT TOGETHER A ONLINE CHECKLIST DESCRIBING WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR SOLAR PERMITTING AND THEN WHAT THE INSPECTION INSPECTION PROCESS IS LIKE.
THE ONLY REQUIREMENT LEFT BEFORE A BRONZE DESIGNATION IS TO REVIEW THE MEMO THAT THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SOLSMART TECHNICAL STAFF PREPARED, AND THEN PRESENT THESE FINDINGS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.
SO COUNCIL AND SOLSMART STAFF REVIEWED OUR ZONING CODE TO BASICALLY VERIFY AND DOCUMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY, AS WELL AS PROVIDE A BASELINE SPREADSHEET TO TRACK THE CITY'S PROGRESS THROUGH THE PROGRAM.
I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GO INTO SOME OF WHAT THOSE COMPLETED ACTIONS ARE.
THAT WE REQUIRE NO MORE THAN ONE INSPECTION FOR SMALL ROOFTOP SOLAR, THAT WE POST SOLAR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS ONLINE, INCLUDING THE INSPECTION PROCESS AND WHAT DETAILS WILL BE REVIEWED.
DEMONSTRATE THAT RESIDENTIAL PERMIT FEES FOR SOLAR ARE $500 OR LESS.
I MENTIONED THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER THEIR FINDINGS IN A MEMO THAT I'VE PREPARED AND PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS AS PART OF YOUR PACKET, AND THEN PRESENTING THAT MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR RELEVANT BODY.
THERE ARE SOME TRAININGS THAT ARE PERMITTING INSPECTION STAFF AS WELL AS FIRE STAFF CAN GO THROUGH.
SO THAT WAS KIND OF A NEAT ADDITION.
I KNOW WE DO SOME ONLINE PERMITTING, BUT AS WE KIND OF DO OUR NEW TYLER SOFTWARE, THAT'S SOMETHING I EXPECT TO BE INCLUDED. AND THEN OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE OR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE POSTING COMMUNITY METRICS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF SOLAR PV AND SOLAR STORAGE PERMITS INSPECTIONS PROCESSED BY THE COMMUNITY ANNUALLY, AS WELL AS AVERAGE ANNUAL PERMITTING AND INSPECTION TIMELINES.
BASED ON MY REVIEW OF SOME OF OUR PERMIT RECORDS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VERY QUICK TO ADOPT SOME OF THE TO REALLY JUST KIND OF INSTALL ADDITIONAL SOLAR CAPACITY.
I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING THAT KIND OF BECOME PART OF OUR GIS FUNCTIONALITY JUST TO KIND OF DOCUMENT WHO'S ALREADY KIND OF TAKING THIS INITIATIVE, RECOGNIZE THEM, AND THEN KIND OF TRACK HOW THAT CONTRIBUTES TO OUR OVERALL, LIKE COMMUNITY GENERATING CAPACITY.
[00:25:10]
RESPONDERS AND THEIR DEPARTMENTS TO ALLOW USERS TO VIEW SEARCHABLE, FILTERABLE DATA ABOUT SPECIFIC SITE AND SYSTEM.I MET WITH SOLSMART PROGRAM STAFF TO JUST KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR THEIR PROGRAM ACTIONS ARE, AND THEN TO SEE HOW MANY OF THESE THINGS MAKE SENSE FOR US TO PURSUE.
AND SO ULTIMATELY, I'VE COME UP WITH 14 ITEMS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING SECTION THAT I THINK CAN BE INCLUDED IN ANOTHER ROUND OF ZONING AMENDMENTS, ALONG WITH POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THE FIRST IS THAT WE DRAFT PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR CHANGES TO ZONING CODE BASED ON THE MEMO THAT'S ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET, AND THEN INVOLVING PLANNERS, LOCAL ZONING EXPERTS AND THE PUBLIC IN CREATION OF THE DRAFT LANGUAGE.
ONE OF THE BIG POINTS IS CODIFYING, CODIFYING IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ACCESSORY USE ROOFTOP SOLAR IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN ALL MAJOR ZONES. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR GOLD.
ENSURE THE ZONING LANGUAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL BARRIERS TO ROOFTOP SOLAR, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ESTHETIC OR PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, LIMITS TO VISIBILITY, EXCESSIVE RESTRICTIONS TO SYSTEM SIZE, ROOFTOP COVERAGE, DESIGN REVIEW AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.
WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER ADDRESSING SOLAR IN OUR ZONING CODE.
SO IT WAS REALLY EASY TO NOT REALLY HAVE ANY BARRIERS TO HAVE IN PLACE.
ENSURE THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE EXEMPTS SMALL GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR FROM CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESSORY USE, SETBACKS, COVERAGE, OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS.
BASICALLY, THERE'S WAYS YOU CAN KIND OF INCLUDE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO BASICALLY FOLLOW THE BEST PRACTICES AND KIND OF ELIMINATE SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS BEFORE THEY EVEN EXIST BY JUST BAKING IN HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE BUILT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
ENSURE THE ZONING ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES A CLEAR REGULATORY PATHWAY FOR LARGE SCALE SOLAR PV THROUGH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, OR THROUGH INCLUSION AMONG ALLOWED CONDITIONAL USES.
I'M GOING TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST AND SAY THAT I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY HAVE THE LAND AVAILABLE FOR LARGE SCALE COMMUNITY SOLAR, BUT I THINK WE DO KIND OF WANT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD BE A PERMITTED USE, A CONDITIONAL USE, PERMITTED USE WITH CONDITIONS.
THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE DO THAT.
AGAIN, I KIND OF SEE THIS AS BEING AN ACCESSORY USE OR A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT.
JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
THE MET COUNCIL IS KIND OF WEIGHING WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ON CLIMATE, HEALTH AND EQUITY AS PART OF THE 2050 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CYCLE, THAT'S LIKELY GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT.
IT MADE SENSE TO REALLY KIND OF DIAL IN ON WHAT OUR SOLAR GOALS OR SUSTAINABILITY GOALS ARE PRIOR TO THAT 2050 COMP PLAN CYCLE. I THINK THAT IT JUST PUTS US IN A BETTER POSITION TO KIND OF HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE THE SYSTEM STATEMENTS GO OUT, BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY WHAT KICKS OFF THE ACTUAL COMP PLAN CYCLE.
AND SO I JUST WANTED PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT STRATEGIC PLANNING COMING UP.
AND THAT ALSO KIND OF LEADS INTO PROVIDING TIMELINES OR INCLUSION OF SPECIFIC SOLAR GOALS, METRIC STRATEGIES AND THEN SHARING THAT PROGRESS AS WE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, AS THE YEARS PASS, ARE WE GETTING CLOSER TO THESE GOALS?
[00:30:06]
DO THESE GOALS NEED TO BE CHANGED? OTHER ITEMS INCLUDE DEVELOPING A SOLAR PV ASSESSMENT, IDENTIFYING COMMUNITY WIDE FEASIBILITY FOR SOLAR PV DEVELOPMENT.IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THE 2040 PLAN KIND OF HAS A LITTLE MAP IMAGE OF THE CITY AS A WHOLE.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD START.
AND I THINK WE CAN KIND OF DIAL THAT IN A LITTLE FURTHER.
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS POTENTIALLY ENABLING SOLAR RIGHTS THROUGH A LOCAL SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE.
I HAVEN'T PREPARED A TON ON THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE MODEL ORDINANCES THAT WILL ALLOW PROPERTY OWNERS TO BASICALLY WORK WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS IN ESTABLISHING EASEMENTS TO BASICALLY PERMANENTLY GUARANTEE ACCESS TO SOLAR RESOURCES.
IF YOU GUYS CAN HELP ME OUT, I KNOW I BELIEVE THE LIBRARY HAS SOLAR LIBRARY, PUBLIC SAFETY AND THEN THE CITY IS I BELIEVE IT'S MAX.
WHERE YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THEM? I DON'T I THINK HE'S MAXED OUT THAT FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD AND THEN SOME OTHER ITEMS INCLUDE FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS FOR SOLAR PV ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES.
AND SO BASICALLY, THESE ARE I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO OVER WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING BASED ON THAT MEMO, THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT ROUND OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS.
AND I CAN KIND OF JUST START GOING THROUGH THAT, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
9.101 THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE B11, ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN SOLAR DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS, WHILE PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND THE WELFARE OF ITS RESIDENTS AND FURTHERING PROGRESS TOWARD SPECIFIC COMMUNITY GOALS AND PLANS.
I'M PROPOSING TO AMEND B2 TO ALSO REFLECT SPECIFIC PLANS AS WE KIND OF GET THEM IN PLACE.
I THINK THE ENERGY ACTION PLAN WOULD MAKE SENSE.
THAT'S A LIVING, THAT'S A LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT THAT CAN KIND OF GROW OVER TIME.
I HAVE I'M CONFLICTED ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD INCLUDE THE 2050 2040 PLAN JUST BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN DOES CHANGE EVERY TEN YEARS, I DON'T THINK IT'S A HUGE LIFT TO BASICALLY AMEND THE ZONING CODE EVERY TEN YEARS.
THAT'S SEEMS LIKE A BARE MINIMUM, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO BAKE IN ANY OF OUR OVERARCHING LONGER TERM PLANS INTO LIKE THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.
SO IT KIND OF HOLDS OUR FEET TO THE FIRE A LITTLE BIT.
LIKE THIS IS WHAT THE COMP PLAN SAYS, THIS IS WHAT THE CODE SAYS.
WE SHOULD BE MAKING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO KIND OF MEET THOSE GOALS.
THE NEXT SECTION IS THE DEFINITION SECTION.
PAUL, YOU CAN DEFINITELY CORRECT ME IF THERE'S OTHERS THAT I'VE MIS WORDED OR SHOULD INCLUDE, BUT WE FELT THAT THE MODEL ORDINANCE INCLUDES DEFINITIONS FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, SOLAR VOLTAIC SYSTEM, GRID CONNECTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, ROOF MOUNTED GROUND MOUNTED ACCESSORY USE, GROUND
[00:35:04]
MOUNTED PRIMARY USE, AND THEN COMMUNITY SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM.SOMETHING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER.
TYPICALLY WALLS AND A ROOF ARE KIND OF WHAT...
YEAH. I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF SOLAR SYSTEM IT IS, BUT GENERALLY NOT.
ARE THERE KINDS OF SOLAR SYSTEMS EXAMPLE, OR AN ENTIRE BUILDING IS BASED ON JUST FOR SOLAR, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED MORE AS STRUCTURES.
SO THAT'S LIKELY JUST FOR CONVERSATIONS SAKE.
THAT'S PROBABLY NOT APPLICABLE I DON'T THINK THIS IS WE'RE THINKING MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST COUNTRYWIDE KIND OF THING.
SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS AMENDING THE ACCESSORY BUILDING STRUCTURE AND STRUCTURE DEFINITION, JUST TO EXPLICITLY STATE THAT SOLAR EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE STRUCTURES.
KIND OF ON THAT SAME NOTE, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD KIND OF DISCUSS AND GET THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK ON WHETHER WE SHOULD INCLUDE SOME OF OUR EXISTING PROVISIONS ON YARD ENCROACHMENTS, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
BASICALLY, SHOULD THERE BE EXEMPTIONS OR SHOULD SOLAR EQUIPMENT BE INCLUDED IN THOSE PROVISIONS, LIKE FOR YARD ENCROACHMENTS? BASICALLY, IT ALLOWS FOR THINGS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE REGULATED BY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO BE EXEMPT FROM THOSE PROVIDED THAT THEY'RE NOT MORE THAN ONE FOOT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
JUST SO I'M NOT TALKING ABSTRACT.
SOME EXAMPLES OF YARD ENCROACHMENTS CANOPIES, AWNINGS, EAVES, BAY WINDOWS, OR OTHER ORNAMENTAL FEATURES, CHIMNEYS, AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, FIRE ESCAPES, FENCES, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
SO YEAH, THAT'S THESE USES ARE CONSIDERED NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS, PROVIDED THEY ARE LOCATED NO CLOSER THAN ONE FOOT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL LIKE SOLAR EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE HELD TO THAT SAME STANDARD? WHAT DOES YARD ENCROACHMENTS ENTAIL? WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY? WHAT DOES IT DO? HOW FAR CAN SOMETHING GO INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK.
YOU HAVE LIKE CERTAIN AREAS OF A PROPERTY FRONT, BACK AND SIDE THAT HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
SO GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR DEPENDING ON HOW HIGH IT IS IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO THROW A SHADE.
SO IT WILL HAVE A SIMILAR IMPACT ON THE YARD AS A CANOPY OR A SUN SHADE OR SHADE ESSENTIALLY, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO TEAR UP THE YARD A LITTLE BIT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD IT, DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF POSTING THAT YOU'LL NEED AND THINGS LIKE THAT TOO.
SO IT WILL DEFINITELY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE YARD.
SO DOES THAT WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A YARD ENCROACHMENT? IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT WOULD BE.
AND THEN HOLD IT TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WOULD BE, WHICH IS THREE FEET FROM THE REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACK OR PROPERTY LINES, AND THEN FIVE FEET FROM ANY OTHER PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER BUILDINGS.
I THINK THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE AN OPINION ON EITHER OF THOSE OPTIONS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? IT SEEMS LIKE IF IT'S LIKE A FOOT TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIKE, TURN IT AND DO SOME MAINTENANCE.
[00:40:07]
NOT CONSIDERED STRUCTURES, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SUBJECT THEM TO THE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE.I THINK THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.
I WOULD ADD TOO, WITH WITH THE THOUGHT OF GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR, I DON'T THINK THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF A GROUND MOUNTED SYSTEM ARE GOING TO BE NUMEROUS IN THIS, IN THIS BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP ON THE ROOF AND AWAY FROM THE TREE CANOPY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
SO IF WE DO HAVE ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR DOES MAKE SENSE, I THINK WE WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR THAT THAT BUSINESS OR THAT BUSINESS OR THAT RESIDENT TO USE THEM.
ON THAT NOTE, JUST KIND OF CONTINUING THAT CONVERSATION ON LOCK CONTROLS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
SHOULD THESE, SHOULD ROOFTOP SOLAR EQUIPMENT BASICALLY BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD BE? OR THERE'S A LET ME GO BACK TO THAT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD HEIGHT LIMITATIONS.
BUILDING AND STRUCTURE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT SHALL APPLY TO ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, EXCEPT THAT SUCH HEIGHT LIMITATIONS MAY BE INCREASED BY UP TO 50% WHEN APPLIED TO THE FOLLOWING CHURCHES, CHURCH STEEPLES, CHIMNEYS OR FLUES, DOMES OR COPPOLAS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN USABLE SPACE, TOWERS, POLES OR OTHER STRUCTURES FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES, FLAGPOLES, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDED SAID EQUIPMENT DOES NOT OCCUPY MORE THAN 25% OF THE ROOF AREA, TELEVISION AND HAM RADIO ANTENNAS AND MONUMENTS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BASICALLY ALLOW US TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT LIMITATION BY 50%.
PAUL, DO YOU, WHAT'S LIKE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT A ROOFTOP SOLAR ARRAY CAN TYPICALLY GET, OUT OF CURIOSITY? I MEAN, MAYBE LIKE A COUPLE OF FEET EXTRA AT THE MOST, 2 TO 3FT I WOULD SAY, THAT'S THE MAXIMUM I HAVE SEEN, EVEN ON FLAT ROOFS, TOO.
FLAT ROOFS MIGHT BE MAYBE LIKE 4 TO 5FT EXTRA.
SO THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IF THAT'S THE CASE.
IF YOU DO WANT TO FUTURE PROOF IT, THERE ARE SOME CAPACITIES FOR SOME SOLAR PANELS TO BE ABLE TO AUTOMATICALLY TILT BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE SUN.
AND THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER 8 TO 10FT MAXIMUM.
OR EQUIPMENT ON A ROOF EXCEED 10 FEET.
YEAH, THAT'S VERY, VERY UNLIKELY.
SO IS IT SAFE TO SAY THAT WE COULD BASICALLY JUST KIND OF INCLUDE THAT UNDER AS PART OF THAT HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, MAY BE INCREASED BY 50%. THAT GIVES IT KIND OF THE FLEXIBILITY IT NEEDS TO GET TO THAT HEIGHT.
BUT THERE ARE LIKELY NO SITUATIONS IN WHICH IT WILL EXCEED.
SO BASICALLY IF IT'S A 30 FOOT ROOF, THEN 30 FOOT HEIGHT TO THE ROOF.
THEN HAVING A 15 FOOT LEEWAY ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD YEP.
SO I THINK JUST ENSURING THAT THAT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT 25% ROOF AREA COVERAGE, I THINK JUST KIND OF I THINK THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT WE'RE ALL GOING FOR HERE. YES. AS LONG AS THE THE EQUIPMENT IS APPROVED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH THE, WITH THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE AND EVERYTHING, AND THE STRUCTURE CAN HANDLE THAT EXTRA WEIGHT AND EVERYTHING.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, SAME THING.
JUST KIND OF EXEMPTING SOLAR EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS FROM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
[00:45:03]
BASED ON WHAT I READ, A LOT OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE KIND OF ESTHETICALLY BASED MORE THAN ANYTHING.YOU KNOW, SOLSMART RECOMMENDS NOT REQUIRING THINGS LIKE GLARE STUDIES OR NOISE STUDIES JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT THERE'S SUCH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THAT.
YEAH. SO THE ONLY OTHER ONES, SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, JUST INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE USES OR HAVE ITEMS THAT BASICALLY WE WANT THEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A WAY THAT KIND OF MAXIMIZES THEIR POTENTIAL TO BE USED TO THEIR FULLEST EFFECTS.
ROOF MOUNTED SYSTEMS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE REQUIRING THEM TO, ON PITCHED SLOPED ROOFS, BE INSTALLED PARALLEL TO THE ROOF SURFACE.
EXEMPTING THEM FROM HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, I THINK WE CAN GET RID OF THAT ONE AND THEN JUST KIND OF KEEP IT UNDER THAT HEIGHT LIMITATION SECTION OF CODE WHERE IT'S ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 50% OF THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM.
AND THEN ROOF MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL FIRE CODES TO ENSURE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE ROOF, PROVIDE PATHWAYS TO SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE ROOF AREAS FOR SMOKE VENTILATION AND THEN EMERGENCY EGRESS FROM THE ROOF.
WHEN I WAS IN SHAKOPEE, WHEN WE WOULD REVIEW THESE, THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN THAT FIRE WOULD HAVE WAS JUST, IS THERE ENOUGH SPACE TO BASICALLY HAVE A PATH TO WALK THROUGH IF THEY NEED TO IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY? SO THAT JUST THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IT SEEMED TO ACCOMPANY EVERY SOLAR PERMIT I REVIEWED.
SO THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE A REALLY COMMON SENSE BEST PRACTICE.
MOVING ON TO ACCESSORY USE GROUND MOUNTED.
DO WE WANT TO MAYBE MODIFY THAT TO ALLOW FOR THE SOLAR PANEL TO BE AT ITS MAXIMUM ANGLE, OR ITS MOST BENEFICIAL ANGLE AND NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THE PITCH OF THE ROOF, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE SOLAR MANUFACTURER WOULD REQUIRE FOR THE ANGLE OF THE PANEL ITSELF? BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A 412 PITCH VERSUS A 1212 PITCH, THAT ANGLE OF THE PANEL IS VERY DIFFERENT, RIGHT? AND YOU WANT TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PANEL.
SO DO WE WANT TO NECESSARILY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE IT ATTACHED TO THE SPECIFIC SLOPE OF THE ROOF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A BIG DEAL OR NOT, BUT I MEAN IT HELPS WITH THE EFFICIENCY A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I THINK AS LONG AS IT'S SOUTH FACING IT WILL JUST BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE IN TERMS OF THE EQUIPMENT TO HAVE IT AT AN ANGLE PER SE, VERSUS JUST HAVING THE RACKING THAT, THAT IT COMES WITH.
MOST PEOPLE, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I DID IN MY HOUSE.
BUT I MEAN, HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS COMPLETELY DEPENDS ON THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE BUILDING, RIGHT? IF THE STRUCTURE CAN HANDLE IT, THEN IF THEY DO WANT IT AT AN ANGLE, THEN YOU KNOW THEY CAN DO THAT TOO.
BUT I THINK THAT'S COVERED BY THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
RIGHT. SO THIS IS JUST AN IS THIS MORE OF A REQUIREMENT OR IS THIS MORE OF JUST LIKE A SUGGESTION ON HOW TO DO IT ON THE ROOF? I YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOU GUYS.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MAYBE THE BENEFIT WOULD BE TO JUST HAVE IT BE SOUTH FACING, RATHER THAN HAVING IT BE, YOU KNOW, PARALLEL TO THE ROOF SURFACE.
OR IT KIND OF SEEMS A LITTLE REDUNDANT AND WE DON'T NEED IT.
SO WHAT ARE YOUR GUYS'S THOUGHTS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK WE SHOULD INCLUDE? HAVE SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON HOW THEY SHOULD BE ORIENTED, OR JUST KIND OF TRUST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO KIND OF FOLLOW THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND DO KIND OF WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THEIR PROPERTY? I THINK WE COULD STRIKE THAT ONE.
YEAH. I MEAN, BASICALLY ALL THESE THINGS NEED TO BE NEED TO GO THROUGH A SOLAR INSTALLER, ESSENTIALLY SOMEBODY WHO IS PROFESSIONAL, WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS AND EACH SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE THE SOLAR STUDY THAT THEY DO THE HOUSE, HOW MUCH HOW MUCH SUN IT'S GETTING, ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
SO THEY'LL TAKE ALL THOSE THINGS INTO ACCOUNT.
AND FOR US NOT TO LIKE DIRECTLY SAY JUST HAVE IT FLAT MOUNTED.
IT COULD BE DIFFERENT. IT COULD BE A FLAT ROOF.
EVEN IF IT'S PITCHED, THE ANGLE OF THE PITCH WILL BE DIFFERENT TOO.
SO AND THEN THE HEIGHT OF THE OF THE STRUCTURE AS WELL.
[00:50:07]
SEEM LIKE THE BEST WAY TO GO.IT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING FROM THAT.
YEAH. THE MAIN THING IS THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER APPROVES OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF TO HOLD THE LOAD.
SO BUT THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE ALL THAT ANALYSIS INTO ACCOUNT.
NICE. SO COOL THAT THAT GIVES ME A LOT OF WHAT I NEEDED.
NEXT ONE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY AS AN ACCESSORY USE.
AS I MENTIONED, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER THESE TO BE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND SO I WOULD ALMOST KIND OF TWEAK THE ACCESSORY USE AND STRUCTURE LANGUAGE TO POTENTIALLY ALLOW FOR THEM TO BE PLACED ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE FRONT YARD.
ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I KNOW SOME PEOPLE WOULD BALK AT HAVING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THEIR FRONT YARD, OF SOLAR PANELS, WHICH DOESN'T SOUND APPEALING TO ME.
BUT WOULD THAT NOT BE SO BAD, THOUGH? I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, YOU KNOW, CONGRATULATIONS TO THEM.
I HAD A COLLEAGUE THAT APPARENTLY THAT WAS HIS GREEN CORE WORK PLAN WAS THAT HE WAS FACILITATING SOLAR DEVELOPMENTS WHILE ALSO INCLUDING POLLINATOR HABITATS AS KIND OF LIKE THAT GROUND COVER AND JUST KIND OF SEEING HOW THIS COMMUNITY HAS SEEMED TO REALLY EMBRACE POLLINATORS, IN PARTICULAR.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DEVELOPED A SPECIFIC POLLINATOR BLEND THAT WAS DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR SOLAR FARMS, AND IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE INTERACT WITH THE SOLAR PANELS, ALL OF THE CURRENTS THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, IN A LARGE SOLAR FARM AREA.
IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THAT APPLICATION, SO IT'S OUT THERE.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S KIND OF BEEN A BEST PRACTICE.
SORRY. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION.
THE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR IN THE FRONT YARDS.
WHAT ARE OUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? JUST TO ADD A LITTLE CONFLICT TO THE COMMISSION HERE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THEM A FOOT OFF THE STREET.
RIGHT. I MEAN, MAYBE APPLICABLE TO A FRONT YARD SETBACK.
I DO SEE IT HAS THE YOU HAVE THE OR THERE FOR ITEM I, ITEM ONE THERE.
I THINK POTENTIALLY USING THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WE ALLOW USE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT, YOU KNOW, THE THREE FEET FROM THE SIDE AND REAR USING THAT FOR THE FRONT AND SIDE.
OH MY GOD IT WOULD BE SO TECHNICALLY DIFFICULT TO PUT IT ON THE FRONT YARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE WATER LINES RUNNING, THE GAS LINES RUNNING, AND THEN THEY HAVE MOST OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HAS THE ELECTRICITY COMING FROM THE ROOF, RIGHT.
SO YOU COME FROM THE ROOF AND THEN COME BACK UNDERNEATH THE YARD.
IT'S JUST IT'S JUST IT'S JUST TECHNICALLY NOT FEASIBLE.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL GO FOR IT, BUT, AND ALSO IT'S GOING TO LOOK SO JANK [LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW.
SO WE COULD ALMOST SCRAP THAT AND JUST HAVE IT BE SUBJECT TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS.
THAT SEEMS TO BE KIND OF WHERE THE CONSENSUS IS DON'T NECESSARILY ALLOW THEM IN THE FRONT YARD.
THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THAT THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS, SO LONG AS THE AREA UNDER THE SYSTEM CONTAINS VEGETATIVE GROUND COVER SUCH AS GRASS, NATIVE PLANTINGS, AND VEGETATIONS OR POLLINATOR HABITATS AS THE TILT AND SPACING ALLOWS FOR PRECIPITATION TO DRAIN INTO THE PREVIOUS GROUND COVER.
THAT SEEMED TO BE SOME OF THE BEST PRACTICE LANGUAGE THAT THEY PROVIDED.
I DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO DEVIATE FROM IT TOO MUCH, BUT I THINK INCLUDING THAT AS A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARD KIND OF NEGATES THE NEED TO EXEMPT THEM.
COOL. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO THAT I KIND OF WANTED YOU GUYS TO WEIGH IN ON IS GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR AS A PRIMARY USE AND THEN COMMUNITY SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. THESE WERE JUST TWO THINGS THAT WERE INCLUDED KIND OF IN THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT THEIR MEMO STATED.
[00:55:06]
I DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW APPLICABLE OR HOW ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE SOME OF THESE ARE GIVEN.JUST LIKE OUR CITY SIZE, WE HAVE SMALLER PROPERTIES.
I THINK IF WE DEALT IN PROPERTIES LARGER IN SCALE, THAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE.
BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT THOUGH, RIGHT? YEAH. THEY COULD BUY THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THEM, COVER IT IN PANELS.
POTENTIALLY, IF WE DECIDE TO AND IF WE DECIDE TO ALLOW THEM, ARE THESE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE PERMITTED USES? SHOULD THEY BE CONDITIONAL? I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO THROW THIS TO YOU AGAIN.
ARE THERE ANY THINGS WHEN YOU SEE, LIKE, LARGER SCALE SYSTEMS, ANY SORT OF TEMPLATE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU FEEL LIKE ARE APPLICABLE, OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE THIS JUST ISN'T.
IT JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME ECONOMICALLY.
YEAH. YOU KNOW, AND THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET A RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR A LONG TIME, TEN YEARS.
SO IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FEASIBLE.
AND IT JUST, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FEASIBLE IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, ESSENTIALLY.
SO DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD EVEN INCLUDE THESE? BECAUSE JUST BASED ON THAT CONVERSATION, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S MANY SITUATIONS IN WHICH THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE.
THAT STILL GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER IT, RIGHT? JUST SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT FIRST.
IS THAT FOR SAFETY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE OR IS THAT MORE JUST KIND OF SECURITY PURPOSES? AND WOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION WANT TO LIMIT SOME OF THE FENCES OF, YOU KNOW, ARE PEOPLE ABLE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO PUT UP A FENCE AROUND THEIR SOLAR ARRAY, KIND OF ITEMS LIKE THAT OR YOUR GUYS'S THOUGHTS ON WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD IN CONDITIONS WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE, SO KIND OF THINKING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE POSSIBILITIES IS SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
I MEAN, FENCES ARE DEFINITELY FOR SAFETY.
NOT LIKE EVEN FOR THE PEOPLE AND ALSO FOR THE EQUIPMENT TOO.
YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIRLY EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT.
AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE IN BOXES.
SO HAVING THEM PROTECTED WOULD, WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE FENCES AROUND IT, BUT YOU KNOW.
MIC] I'D SAY IT'S COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION LIKELY IS NEXT MONTH, TOO, EARLY.
I WOULD SEND IT TO COUNCIL AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION NEXT MONTH.
DO FIRST AND SECOND READINGS IN FEBRUARY.
SO IT'S IN PLACE BY THE BEGINNING OF APRIL MIC]. WOULD THIS BY RIGHT THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUT SOLAR ON THEIR PANELS, BECAUSE EVEN A
[01:00:01]
GRAND PLAT SAYS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG WITH THE TOWNHOMES, WOULD THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT? AND THAT, WOULD THAT OVERRULE THE HOA RULES.IN THE CITY CODE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO IT.
BUT WE DON'T OVERRIDE HOA RULES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S EVEN A YEAH, THE HOA HAS THE ABILITY TO SET THOSE.
I DON'T KNOW, SINCE IT'S ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THOSE RULES.
I THINK MAYBE PRIORITIZING, ENGAGING SOME OF THOSE HOAS, IF THERE ARE.
IN MY PREVIOUS JOB, I HAD TO KIND OF REVIEW COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS ON HOA DEVELOPMENT.
SO I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THOSE DOCUMENTS.
BE NICE IF THEY COULD JUST DO IT.
AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY IF THEY WANT TO TWEAK THEIR YOU KNOW, CCNRS TO REFLECT WHAT WE ALLOW. I KIND OF SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO KIND OF PROVE THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
AND THEN TWO OTHER COMMENTS, THREE ACTUALLY.
YOU DIDN'T COVER ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE ARE SOLAR SHINGLES, I BELIEVE.
ARE THOSE STILL AROUND OR ARE THEY, THEY KIND OF COME AND GO? OR SIDING. I MEAN, THERE'S BUILDING MATERIALS.
WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM WHAT YOU GUYS DISCUSSED TONIGHT OR IS THAT INCLUDED? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE.
I THINK THAT WOULD LIKELY BE A SEPARATE THING THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS DOWN THE LINE.
AND WOULD YOU HAVE SOMETHING, SAY, A SOLAR PANEL SYSTEM? YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T KNOW IF IT'S NOT WORKING.
IS THERE RULES THAT THEY HAVE AS FAR AS DISMANTLING OR CAN THEY LEAVE IT UP THERE, YOU KNOW? THEY DO RECOMMEND DECOMMISSIONING LANGUAGE, WHICH I WANT TO RESEARCH A LITTLE FURTHER.
AND I THINK I'M GOING TO RUN ALL OF THIS WITH OUR PROGRAM STAFF, WITH SOLSMART AND THE MET COUNCIL.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DID, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T ADDRESS IT IN THIS REPORT.
IT IS A ONE OF THE BEST PRACTICES THAT THEY KIND OF LIST.
I THINK THAT THAT JUST KIND OF CLOSES THAT CYCLE AND JUST LIKE, OKAY, YOU HAVE THIS, IT'S RAN THE LIFETIME OF ITS USEFUL LIFE. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF GUIDE PEOPLE ON HOW TO DISPOSE OF THIS PROPERLY AND DECOMMISSION IT.
AM I USING THE RIGHT TERM? WOULD OUR CITY HAVE THE SPACE? I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THEY ARE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT FIT ON A SMALL, EMPTY CITY LOT, YOU KNOW, WHICH WE HAVE HERE AND THERE.
WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY WOULD CONSIDER OR NOT? OR IS THAT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION? I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I'LL INCLUDE IT ON THE LIST OF THINGS TO FOLLOW UP BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK FORMALLY, JUST TO SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER, BECAUSE THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT. YEAH.
MAY I ASK, PAUL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE MICROGRIDS? I GUESS I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM.
SO MICROGRIDS ARE ARE SYSTEMS THAT ARE COMPLETELY OFF THE GRID, SO IT CAN BE SOLAR BATTERY AND GENERATORS ALL RUNNING IN PARALLEL WITH EACH OTHER? SOLAR. SO BASICALLY IT'S LIKE STORAGE.
SO THAT'S WHEN THE SOLAR AND BATTERY ARE RUNNING SEAMLESS WITH EACH OTHER AND THEN THE SOLAR POWERS THE LIKE, CHARGES THE BATTERY DURING THE DAYTIME, AND THEN AT NIGHTTIME THE BATTERY TAKES OVER.
SO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO THAT'S FOR THE HOUSE I'M SPEAKING.
WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FOR MICROGRID.
MICROGRID IS BASICALLY IF YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE BUILDING OR A MULTIPLE BUILDINGS THAT ARE CONNECTED ELECTRICALLY TOGETHER, AND THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO TRANSFER POWER BETWEEN THE GRID AND TO THEIR MICROGRID SYSTEM.
SO IT'S MORE LIKE NOWADAYS IS MORE ESPECIALLY FOR INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS.
[01:05:01]
IT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE YET FOR RESIDENTIAL.BUT THAT'S I MEAN, MY QUESTION WAS ALSO ARE WE DOING ANYTHING FOR BATTERY? ARE WE ARE WE HAVING ANY CHANGES FOR THE BATTERY INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE CHANGING THE.
DO WE HAVE ANY CODE FOR THAT SOLAR BATTERY AND PARALLEL WITH EACH OTHER, ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT ALL OR NOTHING? I THINK IT'S KIND OF BEING LUMPED IN WITH SOLAR EQUIPMENT.
THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK I'M GOING TO BRING UP WITH SOLSMART AS WELL, JUST BECAUSE I KNOW BATTERY LIKE SOLAR STORAGE IS ADDRESSED THROUGHOUT THEIR PROGRAM ACTIONS. AND SO I KIND OF WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY HAVE, AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF BUILD OUR LANGUAGE AROUND THAT OR ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, JUST AS FAR AS BEST PRACTICES GO THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST.
YEAH. MIGHT BE PRUDENT TO ADD SOLAR STORAGE AS AN ENCROACHMENT SINCE LIKE, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE WITH AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WOULD BE AN ENCROACHMENT ON THE IN THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THEN JUST KIND OF TO GO BACK TO CONNIE'S POINT, WITH THESE CODE AMENDMENTS WE'RE NOT OUTLINING THE SHINGLE SOLAR PANELS. SO THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED THEN, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WOULD.
YEAH. AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE REMOVING THE PITCH ROOF OR, YOU KNOW, ANY ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED THERE AREN'T, THERE AREN'T ANY REGULATIONS IN CITY CODE THAT WOULD SAY THAT YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
THAT WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY OUR STUFF.
OKAY. I THINK IF YOU DO HAVE A BATTERY, WE JUST HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE XCEL ENERGY HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE ON THIS NEW KIND OF POWER, ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE BATTERY HAS A DIFFERENT LIKE, ELECTRICAL PROFILE ESSENTIALLY FOR BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE TRANSFORMERS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
SO WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT XCEL ENERGY HAS THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY IF WE DO HAVE BATTERY LANGUAGE AND STUFF, TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN DO THAT FOR COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING WE SHOULD INCLUDE IN OUR ENERGY ACTION PLAN.
WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THAT MUCH, BUT JUST IN SOME OF OUR PLANNING LANGUAGE, THERE'S JUST MECHANISMS THAT CAN ALLOW FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO KIND OF WORK WITH EACH OTHER AND ESTABLISH KIND OF SIMILARLY TO JOINT DRIVEWAY EASEMENTS IS KIND OF HOW I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT JUST EASEMENTS THAT GUARANTEE THAT SOLAR ACCESS HAS A RIGHT, KIND OF SIMILAR TO JOINT DRIVEWAYS, DRAINAGE, UTILITY EASEMENTS.
IT'S KIND OF ALONG THOSE LINES, WHETHER OR NOT.
AND THEY HAVE A MODEL ORDINANCE TOO, THAT WE COULD CONSIDER.
SO THAT WOULD STILL BE AN AGREEMENT FOR WITHIN WITH BOTH OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
BUT THIS GIVES THE THE LANGUAGE TO KIND OF DEVELOP THAT SOLAR ACCESS.
YEP. BEFORE YOU JUST GO CUT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S TREES DOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.
IT CERTAINLY MAKE THAT DISCUSSION BETWEEN NEIGHBORS EASIER IF THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE.
AND THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PART OF LIKE, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STARTING POINT FOR KIND OF OUR PARTICIPATION IN SOLSMART AND SOME OF OUR OTHER ENERGY ACTION GOALS.
SO THERE'S A NEED TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT AWAY.
BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DEFINITELY REVISIT DOWN THE LINE.
AND THEN THE OTHER ITEM IS JUST WHETHER RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN CONSIDERATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, SUBDIVISION REGULATION AND OTHER PROCESSES REQUIRING CITY APPROVAL OR FUNDING.
YES. SO ABSOLUTELY SAY YES TO THAT.
IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE IT IN WRITING IN A IN THE CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEVELOPMENT.
I'VE BEEN ASKING THE QUESTION FOR SEVEN YEARS AS MYSELF, JUST AS MY OWN AS A COUNCIL PERSON WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT IN WRITING THAT IT'S JUST THERE AND REQUIRED, DON'T HAVE TO ASK IT ANYMORE.
[01:10:06]
YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOUR TAX INCREMENT BONDS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, LED CERTIFIED AND THE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO MEET THOSE GUIDELINES.BUT HAVING THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHT, LIKE WHAT ARE THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS, WHAT MEASUREMENTS ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE KIND OF SETTING BY IS DEFINITELY A GOOD SPOT. AND THEN THAT CAN COME BACK.
I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LIVES IN CODE OR WHERE THAT KIND OF LIVES AT.
THE CLIMATE ACTION FRAMEWORK THAT A LOT OF CITIES ARE STARTING TO WORK ON NOW.
BECAUSE I KNOW IN DUBUQUE, IOWA, DEVELOPERS NOT ONLY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHATEVER PROJECT THEY'RE DOING, THEY ALSO HAD TO GO THROUGH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND FOR, YOU KNOW, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, ALL SORTS OF STUFF.
THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT AND GET APPROVAL THROUGH THAT MEANS, TOO.
AND THAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO THAT I SAW THAT THEY HAD THAT ALL SET UP THERE.
YEAH. AND IT MIGHT LIVE IN OUR PUD SECTION FOR THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECTS.
OTHERWISE THE I THINK THE EDA WOULD HAVE TO ADOPT IT FOR CONSIDERATION FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OR ANY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THAT WAY. SO IT KIND OF FILTER IN THROUGH KIND OF MULTIPLE ROUTES.
AND IF I CAN JUST SPEAK ON THAT A LITTLE MORE.
AS I MENTIONED, THE MET COUNCIL IS LIKELY GOING TO HAVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTH, CLIMATE AND EQUITY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THIS NEXT COMING CYCLE.
SO I ANTICIPATE THAT FEELS LIKE THE INTENT IS TO KIND OF TRY TO STANDARDIZE SOME CLIMATE ACTION FRAMEWORK RELATED GOALS, AND WE'VE REALLY TRIED TO KIND OF URGE THEM TO USE PROGRAMS LIKE SOLSMART OR LIKE GREEN STEP CITIES. THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, CITIES, THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE TRIED AND TESTED.
THERE'S SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF CITIES ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
WAS THAT THE ONE THAT THEY CAME IN SHOWING SOLAR PANELS ON? YEP.
ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS LOOK PRETTY GOOD, AS AMENDED? YEAH. I'LL GO BACK, LISTEN TO THE RECORDING.
MANDATES AREN'T NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR, WE WANT TO GIVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE.
I THINK THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF WHAT I HAD.
DID YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO SEE? ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BE INCLUDED? I THINK IT'S, IT'S STILL RELATIVELY NEW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR A FEW YEARS.
IT'S KIND OF NEW FOR THE SCALE AT WHICH AT WHICH IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
SO I THINK BEST PRACTICE WE CAN LEARN FROM A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL CITIES.
I THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT HAS WORKED FOR THEM OVER TIME, AND THEN ALSO FROM OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE DONE IT IN A RESIDENTIAL WAY, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR ROOFTOP SOLAR AND THINGS.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE'RE IN A GOOD, GOOD SPOT.
YEAH. LIKE THE THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY.
AND WE KNOW OTHER WORKSHOPS ARE COMING UP.
PERFECT. THAT KIND OF LEADS US TO OUR LAST COUPLE ITEMS, WHICH ARE JUST KIND OF DISCUSSION OF FUTURE ITEMS. AS YOU SAID, WE'RE KIND OF MODERNIZING OUR CODE.
AND NOW THAT WE'RE KIND OF FULLY STAFFED WE'VE KIND OF HAD THAT CAPACITY TO TACKLE ON SOME OF THOSE LARGER KIND OF DEPARTMENT PRIORITIES.
[01:15:05]
I THINK THAT GIVES US A LOT OF ITEMS THAT WE CAN BASICALLY INCORPORATE INTO OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND JUST KIND OF TWEAK THEM FURTHER, JUST KIND OF IN ANTICIPATION FOR THE 2050 CYCLE AND ANY OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT WE JUST FEEL LIKE ARE NO LONGER APPLICABLE.IT'S JUST KIND OF WANTED TO PUT THAT ON YOUR GUYS'S RADAR THAT I THINK THAT THAT AND POTENTIALLY SIGN CODE ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT KIND OF HIGH LEVEL ITEMS THAT WE TRY TO TACKLE AS WE GET INTO THE SPRING.
I REALLY CAN'T WAIT TO GET YOU GUYS THAT ENERGY ACTION PLAN, BECAUSE I THINK MY, MY UNDERSTANDING WILL HAVE THAT THE DRAFT OF IT MARCH OR APRIL, IT SOUNDS LIKE. AND SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO BRING THAT BEFORE YOU GUYS JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS AND KIND OF WHAT YOUR ROLE IS IN IMPLEMENTING THAT. I THINK YOU GUYS ARE ALL REALLY TIRED OF HEARING ME TALK NONSTOP.
IT'S BEEN A LONG YEAR ALREADY.
JUST KIDDING. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GO AHEAD? AGAIN, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH.
WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING.
THIS IS MY LAST TIME AS LIAISON FOR THE...
OH. [INAUDIBLE] LAST NIGHT AT THE WORK SESSION, WE WERE STARTING TO ROTATE AGAIN, SO I'LL BE MOVING TO THE PARK AND REC AND YOUR PREVIOUS COLLEAGUE LAUREL WILL BE THE LIAISON IN FEBRUARY.
I'M VERY IMPRESSED AND MISS YOU AS I MISS YOU GUYS, SO.
PAUL, ARE YOU GOING TO SECOND THAT? OH, YES I'LL SECOND, A SECOND TIME.
OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ERIC.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.