OKAY. HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME. [00:00:03] TAKE ROLL. MOSES HERE. WOLFE HERE. SAHNOW HERE. GIANOULIS HERE. THANK YOU. 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. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. AWESOME. THEN OUR NEXT OUR FIRST ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CHAPTER 9 LAND USE. [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. STAFF AND THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 9 LAND USE AND STAFF PREPARED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. 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. SO IT KIND OF MADE SENSE FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE TO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE ZONING REVIEW PERMIT. SEASONAL SALE STANDS. I KNOW EVERYONE'S VERY EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO THE YEARLY FIREWORKS TENT APPLICATION. BUT THAT KIND OF SEEMED LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT ALL RIGHT, THIS IS THE SAME APPLICATION EVERY YEAR, JUST WITH UPDATED INSURANCE. SO I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE IF THERE WAS MUCH BENEFIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEDICATING THEIR TIME TO THAT. 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. JUST IN SPEAKING WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, HE WANTED TO SEE US ADOPT LANGUAGE REFERRING TO HABITABLE SPACE BASED ON THE ADOPTED [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. THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS US TO DO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WHERE IT PREVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE'S NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO HOLD THESE FENCES TO. SO IT DIDN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE IT MADE SENSE TO HAVE THIS KIND OF ELONGATED PROCESS FOR SOMETHING THAT HAD NO ACTUAL CONDITIONS. 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. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES TO AMEND THE CALCULATING SPACES AND THEN THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 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. AND SO WE TRIED TO LOOK AT OTHER, I THINK IT WAS LIKE 8 OR 9 OTHER CITIES JUST TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS WERE. AND SO WE DECIDED TO KIND OF TWEAK THAT FROM THE TWO ENCLOSED SPACES TO ONE OF THOSE TWO SPACES BEING ENCLOSED. THAT SEEMS VERY REASONABLE COMPARED TO WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. AND THEN THE OTHER REQUIREMENT OR THE OTHER CHANGE TO THE PARKING TABLE IS ADDING AN OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR ADUS. 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. SO IT'S KIND OF RECOGNIZING THAT, OKAY, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FEASIBLE FOR A LOT OF THESE TO HAVE A FULLY ENCLOSED PARKING SPACE. BUT WE DO ALSO WANT TO BAKE KIND OF A PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT KIND OF FEELS REASONABLE FOR ADDING AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT. 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. IT BASICALLY SHOWED THAT UPON CONSTRUCTION, IF IT WERE TO BE BUILT THE WAY THAT THAT SOUND STUDY RECOMMENDED THAT THAT MPCA LIMIT [00:10:10] WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCEEDED UPON CONSTRUCTION, AND CITIES CAN'T ALLOW THE APPROVAL OF ANYTHING THAT EXCEEDS THAT UPON CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S PRETTY HARD AND FAST. THEY THEIR STUDY SHOWED THAT WE TRIED TO WORK WITH THEM. IT OBVIOUSLY FELL THROUGH. AND THEN THE OTHER THAT ALL NEW CAR WASH FACILITIES MUST BE LOCATED ON A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE OF LAND. 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. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S KIND OF VIEWED AS MORE OF LIKE AN ACCESSORY USE TO A PRIMARY USE IS KIND OF MY INTERPRETATION. BUT JUST WITH ZONING, WE REALLY WANTED TO KIND OF MAKE THINGS AS CONSISTENT AS POSSIBLE. SO IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE FOR, YOU KNOW, HALF OF OUR AUTO USES TO HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT AND THE OTHER HALF NOT. 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 DON'T HAVE STANDARDS OR CONDITIONS I SHOULD SAY WE HAVE STANDARDS, BUT NOT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. GENERAL BUSINESS, WE KIND OF LOOKED AT THE PERMITTED CONDITIONAL AND ACCESSORY USES AND CONSIGNMENT SECONDHAND STORES KIND OF SIMILAR. 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. SAME WITH CENTRAL BUSINESS. 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. IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A GENERAL DESIRE TO MAKE AUTO USES SPECIFICALLY REPAIR USES SIMILAR VEIN TO CAR WASHES. 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. JUST AS I MENTIONED, BASED ON THE FEEDBACK AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAD REGARDING THOSE USES IN GENERAL. 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. PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. BUT REALLY WE WANTED TO BE THE AUTO USES TO BE CONSISTENT. AND SO ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE FOUR REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 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. WHAT WHAT WOULD THE, I REMEMBER SEEING SOME IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE DOCUMENTS, YOU'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A SITE PLAN, THINGS 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. SORRY. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. 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. I TYPICALLY TELL PEOPLE THEY CAN DO IT IN AN EMAIL FORMAT, JUST SO THERE'S A RECORD OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY DEVIATIONS, WE CAN KIND OF COME BACK TO THAT AND BE LIKE, OKAY, YOU DIDN'T DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO DO AND EXCEEDED THAT AMOUNT. YOU'VE CROSSED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM. OR, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S LARGER THAN 200FT², THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT. SO I THINK IT'S JUST KIND OF MORE ABOUT ESTABLISHING TOUCH POINTS WITH RESIDENTS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE SAYING NO TO THINGS, BUT THERE'S TIMES WHERE WE JUST HAVE TO. AND I THINK THAT THAT KIND OF GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THIS BASED ON THAT REQUIREMENT. 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. OKAY. THAT WORKS ALSO. 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. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1709, A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. I WILL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 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. THE CITY HAS ALREADY RECEIVED CREDIT IN SOME OF THESE CATEGORIES FOR ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. AND THEN THERE'S OTHERS ACTIONS THAT REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION AND THEN SOME THAT THEY'VE RECOMMENDED TO PURSUE. I DO THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF CIRCULATE THIS OUT TO MORE CITY STAFF, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE DO HAVE SOLAR ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE THAT WE CAN GET CREDIT FOR, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FIRST STEP TO JUST PRESENTING THE MEMO BASED ON THEIR FINDINGS. AS I MENTIONED, THE CITY HAS ALREADY SCORED 45 POINTS FOR A BASELINE STATUS BASED ON COMPLETED ACTIONS AND PERMITTING AND INSPECTIONS. BY SIGNING AND PRESENTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE CITY WILL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE POINTS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING BASELINE. 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. AND WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS AND WHAT I'VE KIND OF PREPARED AS FAR AS LIKE A NEXT STEP GOES. THERE ARE SOME TRAININGS THAT ARE PERMITTING INSPECTION STAFF AS WELL AS FIRE STAFF CAN GO THROUGH. I WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING SIDE OF IT BECAUSE THAT WAS ACTUALLY A CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDIT FOR MY AICP CREDENTIALS. SO THAT WAS KIND OF A NEAT ADDITION. THESE TRAININGS HAVE TO OCCUR IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, PROVIDE AN ONLINE PROCESS FOR SOLAR PERMIT SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL. 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 DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH AND SEE HOW MANY WE'VE PROCESSED, BUT THAT'S AS WE KIND OF GET INTO LIKE THE GOAL SETTING. 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. AND THEN THAT KIND OF TIES INTO THE SHARE SITE SPECIFIC SOLAR AND STORAGE PERMIT DATA, INCLUDING ADDRESSES WITH FIRST [00:25:10] RESPONDERS AND THEIR DEPARTMENTS TO ALLOW USERS TO VIEW SEARCHABLE, FILTERABLE DATA ABOUT SPECIFIC SITE AND SYSTEM. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK WE ARE EITHER DOING AND OR WITH OUR NEW SYSTEM WILL LIKELY BE INCLUDED. BUT I WANT TO KIND OF TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. 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. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EASILY ACCOMMODATED IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. 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 ALLOWS FOR GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN AT LEAST ONE DISTRICT. 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. POST AN ONLINE FACT SHEET THAT PROVIDES AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT ZONING ALLOWS, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AND WHAT DISTRICTS. AGAIN, I KIND OF SEE THIS AS BEING AN ACCESSORY USE OR A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT. INCLUDE SPECIFIC SOLAR PV GOALS, METRICS, AND STRATEGIES IN THE MOST CURRENT PUBLISHED VERSION OF RELEVANT LOCAL PLANS. 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. AND SO IT KIND OF MADE SENSE ALONG WITH THE WORK WE'RE DOING IN PARTNERS IN ENERGY AND THE ENERGY ACTION PLAN THAT WE'LL HAVE IN PLACE THIS SPRING. 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. THERE'S JUST A REALLY THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD OPPORTUNITIES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE WORK WE'RE DOING WITH PARTNERS IN ENERGY TO JUST KIND OF REALLY DEFINE WHAT WE WANT OUR GOALS TO BE. 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. AND THEIR SOLAR POTENTIAL. 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. AND THEN JUST SOME OTHER ADDITIONAL ACTIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS SIDE THAT I THINK THAT WE CAN PURSUE AND OR HAVE ALREADY DONE. SOLAR PROCUREMENT THROUGH A PURCHASING POLICY, IT SEEMS LIKE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PV ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES OR GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED LAND. 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. I BELIEVE THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT HAS MAXED OUT OUR ABILITY FOR SOLAR GARDENS, I THINK THEY'RE CALLED. 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. I HAVE A FEELING IF WE'VE DONE IT WITH AS MANY OF OUR PUBLIC BUILDINGS AS WE HAVE, THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WOULD LIKELY HAVE IT. INSTALL SOLAR PV INTEGRATED WITH OTHER TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS BATTERY STORAGE OR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES. YOU KNOW, THIS BUILDING, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FLEET CHARGING, THERE'S SOME PUBLIC CHARGING, AND THEN THERE'S PRIVATE CHARGING FOR RESIDENTS. AND THEN JUST POSTING THE METRICS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF MUNICIPAL SOLAR OR SOLAR PV PLUS STORAGE EV INSTALLATIONS. BASICALLY JUST RECOGNIZING EITHER CITY EFFORTS OR PRIVATE EFFORTS TO KIND OF ADOPT SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES. 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. JUST BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE COMP PLAN GUIDES A LOT OF WHAT PLANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOES, I FEEL LIKE AS A WHOLE. 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. BASICALLY JUST TO, SOLSMART PROVIDES A LIST OF KIND OF WHAT TERMS ARE USED FREQUENTLY IN THE INDUSTRY. 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. PAUL, MAYBE YOU CAN WEIGH IN HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT SOLAR INSTALLATIONS ARE CONSIDERED STRUCTURES, AT LEAST BY OUR DEFINITIONS. 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. I CAN PULL UP SOME EXAMPLES. JUST ONE SECOND. 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. SO DO YOU. 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. THAT'S BASICALLY JUST SHOULD WE INCLUDE THESE TO BE EXEMPT FROM THEM UP TO NO MORE THAN ONE FOOT CLOSER THAN THE PROPERTY LINE. SO GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR DEPENDING ON HOW HIGH IT IS IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO THROW A SHADE. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE ANGLE OF THE GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR DEPENDING ON WHAT SEASON IT IS AND WHAT TIME OF THE YEAR IT IS TOO. 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 SO THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS THAT WE HOLD WE CONSIDER IT KIND OF TO BE AN ACCESSORY USE/STRUCTURE. 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. SO WE WOULD TREAT IT TO THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT IT WOULDN'T COUNT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. CORRECT? YEP. I THINK BECAUSE WE COULD TWEAK THE DEFINITIONS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE/ STRUCTURE I THINK JUST TO REALLY JUST HAMMER HOME THE POINT THAT THESE ARE [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. WOULD MAKE SPACE FOR. OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF THAT WOULD JUST BE REMOVING THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED SIMILARLY TO MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT. 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. YEAH. COOL. AND THEN JUST KIND OF TO CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT HAS A SECTION IN ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES. I THINK THAT SHOULD JUST BE KIND OF TWEAKED TO EXEMPT SOLAR INSTALLATIONS AND EQUIPMENT FROM SCREENING REQUIREMENTS. IT SEEMS LIKE IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING SOLAR IF YOU'RE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER A SCREENING REQUIREMENT. AND IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THESE LIKE THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE MUCH ISSUE WITH GLARE OR LIKE HEAT, THAT SORT OF THING. 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. QUESTION. ITEM ONE UNDER THE ROOF MOUNTED SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM, TALKING ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM IS PARALLEL TO THE PITCHED OR SLOPED ROOF. 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. I JUST HAD IT PARALLEL TO THE, TO THE ROOF, JUST HAVE IT SOUTH FACING, BECAUSE THE BENEFIT OF IT HAVING SLIGHTLY PITCHED IS A LOT LESS COMPARED TO JUST HAVING IT FLAT. 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. I THINK WE SHOULD STRIKE IT. 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. BUT THEN HAVING SOME LEEWAY. 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. SO HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE LEEWAY WOULD PROBABLY HELP THE SOLAR INSTALLER ESPECIALLY TO NOT TIE THEIR HANDS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT. SO MAYBE JUST LIKE THE EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN THINGS MAKE SENSE OR KIND OF ALLOWING FOR CERTAIN THINGS, BUT MANDATING THINGS DOESN'T NECESSARILY [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. RIGHT. HAS THE ABILITY TO NOT WITH, WITH LIKE WHATEVER WINDS THAT ARE BLOWING, IT'S NOT GOING TO SHEAR ON THE ROOF. 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. [LAUGHTER] THE OTHER THING YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN ALSO TO GET PAST THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAXIMUM, YOU CAN INCLUDE POLLINATOR HABITATS. 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. I DON'T KNOW. I BET YOU CAN SPEAK MORE TO IT, BUT I'VE JUST KIND OF SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE PROJECTS KIND OF ADOPT THAT. SO DO WE WANT. 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. IS THERE IS THERE. 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. DIFFICULT. YOU KNOW. 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. THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH OF A BENEFIT TO IT, AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S SUPER APPLICABLE TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. I WOULD SAY SO. COOL. WE'LL STRIKE THAT ONE. 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. UNLESS WE DECIDED WE WANT TO. NO, I LIKE THAT. 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. IT SEEMS LIKE TO KIND OF I JUST I HAVE A HARD TIME SEEING SOMEONE BASICALLY BUYING A LOT SPECIFICALLY JUST TO COVER IT IN SOLAR ARRAYS. 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. OKAY. YEP. 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. YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING IT'S GOING TO COST SOMEBODY JUST TO BUY A LOT, LIKE AN ACRE AND A HALF LOT AND THEN COVER IT WITH SOLAR PANELS. IT'S GOING TO COST $100,000. 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. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE IF SOMEBODY BOUGHT A HOUSE AND THERE'S AN EMPTY LOT NEXT TO THEM AND THEN THEY GET THAT TO FILL THAT UP WITH PANELS. BUT ALSO LIKE THE EVERYTHING HAS TO ALIGN, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE ON A HILL OF SORTS, SOUTH FACING, HARDLY ANY TREE COVERS. 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. MAYBE CONDITIONAL. I WOULD SAY SOMEBODY HAS TO ASK PERMISSION TO DO IT, AND THEN IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I'M GUESSING. COOL, BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE A LOT MORE EYES TO SEE IF IT'S FEASIBLE AND WHAT THE IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND STUFF, TOO. THAT STILL GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO GO AFTER IT, RIGHT? JUST SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT FIRST. YEAH, YEAH. AND THEN AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SOLAR ARRAYS, I KNOW I TRADITIONALLY YOU SEE FENCES AROUND THEM. 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. EVEN NOT JUST THE PANELS ITSELF, BUT ALL THE THE INVERTERS OR MICROINVERTERS, THE, THE WIRING THAT GOES INTO IT. 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. BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS KIND OF LIKE PART OF THE ENGAGEMENT AND PART OF, YOU KNOW, THE ENERGY ACTION PLAN, THOSE OTHER THINGS WE HAVE GOING ON. 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. HEY, AND I'M ABSOLUTELY FINE WITH KIND OF MEETING WITH THEM AND TALKING TO THEM AND JUST KIND OF LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. 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 IF THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE AESTHETIC CONDITION, IT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD WORK THROUGH WITH THEM. AND THEN TWO OTHER COMMENTS, THREE ACTUALLY. I WOULD BE FINE WITH FRONT YARD, AS LONG AS IT'S AN ARTISTIC SOLAR ARRAY, THAT I COULD SEE WOULD MIGHT WORK. SOLAR BUILDING MATERIALS. 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. INITIALLY, I'D HAVE TO WORK WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL JUST TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHAT STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES AND LIKELY STATE ELECTRICAL CODE. 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. SO I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT IT'S A NEW USE, BUT IT'S A NEW USE TO OUR CODE. 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. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING I READ, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'M USING THE RIGHT TERM OR NOT, IS MICROGRIDS OR COMMUNITIES, YOU'VE HEARD OF 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. AND IF THERE'S TOO MUCH CLOUD COVER, THE GENERATOR COMES ONLINE AND THEN CAN FEED ALL OF THEM TOGETHER. SO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. SO THAT'S FOR THE HOUSE I'M SPEAKING. I, I HAD READ ABOUT COMMUNITIES THAT CREATED THEIR OWN ENERGY, INSTEAD OF HAVING XCEL THESE BIG COMPANIES, THEY WERE STARTING TO CREATE THESE SMALL COMMUNITY MICROGRIDS. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. THAT WOULD WORK. AND THERE'S AND I DON'T KNOW IF OUR CITY IS SET UP FOR THAT, IF WE HAVE A SPOT FOR IT OR IF IT'S SOMETHING EVEN. I MEAN, I THINK EVERYTHING IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RIGHT NOW IS CONNECTED TO LIKE VIA XCEL ENERGY ITSELF. 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. IF THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND BE INCLUDED, I DEFINITELY THINK THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT. 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. SO MAYBE HAVING THE SOLAR STORAGE AS AN ENCROACHMENT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE INTERESTED IN DOING. I THINK DEVELOPING A DEFINITION FOR THAT STORAGE IS MAYBE THE FIRST STEP FOR IT, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER. 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. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THEY WOULD RUN INTO WOULD BE LIKE BUILDING CODE OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING REVIEW. 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. YEAH. YES. SO THE OTHER TWO MAIN THINGS I THINK I WANT TO GET YOUR GUYS'S FEEDBACK ON IS JUST WHETHER THERE'S INTEREST IN CONSIDERING A SOLAR ACCESS ORDINANCE. 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. BUT JUST FEEDBACK ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD KIND OF STRIVE TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING. 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. YEP. YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY. IT CERTAINLY MAKE THAT DISCUSSION BETWEEN NEIGHBORS EASIER IF THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE. THAT IS WHAT WE AIM FOR. 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. I DEFINITELY THINK THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION TO KIND OF IDENTIFY WHAT, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WITH YOUR TAX BREAKS AND [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. SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE NECESSARILY STARTING FROM NEW, BUT KIND OF MEETING CITIES WHERE THEY'RE AT AND KIND OF TAILORING IT TO WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING. AND FRANKLY, IT JUST KIND OF SEEMS LIKE IT CAME UP JUST BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WITH THE UNIVERSITY PROJECT [INAUDIBLE]. WAS THAT THE ONE THAT THEY CAME IN SHOWING SOLAR PANELS ON? YEP. PROJECT GOT PUSHED BACK DUE TO OTHER REASONS, BUT THEY'LL HOPEFULLY BE COMING BACK SO WE CAN GET THAT THING ROLLING IN JULY. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? DO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS LOOK PRETTY GOOD, AS AMENDED? YEAH. I'LL GO BACK, LISTEN TO THE RECORDING. AND KIND OF IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD CONSENSUS ON A NUMBER OF THINGS, KIND OF TRY TO KEEP THEM CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR EXISTING CODE ALLOWS. MANDATES AREN'T NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR, WE WANT TO GIVE AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS POSSIBLE. FOR THE SMALLER SCALE THINGS, THOSE ARE PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES, LARGER SCALE CONDITIONAL USE, OR SPECIAL USE PERMITS. 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. THIS IS REALLY GREAT. SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS WONDERFUL WORK, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IS ABLE TO DO. YEAH. LIKE THE THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY. AND WE KNOW OTHER WORKSHOPS ARE COMING UP. I JUST WANT TO COMMEND CITY STAFF AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONS FOR MODERNIZING OUR CODE AND OUR ORDINANCES HERE, AND IT'S APPRECIATED. 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. WE'RE TAKING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY TO COUNCIL NEXT WEEK FOR APPROVAL, AND THEN THAT WILL HOPEFULLY KIND OF HELP. I THINK THE COMPLETE STREETS AND THE SOLSMART IN KIND OF COMBINATION WITH LIKE THE ENERGY ACTION WORK THAT WE'RE DOING WITH PARTNERS IN ENERGY. [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. THIS WAS EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT WORK. VERY INFORMATIVE FOR SURE. WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING. SECOND. OH, SORRY. 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. WOW. APPRECIATED. YEAH. WATCHING YOU GUYS WORK. I'M VERY IMPRESSED AND MISS YOU AS I MISS YOU GUYS, SO. MIGHT BE COMING AROUND LATER, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE ROTATING, SO THANKS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE AND DOING ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING. SO I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] YAY. THANKS. OKAY. 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. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. WE'LL ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ERIC. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.