Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

motion to approve I'll second it's a motion from cundy a second from vinich any further discussion all in favor say I I oppose same sign motion carries next agenda item new business the first uh new business item is a council directed review of city code regarding private garages I'll turn it over to Clara Beck for a summary of Staff memo thank you madam chair I will provide just some anecdotal context I suppose for this request um before my Outreach from Mr Leighton who is a council member um I had actually received a phone call from this uh the the he's not the land owner but his family member owns the land but the person who's interested in building a garage on a standalone lot which is the reason that we're here discussing this tonight um he he basically was interested in building a garage that would not have any kind of dwelling unit um associated with it it would simply be a garage SL Workshop I suppose he didn't elaborate on that further but um the use would be just as storage or or Workshop space on a property in an R1 zone so when I talked to him on the phone the options that I gave him were well you can find a primary use and you can build it to include a primary use or be adjacent to a primary use or you can talk to your council members about making a zoning change because he wasn't happy with the response that he was getting um based on the fact that it was simply a garage not including some sort of primary use so that is the direction that he ended up going he um contacted council member Leighton who um sent an email to the city administrator to get

some further information on the zoning code and why um this constituent was getting the response that he was getting and then he brought that request to the council to have um the Planning Commission review code and potentially suggest a change so that is where we are tonight um I've included the email from council member Leighton and the response that I sent him and the full Council that just sort of walks through our the zoning that we have currently and the response that the constituent got and then um I think in my I can't remember what I said in my memo but I think I laid out some next steps for us so we could um continue to leave code the way that it is and um require some sort of a primary use or we could maybe introduce some kind of a conditional use permit process or um we could look at changing code completely and redefining garage or accessory structure so that it could be a standalone on um a residential lot I do think we should restrict our conversations to residential zones I don't know that this needs to get beyond that at this point um but I am always open for discussion on that as well so that is um where we are and I'm interested to see what you guys think about this and and what direction you'd like to go thank you open up for discussion is this really an adjacent lot or is it a lot across the street um neither it is I believe the the person who's interested in building the lot lives near his mother the lot is neither adjacent to his home nor his mother's home I believe they're on a a they're at least a block

away got it had it been an adjacent lot the respon would have been let's just combine your Parcels therefore it is one parcel and then you you have an accessory to your primary structure Unfortunately they are not adjacent so that wasn't an option yeah I feel I mean it's an opportunity for the city I think to probably roll back some regulations that were placed here looks like maybe back in like 65 um I think it's an opportunity for individuals to probably invest in some blighted properties around town that maybe wouldn't be worth the investment of a new primary residence in there so right now that essentially Falls onto the city to take these blighted properties when they default on taxes which can take several years and then clean it up the lot and then try to sell the lot hopefully recoup their money anybody that's building spec homes or investing in uh real estate isn't going to set 350 $400,000 into a 75 foot wide lot just doesn't make good sense so you know I could really care less whether the lot is adjacent near across town whatever it may be I think it's an opportunity to spark some investment into our community I'd rather have a new garage sitting next to me than a rundown house that's 85 years old so lived in a couple other communities that um were pretty Progressive on this as well had some pretty good success one of them was Watertown South Dakota I think I had Clara forward on some of the ordinance language there but seems like

a pretty um fair and easy process to go through to get it rezoned as an RG so adjacent to a residential zoned for a garage basically takes a majority of the um neighboring Property Owners to sign off on that before it would even be considered put some building restrictions as part of that too just to um make sure you're not building like a 20 foot sidewall a lot of it has to do with uh you know casting Shadows stuff like that on your neighbor's property um and you know I thought it was probably some a pretty good Baseline to start with uh if the Planning Commission is open to that so your just clarify your proposal would be to and and that's what this this uh in front of us is is is an example of setting up a new zoning correct yes not redefining the current um what a residence is or yeah we would add another zoning code to our city Charter city code whatever may be yeah Mr Cooney appreciate you going and getting that Watertown example it's nice to see how another Community is doing it um just for discussion would establishing a new zoning category be preferable to establishing a conditional use permit process that is fairly um easy to navigate uh this the one thing that is interesting with the this the water tone example is you know you would be responsible for collecting signatures from your neighborhood which seems like it could be could potentially be an uncomfortable

process and uh you know you're you're not letting your neighbors dictate or potentially dictate what you could and couldn't do so I don't we just what what's the thoughts on new new zoning versus just a conditional use permit process so just from a like a very basic if you're going to do an application for one of those two things it is um a cheaper and quicker process to have a conditional use permit in place that said I did call Watertown South Dakota just to talk through um how they've how they've made this work what is working what maybe isn't working and um interestingly as of February they actually got rid of the requirement that you get neighbor Buy in because that was literally just stopping it in its tracks every almost every time and they introduced and I I set this on your desks before the meeting a new residential Zone that's residential storage so um residential garage the way that the woman on the phone explained it to me was um more for like a commercial use near they have a a lake it would be near the lake District so it was pretty large lots that they'd have um big garages on for housing boats Etc the residential storage is meant to be a little bit smaller a little less commercial use so more like a a neighborhood use sort of garage style like that um it allows for smaller lot sizes and it does not have the requirement that they get Buy in from the neighbors it's just if they get if the rezone is allowed then that's by right the use is is a garage or a storage unit essentially um so yeah whether or not conditional use permit versus rezone is easier or harder well with with the rezone I mean we could essentially apply that to an

entire district and applicants would't have to come into or in front of the Planning Commission or file conditional use or wait they would just simply have to apply for a building permit if we were to go that route so you think it maybe like an overlay yes okay my my concern about this is and maybe Wayne you can talk a little bit more to it too is that our city is only so big right we have a limited amount of real estate in our city to develop for housing purposes for residential purposes and um when we look at the kind of the the boundaries of the city there's not a lot of room to further develop from what I can see like beyond what our current boundaries are unless we want to take over agricultural land which obviously is very high in value so um my concern would be with the housing issue that we have um if we allow for garages to be constructed on residential lots that takes away from the available real estate that could be developed for residential purposes so I I will just point out out to that regard is that the city has multiple acreages that are zoned for residential development that has been a number of years that no action has been taken on them currently the riverfront or the former Dairy property can't even get a proposal on there for a developer not to mention is it like close to 40 or 60 Acres of the norgren property on the north end of town that has also been plotted for residential development that nothing has been done on so I understand you're where you're going with this but

um garages here and there scattered throughout town on small Lots tearing down blighted houses I mean I it still doesn't stop a developer from putting covenants on that property to stop a garage from being built in that area right if that's the concern so well I think it would though stop a developer putting covenants on wouldn't it because if we're allowing this in whole districts I a developer couldn't come in and say no I don't want that because it's allowed by the the new zone right if if it was a planned unit development or like a new subdivision I believe they can place covenants like that but then that is up to that neighborhood to continue enforcing those the city doesn't enforce covenants on a neighborhood okay yeah it it needs to be like one big parcel that ended up getting splitted up by that developer and that developer was able to put covenants on each of those lots by virtue of it having been on one common ownership so if let's just say there was a development by the river wherever for residential development and we and the developer allowed that and City allowed garages to be in certain ones the thing that comes to mind for me is um uh water sewer because there are assessments generally to each lot to spread out the cost of the of the project so then does it come cost prohibitive even for that to happen actually because we don't allow we wouldn't allow I would assume Water and Sewer to a garage why well because then it becomes that opportunity become a residential dwelling I I disagree I think we'd allow Water and Sewer I mean if you're going

to have it as a workshop I once you want to at least have a garden hose yeah and I'm not saying it's totally out of the r of possibilities other than this is a way bigger discussion if that is the case because in his email that he presented he listed five things um just in his own mind if we're using that as an example of what he considered his garage to be are does is Watertown using these zoning I mean are they using these as like um do they have specific areas that they have zoned like you said they have a lake so is there like an like an area where they've zoned or they using these as like spot zoning they're using it more as so the the way that I I don't think they in necessarily intended for the residential garage Zone to stay as contained around the lake as it did but realistically that is what happened based on the lot sizes well and maybe they did intend that and that's why they said the lot sizes the way that they did but um they the the residential storage is meant to be smaller in order to be able to pop up more in like a residential district so and I did ask about like CU I don't know all the rules in South Dakota I said do you have similar like concerns about spot zoning that we that we we do in Minnesota which is essentially you can't do it in Minnesota and she said that they try to stay away from it but she's not aware that it's like a legal issue so they could they can do Standalone zoning she said they try to keep it in like like and like together but um if it ends up being a standalone that's mostly

okay so I don't I guess I don't know necessarily how we would treat that here in Minnesota where the rules the state statute says no spot zoning so I don't know if you can like create a district what what's how do you define spot zoning like it's a new Zone well maybe that's where the question comes in of an overlay District versus a brand new zoning District um but basically a spot zone is when you have a zoning use that is specific to the use of that property so you're zoning it so that it can be used in a very specific way and it's not adjacent to that zoning anywhere else I think a garage would not be an egregious example of spot zoning but like a um a manufacturer who wants to come to town and they decide that the right place to manufacture is in the parking lot of service food and we're like like all right well then you can be zoned industrial right there that that would be spot zoning I'm not a city planner so this is just that is my own research it seems like what I'm hearing is on the one hand uh Mr kundi saying what what barriers can we remove to encourage progress and development and and then on the other hand Miss Duppy saying yeah but we also want to try to ensure the highest and best use of our city property um so I think we have to figure out how do we balance those two right what I mean what about what about a conditional use permit process where you take them on a caseby Case

basis I mean this isn't a great reason not to do that but I know that the city council just would prefer to have the least amount of conditional just from an administrative standpoint and kind of bogging down their hearings and things like that it's like they come in front of us once and then they go in front of the city and everyone says the same thing um the overlay district is kind of what I what had come to mind you know for me right and then that I think that overlay District would be somewhat compatible or overlapping with all of the residential areas that we're talking about and then that overlay District just describes the criteria in which you could you know build a garage on uh a vacant lot or a dilapitated lot house that gets torn down and turned into a vacant lot um you know I think there's some question about you what had come to mind for me right is that if I live on the North side of town and for whatever reason I just feel like I need to have a garage on a $10,000 lot which isn't a very bad value proposition that's pretty pretty doable right so I find a lot on the south side of town I put a garage there that's too expensive 50 years from now to want to tear down but I've forever tied up that lot that goes to Sarah's Point um with a garage that can never really be you know habitable I mean no one would really live there it would probably have some of the you know the utility hookups you could build off of that but my mind had gone to would you even try to restrict where on the lot that the garage can be built to still leave for example 2third of the lot for a primary residence interesting just a thought so that's I get that example but

just say you did buy the lot there's no guarantee that a primary residence is going to get there so to me I look at like the alternative is it just sits vacant whether they invest in a garage or invest in a house I don't care investment is investment leave it up to the people that want to purchase the property would we would we ever up the investment criteria to include utilities to the garage a requirement that it's plumbed out in that way right cuz then cuz then could be built off of it could be rededicated more easily if it's in they'd have access to that at the curb stop in the boulevard right that's the any plotted lot lot in town that is served by city water sewer so it's not up to the city to determine whether that's there or not the city already did their job by getting it up to the curb stop no matter if you were to build a new house or garage or whatever still the property owner's responsibility to take it from the curb stop into the dwelling so as far as like the investment side of it on the sanitary and the water that's already been done by the city um kind of circling back to the conditional use permit piece like the conditional use permit is there because we would put conditions on it right so like what they would come in they'd file their what is it 120 bucks for the permit $50 so another $350 for a conditional use permit to come in here say hey I'm going to build a garage and we'd say okay great what conditions are you going to put on it and we'd

say what at that point I think we could look at some of the stuff that Watertown has done which is no um no no commercial like you're not going to run a business out of it that would probably be a good right what I'm but what I'm saying is like then why wouldn't we just make that part of a zoning district and make it applicable to everybody versus wasting their time in $350 to come in here knowing that it's just going to be the boiler plate rubber stamp here's what you can do here's what you can't do same thing as the next guy down the street and it just creates more regulation more red tape and delays progress I don't I don't think that us or the city council is going to struggle to find the method of how we want to get there the the biggest part of this discussion will end up being what do we envision for our our city right I mean do you want lots to get used up for garages maybe they lie vacant maybe there's some dilapitated homes for you know a longer period of time um I mean these are just thoughts that we need to consider and this isn't necessarily at that point really a zoning um or Planning Commission you know very long you know future outlook discussion we can contribute to that but I think we kind of need to know um what do you know what do we want for our community that's a good question because we've we've looked at we've looked at Watertown South Dakota I did call um Alexandria and Morehead just as communities who are nearby to see how they handle this um they do it the same way that we do it currently so we're not out of which is what we they don't allow

it we just yeah they they it's an accessory structure or accessory use and no Standalone why why is the city had an aversion to that today other than that it's just always been that way accessory structures just having a yeah I mean I brought this up at a meeting last year but if you have a house that burns down and there's a garage Standalone garage the city will ask that the garage also gets taken down even though it's in completely fine condition so the city has you there's got to be a reason for that you know I think it would be good to to know when we may be reaching back a few administrations to figure that out yeah yeah I'm not sure about the I I do know that the that has occurred where somebody's house has burned down and they've been given a certain amount of time to either build a new primary structure on the lot or remove the garage and the time elapsed to such a point that they were asked to remove the garage um the the I've been just like very tangentially part of conversations that um code enforcement had been having a couple years ago about about standalone garages cuz they do exist I mean they they are in the city um and I I I think it is down to housing stock and um the an issue that we have seen with garages that do exist um where maybe they are neglected or the storage that's inside the garage is spilling out and it's surrounding the garage and then it becomes an isore and you get complaints from from the neighbors things like that snow snow removal isn't occurring Etc cuz somebody's not living there so what exactly is Council asking

us to do the way that I worded it is that we are reviewing code to see if there is a solution to allow stand alone garages or not that's going to be up to Planning Commission to make that determination um um the the request I mean you read the email from Mr Leighton he would like to see how this can happen for this particular constituent so I think that is the request is how do how do we how do we look at our code in a way that's going to make the most people in the community happy so um the looking at the Water Town thing here and when I was reading through it it mentions about where you can and can't put stuff and what you can use it a property for really it's meant for storage inside that garage or that unit and we I guess we look at what's the purpose for the condo garages on the 210 Bypass or those garages or or the ones down um one on fur Avenue uh that was that's what those are for for storing stuff that we all have too much stuff so for a point of discussion I guess why if if that continues to potentially grow in that in that category what is the purpose of this other than I can see it if there's a a home here and a vacant law next to it to what you said earlier to utilize both of those pieces of property and let somebody do a garage on one side of that um why then why does it have to be right next to it you the the end result is a

there's a garage there yeah what difference does it make if I live right next to it versus three blocks away so I I don't I guess maybe I'm more skeptical about how people maintain things if it's not on their property drive around town yeah there people that live in primary residence that don't maintain them I agree that's just a crutch to lean back on you can find that in any Community not a really valid reason to argue against something it's really up to the individual and that would go back to I'd say maybe enforce our current ordinances better I I mean I think to answer the council's question um based on how the ordinance is written it can't it can't be accommodated and we would you know we can a wait further instruction from the Council on what they want us to do this I mean they it's a simple question I mean do is it okay to have garage Standalone garages on single Lots without a primary residence you know I think if that's what they want they can tell us how to get there well I yeah so what you're saying is go back to the council and say we need we need to know if you're looking for for a broader opinion on on this as a whole or just are you looking for this specific situation is that is that what you're saying yeah I mean this yeah and the situation isn't really riply in front of us either it's not here on an application it's just a question how would you interpret the stat you know your ordinance to allow this I think the answer would be it would not be allowed under our current ordinance I don't think that's I I think we could take the city council's directive more broadly though and consider something like what Mr Cooney's suggesting and I mean we we could we

could Pro go turn around and propose to the council if if we were to go down this path we would look to establish a new zoning district and here's here's would be here would be the draft restrictions on that and you know we could even make the point to say hey we don't know how much these would proliferate but if if they were to let's say get out of hand just like Watertown did we could always pull it back I we don't right now we're we're hypothesizing what problems could occur without really knowing that this going to be a problem right right but like yeah I I guess I would I would suggest that we don't we don't I don't think we should propose a rezoning based upon one city in South Dakota and what they did I mean I think we need to like do more work because our zoning districts have been in place for a long time Y and it's not just something willy-nilly where like we have one constituent coming to the city saying I want to build a garage and we say okay we're g to create new zoning districts because of that like because Watertown South Dakota did and it worked for them so we're going to do it too I mean I think that we need to like really think about it um and really make a you know a wellth thought out proposal to the council if that's where we're going to go I mean I'm not saying I'm against creating a new zoning um but I'm I just don't know if if that's the a knee-jerk reaction if it's well thought out um and if it's what the majority of constituents want I I I would like to hear from more people than just one person wanting to do this of like what actual people of ferus Falls think well to your point I don't think Waterton has it figured out

because they've already gone through one revision of it right I mean they I yeah but CLA you you'd mentioned that they actually rolled back regulation on it and that's the updated one you presented right the specific thing that they rolled back was um was having to gather signatures from surrounding Property Owners because that and I mean that in and of itself kind of raises a red flag for me because if you have a zoning practice that is being stopped by the neighborhood surrounding that zone yeah people AR wanting just take yeah and then you take that away I I don't know yeah it's that seems like a questionable choice to have made but they I again we talked for just a few minutes so there may be more to it than that I totally understand I you know I understand this constituents want and um I think it's something that we should just Explore More I'm not saying that I'm against it but I think that it's just something that we need to think about more it it's easy for people to say I support something um when it's not right next door to you and as we've seen at the Planning Commission level and really at you know any level it when it affects you personally you may have different thoughts and I think we just need to think about if this was happening next door to us you know and I I think just for maybe some further context on how this did end up in front of the council um and now ultimately in front of Planning Commission is there there is significant frustration on behalf of on the behalf of this constituent in that his family member purchased this lot specifically to build a garage not realizing that the rules were that they would need to have a primary structure or at least be

adjacent so that we could connect the to in some way so there was there there's some anger on the part of this constituent so they reached out to to their council member and so that's how we're hearing about this now so I I get the statement like happened next door to you but the party that lives next door to this vacant lot could buy it build a garage no problem no questions asked we just say yep that falls in line so that's kind of goes back to like what difference does it make of who owns it the the end result is there's a garage there no matter what and that thought process again has been kind of like what Wayne was saying the the maintenance issue there's the concern that if somebody doesn't live there that it's not going to be maintained but yes I hear what you're saying so I I I think what we need to respond to the council with is I mean it sounds like you've already expressed this this cannot happen currently under what we have right yep but I think we need to go A Step Beyond that and say if you want to look at this further here was here's a path we would recommend going down right I I don't we owe that to the council so they know what this is going to be opening up is there a history beyond what brought this up with others wanting to do what this person I mean yeah we get we get calls every once in a while about somebody saying can I you know this near me is for sale can I put a garage on it and we tell them the rules and that either works for them or doesn't work for them so the answer answer the council's question um no it would not be permitted this specific request would not be

permitted under our current zoning ordinances however we're willing to look at potential Solutions or recommendations um from the Planning Commission on on whether or not we would I do I do like the thought of having more community members be able to weigh in on this and just get a a better feel for how this might affect people or how they might be interested in it um the exact mechanism for how we do that is could be debated I mean we could do um we could do like an open house and have people come comment that way we could do some kind of a survey but I I like the idea of getting further input versus just one single constituent saying this is what I want yeah yeah I uh I think that before we make any significant changes especially creating a new Zone uh we want to make sure that it's something that's supported by the people of Fergus Falls for sure I I think people don't like to come in person to things I'm just speaking for myself so I'd rather create a survey I think to have people give us their thoughts on if that could be easily disseminated that would be think the most efficient way to go about it so do we does it make sense to draft like a new Zone District language to put out there to together input or feedback from the survey on or is that the direction that we want to go kind of back to to Mr vines's point of I think we need to signal to the council that hey we're going to be exploring the path of either

conditional use permit or just a new zoning District in general with some potential overlay I think not putting to I mean I'm I wouldn't I feel like I feel like the average person the average person doesn't like to read legal they're yeah they're they're maybe not going to necessarily see a difference between a conditional use permit process versus a zoning overlay well how I mean how much would we have to explain in something like that I think we could we could create a survey that has Common Sense questions where we we can communicate what we would potentially be proposing and whether or not they'd support it or not yeah I I think some color around what we mean by garage would be helpful because people could have a lot of different Visions in their head about what that could be so I I think at minimum setting some parameters around what what type of garages would would be envisioned under this new Zone would be helpful yeah and what the permitted uses for those garages would be yeah I mean just just a simple you know a garage a maximum of this height you know this much of the lot and and for residential use only something like or personal storage no commercial use you know just some broad parameters I think will be helpful yeah otherwise I think your need Jer is going to be no if you if if you don't put a little definition around it so in So to that point what do we think of what Watertown has done with their parameters for garages I think there's was a minimum of one acre I think if you look at the RS though the one cl just handed out now um that's probably the one that we would

likely work off of that's the one with the some of the re revised I did print off their their requirements for that District so um the minimum square foot foot area of a residential Storage District district would be 10,000 sare ft 100t wide 40ft front yard 10t side yards 15 foot rear height of a building of 24 ft I'm sorry you said that was minimum no that was maximum no minimum minimum 10,000 foot area so if you look on prohibited uses they have sheds on there which probably relates to I I don't know what a what the difference between the garage and the shed is that's a good question but I don't know what the difference between number one and number three of theirs and we're we're talking about prohibited uses or what you can use for it one is non-residential uses number three is residential dwelling uses prohibited so I don't know what they mean by non-residential uses so well I think it's clear that I I think what it means is you can build this Garage in a residential zoned District but you can't live in it right and you can't use it as the place where you're conducting your business so that would be like commercial use would be non-residential use yeah I mean so I mean something that's one page like this I don't think would

be hard to digest for someone taking a survey I just they're not going to take the time people want well but I mean then I mean then what's what's the value of their opinion I I get they're not going to take the time to I consider the question I think we can create a survey that again gets you know you can we can ask questions and provide information in a way that yeah anyone can understand and easily answer would we want to have a subcommittee I think so help create that survey and maybe an Outreach plan that's what I'm I think it would be a good idea anyone willing to serve on that subcommittee Nate yeah I I would I think it'd be helpful to since you're the probably the most familiar with yeah this zoning and yep how it's worked I can work on it with Nate okay we'll just say I mean like having lived for several years in that Community there's this has not been detrimental to any one of those neighborhoods hoods or have resulted in a lack of development in other areas of the community so I mean it's it's quite literally just a a good way to get more investment on underutilized property that would likely never serve as a decent investment for a primary use structure so I I just see such low risk here that it's um having been a part of the chamber that conducts some surveys and knowing the how simplistic that we can make

those and seeing the participation rate in that not being Stellar amongst our members I'm just skeptical that we're going to get much of a base as a result of the survey and it's just going to continue to delay so I mean what if I mean I would I would like to see us almost adopt the language here make our adjustments as needed to it and send it to the council they're the ones that are ultimately going to have to review it and make a final decision whether to say send it back to us because we could put all the restrictions that we wanted to on it and they could still strip all of it and then still pass it to council we could request that Council hold an open hearing right an open whatever the term is which is protocol for some ordinance updates not all but like our DNR ordinance requires having a a public hearing so this could be similar so I mean is there any of the language in here that jumps out to anybody that like I don't like that or we need to modify that or like what are what's the General consensus from the commission on on this do do you maybe want to do a a motion to set a subcommittee first and then we can have a little further discussion well I I guess do we need the subcommittee if we take action on this tonight though sure okay claa did did you put together this memo on this issue okay so you're summarizing what the ask was of the city council right

okay yes based on what it says is that they asked for us to evaluate potential revisions we're doing that to determine if or how Standalone garages may be permitted in residential zones so how it can be done is through a cup we've talked about that or rezoning or a rezoning can we possibly get back to them with that if that's what they asked for we'd be willing to do that we even have a zoning ordinance that commissioner kundi provided we could just have maybe one more month to work this through we think that we need to do some sort of you know community outreach in the meantime we can do that I'm sure some organizations would be interested to know that kind of the extent of this potentially is you know any lot in town could have a garage on it maybe like uh Habitat for Humanity might might want to know about that and then we can kind of just you know think about this a little bit more yeah I don't think I'm in a position to push a new zoning ordinance through tonight I have no appetite for that think you guys need to do some voting some so would either of you which one of you is putting a motion on the floor I'll move that we adopt the language in the RS and RG language and create a new Zone district and present that to council and have a open input session at Council level okay do we have a second all right motion fails for No Lack of a second second do we have any other motions did you just second oh she said

lack of a second are you seconding Mr oh no no no I'm sorry I'm sorry all right okay okay motion fails for lack of a second uh do we have any other motions on the floor or they want to be made I mean I I'll I'll move that we uh indicate to the council that there's a process we have to go through to you know get this request approved and that process is either establishing a new zoning District or conditional use permit process um yeah that that would be one that would be one motion I would make do we need to make that as a motion maybe we don't I just needed to hear hear consens does anybody want to establish a subcommittee I I think there could is there a mo do we want to pass a motion to establish a subcommittee or not I think that would be the other motion that we would I will say if the subcommittee [Music] is going to look through and draft language on a new District then I will offer that motion to create the subcommittee to work through and draft language on that and I would second that motion I'm gonna let you guys well then I have one more thing to say okay we have any further discussion so your just to clarify your motion is to establish a subcommittee to draft a proposed new zoning ordinance solely like that's the what the subcommittee is established for okay maybe I should pop in so and and the and the zoning ordinance is District overlay correct okay thank you yes thank

you that is accurate okay do we have a second second okay any further discussion all in favor say I I okay all right subcommittee we will talk or you may Talk Amongst yourselves um the next item on the agenda is uh conditional use permit process to allow pylon signs in B2 and B3 zoning districts I did not write a memo for this one so I'll just tell you why this is necessary um we I've had two requests now for projects in B2 zones that um in in the past or normally you would see a pylon sign as part of those builds um however when going through the sign permit process our sign code doesn't actually our current and our new does doesn't actually reference pylon signs until the B5 B6 zones so any business Zone below from B1 until B3 does not have the option for including a pylon sign so I think because they do exist and it makes sense for them to continue existing or being added into projects I I believe there should be a conditional use permit process that would allow for the placement of a pylon sign in some B3 zones which is again like our downtown obviously there aren't large enough some of those lots are not large enough for a pylon sign but some lots are and if we can um have a process in place so that uh the neighbors are notified maybe if there are conditions that need to be placed we can place them then that's a that's a way that we can

do it while allowing those businesses to have the signage that they need and want I'm sorry could you define the a pylon sign for me uhhuh so Shopco that big sign that was in their parking lot that had the huge Shopco sign at the top that's a pylon sign so it's like the it's the very tall ones so is there height restrictions sorry with uh with are there height restrictions yeah yes yes we do have height restrictions in well that are related to pylon signs that we would have to include as part of the conditional use permit process so you're looking for a motion to if if if you think it makes sense maybe I'm being too vague here okay FM bank has are rebuilding a building they took down the pylon sign that was there my assumption is that that used to be zoned differently and in when it was zoned as a b that it had a pylon sign now it's B B3 there's another business in a B2 Zone that's also looking at the same thing B2 B3 in our sign ordinance language is considered essentially the same um they don't have an option for a pylon sign so when I get a new sign permit application I have nothing that I can go back to in the code and say yep check no problem so because that they have exist in the existed on those properties in the past and it makes sense for to continue existing on properties like that in into the future I think a conditional use permit makes sense and there's no grandfathering Clause no no if you take it down and want to put it back up again once it's

down it's no it's a new sign going up and I have to approve it as such does anybody want to make a motion I'll make a motion that we establish a condition use permit process for B1 through B3 for pilot on signs I will second that motion all right any further discussion all in favor say I I I so I'll just take that straight to council just to be clear okay uh next item on the agenda battery storage regulations okay so the Port Authority was approached by company out of Texas to um either sell or lease some land for a battery storage project um battery storage is not something that I'm super familiar with but people who maybe work for energy companies could be um it is a technology that I think we will be seeing a lot more of in the future and um in fact Otter Tail Power does have a certain number of battery storage facilities in their 5-year plan it's behind their solar and wind energy build out but it is still there um the city adopted solar zoning ordinance ordinances um before the hoot Lake solar project went forward so this is kind of a similar thing so that we're not just being super reactive maybe we're being a little bit more proactive to when some of these projects might come forward it's a long process to get one approved um but including language now in our ordinance I think would be helpful moving forward so that we have a permit process in place we have regulations in place and when somebody comes to town and says we're interested in this battery project where can we put it what are the regulations

we can just say here you go this is what's in our in our code um I included in your packet some just model language that a group out of New York State put together that seems to be as far as I can tell from my research kind of like the the go-to for um cities who are looking to implement some kind of zoning and regulations obviously we would need to do some amending to make it fit Fergus Falls and our other zoning regul regulations but it's at least a starting place so tonight I'm kind of just wondering like how do you how do you want to move forward with this do you want to do this as a full group just bringing forward options at Planning Commission meetings do you want to do subcommittee or would you just like to see a version that's marked up by staff and and kind of go from there I guess personally I think it would be good to have City staff put together a proposed version and then bring it to Planning Commission and if at that point we think that a subcommittee needs to be established to review that and further revise it okay um we could do that at that point otherwise we could have you know obviously further discussion at that time and if we're ready to send it to council um we could do that as well at that time but I think it would be good to start with a draft Yeah is is anybody familiar with battery storage technology or regulations surrounding battery storage at this point in time Mike's kind of like maybe yeah I mean my company does battery storage um but I I'm usually involved on the legal side after it's an operation okay so some of this is kind of in the development you know permitting side of it very much so I do sometimes see um battery storage

and solar in the same ordinance and we have a solar ordinance possibility to update that too yeah you know there's there's another application too to consider um besides at the point of electricity generation like a wind and solar but you you do I believe also see companies starting up where they site these these energy storage facilities and communities they they purchase the power off the grid at a certain price hold it then they sell it back when the price is higher um and that that's that's how they would I mean is that uh Nate how you understand it so so I think that might be what we're thinking about I mean that might be the Texas company here and what they're doing if they site if they're look look at in town versus at at a generator source so the they so the port property that they were zeroing in on um was adjacent to a Great River Energy substation so they wanted to be right next to that yep that could also be great Rivers contractor for meeting the Minnesota regulations carbon free L too could be could be yeah they indicated they were here of their own accord but that could be possible I'm not sure yeah yeah I think so I I'll pull together things I think that we need to have locked down in order to have a good ordinance is definitions um dimensional standards performance and design standards safety and first responder standards heyo um and then decommissioning is also a big point of discussion in these conversations especially from what I've seen at the Port Authority because they asked a lot of questions about what's your decommissioning plan um and they said well we'll do whatever your ordinance

says but we don't have an ordinance so we couldn't offer that information um and then there are different kinds of I mean I haven't I haven't done a ton of research on this just like some very cursory stuff but um there the I I think the way that we could break it down as two different used types based on size rather than um like being being strictly adjacent to a a sub substation versus being attached to a solar project like if we do the based on the size I think that makes it a little simpler so I just want to make sure I'm I'm going in the right direction and there's nothing that is jumping out at you as as not a good fit for Fergus Falls or or something that you really don't want to see in the zoning code um I don't know if you've had a chance to look through any of the information at this point or if you have any comments a little bit I mean we're just be able yeah and I believe that the State Fire office will be most of the inspections along with us okay well maybe we can work together then to write the first responder stuff cool okay well if there's nothing well there can also be some complexities around around putting out a fire at a battery plant just because of the material that it uses so it it would be a good idea if the fire department and the company got together to talk about how that would happen that looks like in their in their plan do I mean their model code they do have comp they come up yeah I will say I found I found this um model ordinance separate from the

company they they sent me some language from a county in Colorado but it the stuff that they sent me really only scratched part of the regulations was like very specific to just um the zoning and we need to go a lot further than that since we don't have any language in our code so that's how I found this New York state stuff is just based on doing some research and seeing kind of where Colorado maybe pulled some of their stuff from but um yeah dead line associated with working on this or right now this is just uh let's do this so we're ready let's do this so we're ready at this point um the Port Authority did agree to enter into a a letter of intent for the property but there are still a lot of hurdles to get to a point where there could even be a project so we're just we're starting now because in talking with Randy sinin At Otter Tail Power it's probably better to be proactive than reactive all right anything else resarch awesome thank you um old business is there anything I don't have anything if you guys have anything go for it nothing all right we do have a special session of the Planning Commission on April 8th 2025 at 5:15 to review two interim use permit applications otherwise after that we will meet at our regular scheduled meeting in May so with that I'll adjourn thank you great that was a lot of