Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

quite do I have yours? Okay.

And then you assess the property.

Yeah. [Music] All right, we will call the meeting to order. Um, we have approval of the minutes from the June 23rd, 2025 and the July 28th, 2025 meetings. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? So move. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I I oppose. Same sign. Motion carries. Next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. A motion to approve the agenda. Approve.

Second. Was that Nate or Wayne? That was me. Oh, sorry. My throat. All you could do that lower. All right. All in favor say I. I.

I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. Next, we have old business ordinance number 69 amending the city code um regarding standalone garages um section 154.031 following the last planning commission meeting. Um the decision was made to establish a subcommittee to come back to the planning commission with recommendations. provided in the packet was a redlinined version of the ordinance that was drafted by city attorney Ralph Nikmo. Um that was sent back to the planning commission from the council for consideration and I will open it up for discussion. Uh well, I I so uh having reviewed it and I was not on the subcommittee, so if anybody on the subcommittee um uh wanted to talk about it, I'd uh uh hear them out. But I I like it. I like the the comments that are provided as well that kind of provide some of the rationale. Um I think that should be those comments should be part of uh what we send up. Um I like the edits. I had a couple of questions maybe maybe um something that was discussed by the subcommittee. Uh so outside storage is not allowed. Uh there was some redlinining there to allow for some outside storage. It seems like with that I mean kind of the purpose of building the garage would be so that you don't have outside storage. So um if anybody had a comment on that uh I'd be interested in hearing that. And then in the the blue lining on page three, um merging the residential garage property with the primary dwelling. Um uh I guess if that is possible to do, um then I would suggest a limit to one per residence on that. Uh and clarify that

it's within city limits, although I think that's clearly implicit in in the paragraph and probably doesn't need to be added. Um other otherwise, those are my only two comments. I think the subcommittee did a good job. Yeah, I like that addition. I can address the first correct question and maybe Wayne wants to address the second one. Uh so with with the outside storage saying no outside storage period, we seem to be overly restrictive to us to say that you can't store anything on the property anywhere. That's where we added and what we saw with some other similar ordinances is that they would allow storage if there was, you know, appropriate screening that that was approved by the city. But that's just a just thought of recommendation.

I have several comments so I will hold until I put them all in one thought. So I'll let Wayne go. Do you want to talk on the last? Could you repeat your your question on that? Well, maybe I can talk. Well, well, so I think we had put the second one that was about tying let's say a standalone garage partial to a primary residence

and the subcommittees and this is just one shot. This might not be the only way. I I hope we reflect that in the comments, but somehow if you could tie a standalone parcel to someone who's actually connected to the community. Um, so it's not owned by somebody living in, let's say, the Twin Cities who's not watching it, controlling vectors, letting it go in disrepair. That was the that was the intent there. And and maybe that's not even a feasible way to do it. This is just for the council to consider is what

if it's possible, for what it's worth, I like that. I like that this garage thing is then um a benefit to residents. It's something we don't have to the city doesn't have to allow it at all. Um so to allow it for people who we know are local going to take care of the property. That's one of the major concerns with these garage things is that the property is going to fall into disrepair. So having it having it um attached uh in name only maybe to to a local residence here um while allowing them to be non-adjacent, I think that's a fair compromise. I I don't think that it's possible to have how you've drafted it here. Like I don't think you can tie the parcels together. I don't know. But we could have a requirement that any applicant for a conditional use permit under this code would have to be a resident of the city of Fergus Falls. But you're not going to tie the parcels together.

Yeah. You wouldn't go into the GIS and have them have a shared parcel or anything like that. That's not not not possible. what you could make a requirement that that he be a resident of the city of Fergus Falls. However mechanically or logistically it's done, I'm I think that's a good idea.

Um a few comments that I had. Um [Applause] under section 1D, we took out the language of the height. Um, so it did read that the maximum sidewall height of the structure shall not exceed 19 ft and and it was changed to say the maximum height shall not exceed the height of neighboring residential structures and shall be in conformance with the neighborhood. That's really ambiguous as to like what are neighboring structures? Is it like a house a block away from me uh two blocks away within my neighborhood? Um, is it adjacent to? So, I like the hard feet. Like, I like the 19 ft. Um, because otherwise it's like, well, there's one three-story house in my neighborhood, so I can make this garage 30 feet or 50 feet or what, you know, whatever the height requirement is for the city. So, I wouldn't want a threestory garage next to me, even if I have a three-story house. you know, it's just different. So that's and we can go one by one if we want to talk about that comment first or do you want me to keep

I I think our the the subcommittee's intent was rather than put a specific number on it that might not fit all situations, have it open and have a similar process to what you when Mr. Reiner came in during the last I think it was two meetings ago and wanted to put a porch on the front and he had did a good job of describing how that fit in with the houses around them. Yeah. But that was a variance request, right? Yep. Yeah. Yep. So like we have like restrictions in the city of like how h tall a fence can be and how tall

I just it's I'm thinking of from the city's perspective of like enforcement and it's pretty much if we have the language as it is there is no height requirement there is no height restriction you can build it as which is fine

the the idea we were I think what we were talking about was when there's a a street that has all one level houses on it and then something goes 19 ft and it causes maybe a uh visual disruption or something that looks just totally not not even so much cosmetically as much as um the sun the blocks out

a 10-ft But and then you go 9 ft higher. It just was and everything else was the same. It was just to be out of the ordinary, I guess. But which is hard to hard to enforce, I guess. It's kind of it's very gray. It's very gray. And it it just what is neighboring, you know, we could define that closer to be like adjacent to then that's that's clear. That's your house on either side of you. you have to build it in conformance with the height of those structures. Um, but neighboring there's like no, right? Yeah. Borderless

to to the extent there's ever gray area on this, it's always going to be higher. I mean, people are always going to be arguing for for higher. Um, so maybe the original 19 ft uh is okay because then everybody knows going into it what you can build and what you can't build. um two citizens in different residents in different lots uh with different in different neighborhoods get treated exactly the same, you know. Yeah. I tried to call Ralph today to talk about where he got that number because I didn't see 19 and like any other It's in our accessory structure section. Okay. That's where it is.

Okay. Well, we could we could keep the 19. And to Wayne's point about what if they have a you know row of single level houses, you could say maximum 19, but not to exceed the height of adjacent residences, then you'd have upper bounds, but if the neighborhood was lower than that, then then they would be the upper bounds be pushed down and accordingly. I like that. Yeah, that would match pretty well with the accessory structure code, which is 19 ft or the height of the primary structure. In this case, the garage is the primary structure, so you'd be matching it to the primary structure surrounding. Yeah. Which is very subjective, but doable,

but not as not as subjective. Not as subjective as this. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

I like that. Um, I guess what out the I it came back to us that the next change is it came back to us from city council saying that outside storage is not allowed. Period. and we changed language as um was already stated to allowing outside storage but not in front of the building. Um I this is one of I think I think this is one of the main concerns with these garages right in residential is that we drive around anyone can drive around Fergus Falls right now and there are residential homes that have a lot of things outside um and when you have a garage that is storage there's a possibility that things people are storing things there right So, I just I'm a little concerned to allow outside storage from an again from an enforcement perspective from the city because it's like where's the line? And if I if I if I buy a corner lot, what's the front of the building? You know, like I don't know. I just don't I I think we it should be

just keep it simple. I think we should keep it how the council sent it to us and just say it's not allowed. I'm obviously Anyone have thoughts on that? Let let it be case by case and the city can monitor that. Yeah.

One of the questions that I had today and I talked to Clara about it and I think did you put these ordinances in front of everybody or just me? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that um mowing and snow removal uh are addressed

are addressed and so they are addressed in just so the commission is aware they are addressed in other areas of the code. Um and so both um snow removal, ice removal, and uh vegetation um are in um again other areas of the code where the city has the authority to come in and provide notice to the landowner that they're not in compliance with the code. And if they don't correct the violation, then the city comes and they remedy the violation and they'll assess the property the property owner for that cost. So, just so everyone's aware that that there's no language in the ordinance about that, but it's taken care of in other areas of the code because I know that was a concern for people that I've spoken to in the community. Um the other thing is I had a comment about the language um that we already resolved about the tying together of the of the two properties. So, I think we should add language in here again that says that anyone who applies for a conditional use permit under this section must be a resident of the city of Fergus Falls. Um, and then a couple two other things. There is no setbacks in here. Um, did you look into that at all, Clara?

So, there's no lot line setbacks in this ordinance. So, I think that that's something that should be in alignment with all other residential. Yeah. Building. Yeah. Underlying districts. Yeah. Yeah. That could also be a condition though on their conditional use permit, right? Then it can be conformative of whatever lot it is, neighborhood, etc. cuz each one of those may vary. Yeah, I think well they do vary. They do vary from like R Yeah to R2. Yep. So maybe that's just best to be part of the conditions on the permit. Yep.

And then one other thing to just add under D, the maximum allowable lot size. I'd prefer to change that to a maximum square footage versus dimensional for oddshaped lots, irregular shaped lots sized where uh section 1D square footage instead of Yeah. lot size. So I mean 50 by 150 is 7500 square feet. Yeah. So, and so the subcommittee added that

just as a tool for the council to use if if you know they wanted to focus uh smaller lots that would be maybe more appropriate versus and restrict you know standalone garages on larger lots that could have more development potential. This would be a clause where they could do it. Those numbers were like a minimum lot in Fergus. So the council might want to look at what that number should be. I don't know it should be the minimum because that's going to be pretty restrictive. Sure. I mean, they might they may want to increase that. Yeah. But know the intent was to leave it up to them to pick that number. Yeah. We were trying to discourage

that type of property from housing that it just to prevent any of that long-term riff raft that could happen from just a garage standing there. So, that was again why we chose a lot minimum. But square footage makes sense. It'll be up to them. Yeah. There was conversation at the council initially that this would make sense for lots that were not otherwise buildable. Yeah. It just never made it in here anywhere. Right.

The the only thing I see is that some lots may have the adequate square footage but could never be used to build a house on because of narrow and you know angled lines and whatnot potentially. Right. But we're saying the maximum not the minimum. We're just saying that, you know, maybe your lot isn't 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep. Maybe it's 75 by 75, 75 by 100 or whatever it may be. Right. So, I would just I'd like to see a max square footage of allowable lot size versus dimensional. That's a good comment.

Yeah, I like I like that. Um, should we So, we don't really have the information. I mean, we could do 7500.

You know, another thing we could do is add a sentence to this comment, this PV3 comment that says the planning commission or the u the council should consider uh uh dimensional or square footage requirements. I I I don't know. just leave it to them to figure out if this is even a direction they want to go and then maybe Ralph could answer the question on uh what that maximum is, you know, but because I like the idea too, but rather than sit here and try to think of all the eventualities, we could just add it as a recommendation. They look at it. Yeah. Because we look at the maximum impervious surface including the structure shall be 50% of the lot area. We don't have a lot restriction that could we could have some big garages on some of these bigger lots.

Threetory ones. Yeah, threetory ones with outside storage. It's going to be

um I so I am trying to capture these comments. I don't know if anybody else is. Well, we're taking minutes. Okay. Is that all the comments? That's all I have. Okay. Um

well, I guess the one last thing I thought about I I don't have proposed language with me right now, is there's no um if someone, you know, there's no um penalty, I guess, if someone like makes a non-conforming constructs a non-conforming garage. Um, so I was looking at some ordinances today that have some penalty language in them that if that the city, you know, I mean, it's kind of the city has the authority, I think, if they're not conforming to take legal action regardless of whether or not we put penalty language in here. So, I don't think it's necessary, but

it's like the the penalty for violating a cup. Well, yeah. So I don't but I don't think like if someone doesn't use material or like you know it's a metal sighting versus I mean the the material language in here is pretty vague anyways I think.

But do they have to have a plan together as far as placement and size and stuff uh submitted as part of the cup application? I think in the case of these garages, we would like to do kind of a combination application process where there are special permit requirements like they're providing the site plan, the materials list, that sort of thing, and it's going through the CUP process. So, the two will be together. That's how I'm envisioning doing it.

That was another thing that I saw in other ordinances. There was like a list of you will provide X like the building plan like all of the all those specs and everything at the time you apply so that the city can ensure that compliances there's nothing like that in here. Mhm. So there maybe could be I mean there's a there's a tension there or a balance where you don't want to require them to like engineer necessarily the entire thing and spend a bunch of money on something that then gets denied. But on the other hand, you know, this is an exception to the rule that they're trying to meet and so they should be able to show that they can meet it. I guess

um they they do have to provide some sketch or a drawing or rendition for a building permit. So I mean I don't I don't think that that would be anything out of line. I mean it can be simply just here's the road, here's the setback, here's what the structure is, picture of the building material or sighting or whatever it may be. I don't I don't think that's unreasonable. Should that language be added in them as part of this process? So like when we do like a sign variance or like we did the cell tower, was that part of their application process that they needed to provide all that detail or was that just kind of knowing?

Um cell tower is different because it has a special permit attached to it. Um and it's required like that special permit requires them to go through the cup process. So yes, it was a requirement, but something like a garage. Yep. So does when they apply for a building permit, all those details need to be ironed out. Right. Right. But most of the time they'd be applying for their building permit after they So that wouldn't necessarily be presented as part of the cup unless they were like going above and beyond and wanted to. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Because most people will want will want to ensure that the zoning is correct before they go forward with the project. Okay.

That's just what I've seen. Yep. So, I mean, I'm I'd be comfortable with requiring a a rendition of it. Um, you know, I don't I don't even care if it's handdrawn. I mean, just Yeah, we do a lot of lots of handrawn. That's fine. Yep. And they could just as part of the application even just state what the building materials are going to be, what the siding is going to be, what the roof is, you know.

So 8B on the first page there says building construction and materials shall meet the requirements of the state buil uh building code and shall be approved by the building official. So are we covered there? I think that's more like from a safety perspective, isn't it? Not like But it's still saying the construction materials need to be approved by the bill.

Well, yeah, but it also I think a separate paragraph touching on the things that we've talked about including placement and setbacks and stuff which wouldn't be necessarily covered by the state building code. But the setbacks, we talked about those handling those on an individual case byase basis, right? Because each section of town, each lot could be different, right? It would be conditions that we would put on the cup at that point. So I I mean

I think that, you know, when it comes to just the material itself, probably B8B covers that. But if there were going to be any conditions of, you know, any opposition out there saying we don't want you to use that style of sighting, whatever that may be, right? Those would be conditions that we'd put on as the permit. So I think having you know making a rendition required as well as you know especially what exterior uh siding fascia whatever you're talking about to be an example provided or a picture of it provided or description of it provided I think is totally reasonable because a conditional use permit is going to come with a public hearing right so anybody that's in opposition to it and whether that neighborhood or community or whatever would have would want to know that detail. So I think if we just collected it up front and made it transparent gives people an opportunity to talk about it at the public hearing.

Yep. So something like new section saying renditions um of adequate detail shall be provided as part of the cup application process. Sure. Uh um I think we should be adequate detail. I um I know I know that's vague. Well, so like the the applicant shall provide uh a building layout. Yeah. Yeah. Um a sketch of the proposed structure. We'd call it like a site plan.

Site plan. Yeah. proide to pro provide a site plan and um specific just specifications of building materials. Sure. Well, yeah. I mean, I would maybe narrow that up to exterior building materials, right? because it could get quite lengthy which we don't care. But yeah,

to make it more uniform, would we identify roof sighting or wall structure so that they actually know what we're looking for? So it's a check system for them. roof type, whether it's, you know, steel or whether it's um shingles, exterior walls. Are you using, you know, I would just say exterior roof and finishes. That's Yeah, it just so that they're not like figuring out what what does that mean?

What does mean? I maybe give them choice of steel cement, roofing, wall cover, exterior wall covering. There you go. Let them fill in the blank. We really concerned about anything else besides that? I think the rest of it's really covered. You got that? Got it. Um, anything else?

No. You have a comment? Yes, please. Yep. You want to just state your name? Yes. Uh, Jason Burns, live at 606 North Woodland Drive. Um, just kind of wanted to make a comment about the the lengthy discussion about a description of the size and style of the location and location of the building. I think a lot of that is already covered in section 8K. The application for a conditional use permit must include a drawing accurately depicting the size, style, and location of the building on the lot. I think from from the discussion I was hearing I think most if not all of what was being talked about is already covered in what is written in here.

Yeah, maybe you can just add a little bit more specifics to that section. Yeah, I would say application include a drawing accurately depicting the size, style and location and somewhere in there have including the roofing and exterior wall covering and location building on a lot right to Yep. Thanks for the comment. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. All right. Anything else? Would it be appropriate to I'm trying to figure out where to place the local resident like the requirement that the city applicant be a local resident. So I think I think it's page three that blue language a residential garage starting with a residential garage. So I yeah like a condition of the cup shall require that the property be owned at all times by a resident of Fergus Falls.

The the tough scenario that we subly talked about is let's say Uncle Joe passes away and his niece down in the cities inherits it. You know the day that that happens they're now in violation. So to require that for all time is tough I think you know at least if we require it at the time of application that helps us a little bit but it I don't know it tough to do it in perpetuity. Well, and then the example I gave last time, so if you're maybe a snowbird, you rent, so you don't have the maintenance aspect. If your primary residences happens to be in Florida, there's a lot more tax benefit to being a primary resident in Florida than Minnesota. So, but maybe you spend 6 months out of the year living here. I think it's very hard to police. I mean, I'm okay with tying it to a resident on the initial application. how I mean, however we want to move forward with it, I'm okay with that. I just I'd prefer it to not not even be in there, but I understand the concern. Was it um understood that it's possible to tie with a residence not by um parcel number, but some other way? I'm not sure of a mechanism to do that. And I'm just thinking about it from, you know, the way that we work with properties currently. There's almost no way for like me to track that so and so owns a house over here and they also own this property over here and to be able to be able to look at records and know that in any kind of easy way.

And I don't know the history of parcel numbers and identifying property that way where you don't put a some identification that it's linked to this other parcel number. There's no way to do that. Okay, I'll tell you there's no way to do that. So if there's no way to do it, then maybe we just revert to at the time of application resident at the time of application and from there we just decide that we can't police it anymore

and and it'll it'll it'll achieve the goal that that I think but we're not going to be able to make it perfect, right? And I think that was a discussion we had when when we talk about even going down this path. You'll eventually have these disconnected standalone garages that are just able to be sold and difficult to to police even if we could do it. But if we're going to do it then then I'd like to I'd like to say at the time of application then so that there's something there some nexus to the city some nexus to maintenance and

yeah you're not you're not you're not coming here just to you know use the city for your storage unit. It's you know you've got your situation with your house and your other property you want to build a garage. It's something it's a kind of a benefit to a to a resident at least at the start. There was an interesting comment in here um on assessments. So, and I I I don't know how that would work either. Um because so typically an assessment is unlawful if the increased benefit of the improvement does not exceed that it does exceed the the assessment. So, if you're if you're assessed $10,000, but you only have a benefit to your property of $5,000, that's an illegal assessment because you were assessed more than what your property was benefited. So, when you have a garage that has less value, there's a possibility that the city could have issues with assessing that property because it's not bringing the amount of value that it would maybe bring a residential home.

But would that exist today with it just being a vacant lot?

I don't know how vacant lots are are assessed. I am not going to pretend to be an expert on assessments. Um, yeah, I do know that a lot of the time assessments come into play at least in in areas of town where we know that there's like I'm thinking of progress drive, right? So, we have lots that have been improved or there is infrastructure to those lots, but they haven't been built on. And the way that we have those set up currently is that assessments are not um put online so to speak until a building is there and they're connected to those utilities. Right.

So I suppose there could be an instance where somebody builds a garage builds a garage and they do not connect to utilities. They're not using sewer or water. Yeah. I I would wonder how does that assessment process work? Um, so I would hope that maybe when this gets back to the council level, they would address that question. Yeah, that was one thing that just came in my head when I was reviewing it today. I was like, "Oh, I don't know how that would work." All right. So, next steps. So, next steps, I think we had 60 days.

Yep. I think what we would need to do is um Sarah, maybe you and I work together on capturing all of these thoughts into like a memo situation and then either have Ralph draft a version of it that's been agreed to by the planning commission here at this meeting and then send that on to council or just send the memo that has the changes and updates that planning commission is suggesting. I think it would be beneficial to send a draft back to them versus a memo.

Then we can work we can work on getting that memo drafted and then have incorporate that language. Then would we have to wait until next month to approve it? Well, I think you'd have to all agree that you are at a point where you're happy with your suggestions and then just trust that everything's getting into that memo appropriately and then council's just going to have to take it from there unless we have a special session. I think we should vote on it now and send it to council. I mean, we've discussed this for how many months, right? I I think we're in alignment here.

Yeah. Paul, I mean, if we could do a motion, Paul, could you just recap all the changes and proposals that you've maybe had an opportunity to grab? We'll offer clarification. I'll fumble through them. Okay. But, um, so as you know, so the deviations that I have from what was in your packet would be altering the minimum, I'm sorry, the maximum allowable lot size from like a dimensional size to a square footage. Leave that up to the council as to what that should be. We are going to add back in the maximum height of 19 feet um and or in conformance with the adjacent residential properties.

Does that mean not to exceed? Yeah, I think or not to exceed the height of the adjacent residential properties in the case that you have, let's say, single level.

Yep. Yep. Okay. Um, okay. Outside storage, we are going to keep that as was sent to us by the council. And just to read, outside storage is not allowed. We are going to add in paragraph K some more specifics about what the applicant needs to provide. Specifically, it's going to be um some exterior roof and wall coverings uh and a you know site layout sketch of the proposed structure. The paragraph in blue that we added towards the end about tying parcels together will be struck and we'll change that to a requirement that that the applicant be a resident of the city at the time of application. Can I bring up one more point? Not to belabor the issue, but asterisks. Can can asterisk be used relating to a P?

What do you mean to reference that it is tied to another property? I mean, when you tell me when you say you cannot tie parcels together, I think that's what you said, right? Yeah, that's what I said. Yep. Well, I I don't really know what you mean by tie them together. Well, maybe. But you can't somehow identify them as as one ownership. Yeah. I just don't We We could create a database that does that, right? But there's no existing database that I'm aware of. You can go on the Ottertell County GIS and you can I can type in your name and I can see what property you own. Mhm.

Is that what you're meaning by tying together? But but that's me. You have to go and you have to do that search and you have to look it up. But there's the city and the county aren't maintaining. They just have to show proof that they're residents of the city. Bring a utility bill by name. Yeah. By the name of the applicant. They would have to tell us where they live in the city of Fergus Falls. They'd have to have a primary residence in the city of Fergus Falls. Right. I'm saying after the fact to identify if if you're looking up a parcel number is there if there was an asterisk by the parcel number. Who's m where are you looking it up and who's maintaining them?

Well, I I look from a real estate standpoint. I I always look up parcel numbers. So I maybe I'm just thinking for my own like I said when I'm looking for parcels I'm the only thing I'm aware of is the Ottertell County GIS and you can search their GIS by parcel number you can search by last name. You can search by address um and and you can pull up who owns but like there's no one's maintaining a database unless like the city or the county creates it. And I I don't think that's I think that's kind of I I don't know the what the purpose of it would be. I guess yeah, it's on the sale side of it. That's where it

So you're thinking if I own a house Yeah. in the city of Fergus Falls and I have a garage on a totally different parcel that if I sell my house I have to sell my garage to. Exactly. I don't think that's I don't think we can do that. Well, that's that's what that's what it said here. We just didn't really cover that. Yeah, I'm in support of that, but I agree logistically I don't think it can be done. Yeah. Okay. I don't think legally we can do that. Fair enough. Unless you had them add a covenant at the time of building, but I don't know that you can. So, I think I think if someone had a mortgage on their house, their lender would have a maybe a problem with adding a covenant.

That just can't can't be done and is a reason the council should maybe not go forward with this. But like that that's that's a concern, right? That's why Oh, sorry. It's so you know adding residents resident at the time of application is something but it' be pretty easy for an opport entrepreneuring individual who lives in Fergus to buy a parcel, build a garage, then sell it six months later and then do it again. You know what I mean? So you're not I mean so we're not we're not um it's it's not a very big hurdle to get over, right? Um

but it's something quick question. Uh so what does this look like going forward if we if we approve everything that was just read? Um can't we just send this red line up with the comments on or do we send the red line and put the comments in a memo to make it a little cleaner? I I think we should just clean this up with with what you just said and send that up to the council. I like I kind of like these comments though. We can keep the comments in there, but I like Are we going to red are we going to redline this version? Well, I think

Well, I think we could edit we could edit the red lines to update to our new red lines. That's what I think we can send that the blue would not be in there at all anymore. We'd have this. That's what I'm talking about. Okay. But keep all the comments like on the side, right? Uh okay. Or there's maybe a question from the audience. Oh yeah.

What? This is this isn't a public hearing, but I'll give you the opportunity to speak, Mr. Leighton. Well, I appreciate the effort that you've put into this. It's come a long ways. Um, I'd like to go down that checklist. Outside storage, you can drive any garage today and you can see outside storage. Be a garbage container, a mower, you name it. I don't think that's fair for a standalone garage to stand out different than a residential garage. Um, I don't think it's fair either that it's not allowed to be bought by an out oftowner. If I live in Minneapolis and my son lives here and I want to put up a shed for him, I should be able to do that. You have other qualifications here to that make sure this standalone garage is applicable to the neighborhood. Does it really matter if I live in town or don't live in town or in the event I did own this standalone garage on a lot and I die and my childhood inherits it or my trust inherits it? what happens. I think that's a little shortsighted. A disrepair. I think I don't think that needs to be addressed. We have enough problems in Fergus Falls with a home. You can decide who is disre disrepair versus not disrepair. I don't know if the city can make that decision. It's very difficult. There are homes that are wellmaintained and some homes that uh unfortunately by maybe budget they're not. The height matter is immaterial as long as it stays to the adjacent and I agree with you that you know neighborhood should be defined if it's the four houses around you the couple story the homes are beside you across the street my question on snow what does that mean just the sidewalk

Mr. There's there's this code that covers snow removal. So that just the existing city code applies. Yeah, we're not changing that. Yeah, thank you. Lot size GIS to determines that. If I buy a lot from the city, it's a lot. Should that necessarily be addressed in this because there's lots that are quite small and there are lot lots that the city's already planned that are are quite large. is should that be a a limitation if I stand in this larger lot or the smaller lot and comply with your other regulations set back in size? I think that's what we're asking the council to determine

and just so you're aware again I'll remind you we are we send recommendations to the city council. Okay. So, a lot of these changes that you're saying, the city council sent us this ordinance draft. Okay. So, you as a as a city city council member, you've already seen this. You as a city council sent this to us to review and a lot of these changes that you're disagreeing with are are is language that was on the draft that you sent to us to approve. So, it's it's just I I'm frustrated. This is this is the exact nature of my frustration that I've expressed before is that we aren't changing what the city council like it's super inefficient for you as a city council member to come here and to express these sentiments when the city council is the one who sent us this draft and we're not making any material changes to it. The 19 ft that was in the draft, the no outside storage that was in the draft. So again, we we will send this back up to the council and you can make all of these comments a as as city council member at the time it's in front of you as a council member, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to come here and talk. I don't know if you're here as a city council member or in your personal capacity, but it's it's if if you don't agree with the draft that council sent to us, then that's that's that's the essence of my frustration. It's super inefficient. The if the council is going to send us something to review it, there needs to be a consensus because it's it's a waste of our time to review something if you guys don't have a consensus on what you agree to.

I'll give you one more minute.

I appreciate your frustration. It's been brought to the council from the council originally to come to you with your suggestions and it appears to me that you've already made some changes to what was brought to you. I'm speaking as an individual trying to focus this committee to fine-tune this a little bit. I'm speaking on myself. I can't speak for the council. But if you don't want to spend the time to listen to some common sense to ease this ordinance, policy, whatever you want to call it, and get it passed by the council, I think that would be beneficial if you did. They came to you to set the policy. That was the intent of this committee. I apologize that I have a different flavor of the council. I apologize that the council sent you something that may not have applied to all situations. They came to you for advice. I'm trying to help you make that final device. Not here preaching. I'm giving you an insight. If you're offended, I apologize. I'm here to help Fergus Falls. If that's out of my structure, so be it. I think I spent my minute. Thank you very much.

Thank you. So, we just went through all the all the changes. The only thing I didn't hear was were there setbacks? Did you go through the change on the setbacks? Those I think that those are going to take care of themselves during the permit process be, you know, because they're neighborhood specific be part of the condition and we do have K that requires the site plan. So, yeah.

Yep. I do I do think I I get the intent of including them as a condition. I do think there should be something that um that is in here that says that they will match the setbacks of the underlying district because what there there aren't that many differences in our setbacks from zone to zone. R1 is only slightly different from R2 through R4 and R2 through R4 are the exact same. So, I just think it should be tied to that underlying district.

If you read that last paragraph, Clara, that starts I'm sorry, not the last one, the last one before section two where it starts a residential garage. Are we covered there? Because it talks about that they have to comply with, you know, any other requirements specified by the city. And this is only in an R1 district as well, right? But it's applicable to all districts following R1 because the cup. Okay. option is available then. So in that event I don't think we are covered because other requirements specified by the city council would require the city council to then look at it. It'd be those are just the conditional use the conditions right

it it would be easy to add that that's like a one sentence clause I add Clara that's super super easy to put in there doesn't hurt us at all. Yeah, just say the setback shall conform with the underlying setbacks required by the zoning district.

Okay. So, there's been enough uh interim discussion that I think we should go through these again. So, we have uh on on section 1D uh lot size square footage with our comment there that advises the council look at that uh uh section 1E 19 ft not to exceed the height of neighboring primary adjacent primary residential structures. Everything else as presented uh paragraph H outside storage not allowed. Go back to that. I'm sorry. I do I do have one other with F. Why was 20 ft versus 30 ft? You can't fit a car in a 20ft garage anymore.

Okay. So, yeah, that's that's just commenting about some architectural relief for visual purposes. We we can put that back to 30. We this the ones that we had reviewed were more like 20. Okay. It's not saying you can't build walls, but I like to build just a straight wall like 30 ft long is what you're telling me I can't do. Like an average a normal size two stall garage is like 24 x 24. That's what average is. So if I have if I can't exceed 20 ft without doing a bump out, then that's just unnecessary added cost. I would I mean I would much rather see that that 30 ft. 30 would be fine. Yeah, I mean that's I don't think the subcommittee would have a concern with that. Okay.

Okay. So, sorry I didn't catch that earlier. D was the square footage with the comment. E was 19 ft not to exceed the height of neighboring primary adjacent primary residential structures. F go back to 30 feet rather than 20 ft. H outside storage is not allowed. Period. the removal of the that's what the council sent us uh and elimination of the blue language at the end saying that uh the applicant shall be a resident of Fergus Falls at the time of the application and that's my motion to approve that and the lot lines

we forgot the lot line again just the language that I kind of that was right before he started in so yeah the the the lot lines or the the setbacks rather will will comply with or will conform with the underlying residential district. Yes. Motion. Second. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign.

All right. Motion carries. Next item on our agenda, new business, battery energy storage system zoning. Turn it over to Clara Beck for a staff report. And I will just start by saying there is no action required of you tonight on battery energy storage. This is just a conversation that we are going to be continuing to have as the months unfold. Um we had initially started looking at battery battery energy storage systems in relation to a project that was um proposed on Port Authority property. That project um was that was this spring. That project did not move forward, but in discussions with um with some other companies, including Ottertale Power, it is entirely likely and very well, it's going to happen that there will be battery energy storage projects that are going to be coming to the city of Fergus Falls. We don't currently address those in our zoning code in any way. Um we do have sections now related to solar projects which are similar, but these are distinct uses. So, I just I wanted to kind of like set the stage a little bit and make sure that I'm going in the right direction with some of the changes that I'll be bringing to you um with the huge caveat that I am not an expert in battery energy storage systems. So, a lot of this is new to me, which is um why it's probably going to take us a little time to get to a place where we're really comfortable with what we'll be suggesting to add to the to the city code. So, um I do have just uh this PowerPoint is only somewhat relevant to what we will be working on, but it's pulled from um New York State, a a company in in New York State put forward kind of like an

draft um ordinances that cities can adopt that are relevant to battery battery energy storage systems. And so they have lots of different tools available that municipalities can use to introduce some of that language into their own codes. So you're going to see a lot of stuff that's New York related, but it's because they're kind of like the gold standard at this point. Um, and we'll be adjusting from there. So here we go. And if you do not want to stay in here about battery energy storage systems, like no love lost, just to be clear. Were you Were you talking to us? No, you guys are stuck here. But

this is a 49. Um, yeah, we won't go through all of them. Okay, so blah blah blah you. Okay, so yeah, NYS ea is where we're getting a lot of this information. So, oh my gosh. Okay. Um, here we go. Model zoning law. So, um, battery energy storage model law. Um, basically they're laying out for us like why do you need battery energy storage regulations because it's a very distinct use different from things that are currently in our code and especially city code like that of Fergus Falls which is you know from the 1960s a lot of it things have changed things have changed a lot um so I just want to run through some of the options that they give us to look at and then kind of get a feel for uh a direction that you'd like to go. So, we're going to skip through this authority piece because that doesn't really matter. This Okay, first up is definitions. There are a couple different ways that we could define battery storage in our code. Um, and the way that this New York documentation does it is by breaking them into two different tiers. Tier one is essentially like a small project that could be located um as an accessory on a property, could even be um used for like a home battery storage system. And um tier 2 would be a larger system. Uh I think the projects that we are likely going to be seeing in the next 5 years will be more of this tier 2 type where they're very large like multi-acre projects similar to a solar farm a little bit more contained um but these

larger projects. Another way that other municipalities have defined energy storage battery energy storage systems is actually just based on their use. So rather than you know breaking it down to the kilowatt hours um like breaking it off that way it would be based on like this is a use related to a solar farm or directed or connected directly to the grid etc. So it would be maybe a few more definitions. Um, I think the tier 1 and tier 2 does make sense and it gives us the ability as a city to say, you know, smaller projects, we maybe don't need to have as much oversight over those. Um, those will still require building permits. Um, but perhaps they don't need any kind of specialized permitting from the city. And then that would give us a little bit more control over the larger projects where we could maybe be saying we would prefer it in, you know, our RA zone versus any of our residential zones um other than RA. Uh so like tier one could be an accessory or something that's not really regulated closely by the planning commission/city council and then the larger projects would obviously have a little bit more scrutiny to them. Um, so just getting a feel, what are your initial thoughts? Does anybody have any background with battery energy storage projects? Um, I know Nate, you work for Ottertale Power. Maybe this is something that

Paul also works for

Oh, yeah. Sorry, Paul. Yes, you do. So, and I think Mike actually works for a solar company. So, I was I was hopeful that he'd be here tonight and he could maybe weigh in on some of these projects that are going to be in our future. But, um, yeah, just initial initial thoughts on how we would how we could be looking at these projects coming in and then how we would define those in our code. I mean I it's going to probably end up being very similar to what has been done in the past and whether it's a industrial location like similar to our substations uh similar to like what we would have in a solar field what the Hoot Lake plant used to consist of etc. So, I mean, just you're not going to see these at least initially just like pop up in a neighborhood, right? Um,

not to say that that larger scale could come, but as far as anything that you know would be on the immediate horizon, it would be what we would consider utility scale. anything smaller than that would probably have to integrate with our existing distribution infrastructure which you know we would probably just consider that as part of um covered underneath our franchise agreement that we'd operate under with the city. So think of like the transformers in your backyard, the poles and the boulevard. Those would be equipment and apparatuses that would kind of have to fit into that framework and not be disruptive to the neighborhood.

Okay. So, let's say that there is going to be a project that is small in a residential neighborhood. Um, right now in our solar ordinance, we state that um like a rooftop solar project, something like that does not require any kind of special permitting. It's just considered to be an accessory use um in our zoning code. and they just have to follow like a building the building inspector would have to go and ensure that everything's you know up to code that way. Do we feel comfortable with a definition then of maybe these tier one storage systems that would be smaller matching them to that kind of accessory use where they'd be on the same parcel as say a home or a small business and we wouldn't consider them to be any kind we wouldn't require them to have separate permitting.

Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't even know if we'd even necessarily bother with including

even sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh sh shedding a light on it, right? I mean, so if you look at just some of the residential solar uh I mean, they have what they call net metering, right? So essentially excess production being sold back to the utility provider and if they don't have that, they operate on essentially their own storage system, right? Which just serves that resident parcel, whatever. Um, it's small enough that I don't really think that we would even care, right? It should be a covered underneath state electrical code, building code, etc. that really it isn't necessarily a zoning. Well, so to that end then in our solar zoning code, would we potentially consider removing um residential storage from having to be considered under the zoning code or do we leave it in because it gives people a path and they see like, oh, I could do this.

I could go either way.

That gets tricky, right? So like Ottertale Power uses your water heater as technically a battery because you can store energy and then release it over time while we control the energy. Right? So like we don't we control water heating. We're not allowing you to charge or heat your water, but you're releasing what you already have charged, right? It's essentially the concept of a battery. So when you talk energy storage, I mean, I get what the consensus is, like what we're aiming to get at here, but there's more unconventional [Music] type energy storage that fall into this realm. So it just depends on, you know, what are we ultimately concerned with as a community? And I'd say that's would be what we would define as the utility scale type storage stuff, right? Okay. Yeah.

I mean, feel free to Paul jump in or disagree. I mean, so I mean, so my suggestion would be focus on tier 2 and develop what we think would be appropriate for tier two and then after that we could consider whether or not anything is even worthy of note for tier one.

Yeah. Uh but I mean typical utility scale battery systems you have a a housing structure that the batteries are in that's fully enclosed and then outside that is a transformer and and you kind of you know so that's that's the pairing then then they're you know you can scale those up with however many you want. Uh and then I mean they're energized they're fenced. This isn't something that utility companies are going to want to put in the residential area just for security purposes. Okay, thank you. Okay, so that's helpful to this definition section. Here's examples. I don't know. Is this a residential?

Your label there says tier one.

Yep. But I'm just thinking, is this one on a house? That's interesting. Okay, moving on. So, here we go. Yes, the tier 2, these larger utility scale. Um, another piece of it that I wanted to just kind of like get some consensus on before I start like really working on the code language is um the comfort level with uh requiring that a lot of the um like the regulation and control of these projects, the safety of these projects like we can reference it but this this MUN municipality is is not the one that's policing it necessarily. So when something when a project is coming to the city for zoning, right, we would assume at that point that it's already been at the state level and being approved that way and that it's meeting certain regulations that are required by the state. Do we feel comfortable with that and agree with that? Is that the reality? I'm just I'm thinking about the Hoot Lake Solar Project, which I know is slightly different because solar and these two things are distinct uses, but at when when that project came to the city, it had already gone through a lot of its initial permitting through the state process and then had come back to the city for the zoning part of it. So, a lot of that work was already done. um the city held certain public hearings that were required by the state for the process to move forward because it is the municipality in which the project was occurring. I don't know that those sorts of requirements would be the same for battery energy storage, but um as long as we're at least referencing the fact that these projects are being reviewed at the state level and permitted at the state level, are we comfortable with that level of oversight?

Well, that's a fairly ambiguous statement. So, I I could envision a day where a lot of our projects aren't going to be permitted at a state level because they don't meet a certain threshold of Okay. energy storage capacity, right? So, I don't know, Paul, you're probably more on the regulator. We have that today like on the solar site. Anything less than 50 megawws is not regulated by the state utilities commission. It is regulated by the local government unit which would be the city. So for solar the cut offs 50 megawatts. I don't know what it is for battery storage off hand. Right. But it might be it's it's on it's on the in the neighborhood of megawatts. It's not kilowatts.

So there you know the way this is or the definition of tier one and tier two there's probably a gap in there. Okay. So we would want to understand what that level of megawws is at which a project would be permitted by the state versus permitted by the RGU. Yes. Yep.

Okay, that's helpful. Okay. Yeah. So, the the model is suggesting that you do have permit requirements for tier one. I think what I'm hearing is that maybe we just maybe we can mention that they're allowable under city zoning code, but that that's kind of the end of our permitting and we just don't have that requirement in there. And then tier 2, we would ensure that our definition of a tier 2 is is um accounting for any gaps that might appear here and then taking into account where Minnesota would step in for permitting. So that's helpful. Um yeah, decommissioning plans. These are all also things that are part of um our solar ordinance, which is that any of these larger projects have to have some kind of a decommissioning plan. I think we'd leave that in. Also recommended is that there are um requirements that your local like specifically a lot of ordinances reference your local fire department ensuring that they have some sort of training in the first response to um accidents at a site like this. So I think we would include information about that. I'm going to talk with both the building official and the fire chief about um how they would like to see that language in there. So, we'll probably deviate slightly from the model just to get more of our our, you know, our local processes accounted for. Um, does everybody feel like that's reasonable to do?

Yeah. Okay. And I think finally, um, I just wanted to talk a little bit about if there are any. So some the the code that's the model code does not really account for zoning for the larger projects. So it's just not really mentioned. The smaller the smaller projects it does have language in there that they'd be allowed in any zone. Um with the larger projects when they are kind of this more utility scale at least for our solar co code we are restricting those to um RA districts only. So residential agricultural which kind of by definition is putting them toward the edge of town um in areas that are maybe more recently incorporated and um I think that's worked well for you know the Hoot Lake solar project um that actually brought in some new land to the city through annexation which was helpful for our tax base. Um, but when you're thinking about maybe some of these energy pro or battery energy storage projects, at least from my understanding is they can be a little bit smaller and more compact. Um, potentially they could be appropriate in say an industrial zone. Um, would you be open to exploring zoning that would go beyond just the residential agricultural on the side of town and maybe consider on a case-by case basis having them be available in more zones, possibly even a business zone? Yeah, I you know we have several substations around town. I I think we would want to see the ability to locate these

in and near those facilities. So, okay. I don't I don't remember how those are handled. you know, if we don't if it's not in an industrial zone, like have one in a residential neighborhood, is it spot zoning for that site or is there a variance with that or like with existing substations? You know, I'm not sure actually. I can look into that. [Music] And just another note, I I believe the threshold for battery storage for regulation at the state level is 10 megawws. 10 megawatts. I think it's worth cross-checking, but that's sure the case.

Okay. Okay. So, I can look into the existing substation zoning. Maybe we do something that kind of matches that. Does that sound reasonable to everybody? Okay. I think aside from that, starting with the solar ordinance as a template wouldn't be a bad way to go. Yeah, that's kind of what I've been

looking at and trying to integrate together. Um, so yeah, it is possible that we could just update the solar ordinance to include battery energy storage systems or if we want to keep it as a truly distinct use, then we would just add another section. So, I can talk with Ralph about what makes the most sense. But, um, that's kind of all the direction I was looking for tonight. I just wanted to make sure that as I'm starting this process that I'm not like way out in left field and coming back to you with stuff that makes no sense. So I appreciate all the input and the expertise. Absolutely.

Awesome. Thank you. Anything else? No. All right. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you.