Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

um meeting and approval of the agenda. Do I have I'll make a motion to approve. Okay, I'll second that. Perfect. Do you need to comment on that, Miss Clara? We're good. Perfect. New business today that we're going to speak on is Shorland ordinance. and we will open that up to the bosswoman who prepared.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did prepare. Um, as you can see, we do have some participants with us by Zoom tonight. Um, I will let them introduce themselves, but just to give a little bit of background. Um, Jill, could you pull up just the PowerPoint real quick and just move us in a couple slides? X. There we go. All right. And can you put it full screen just Okay. So, um, as part of our city code, we have something called shoreland management that falls under the zoning code. Um, the city is required under Minnesota statutes to maintain um, substantial compliance with the DNR shoreland management standards. uh they have staff who um help write that code. I think they perform updates to it fairly regularly. Um and cities are required to stay as up to date as possible with some of those updates. Um the city has been behind. We haven't made updates in some time. We've been in communication with the DNR about that and um we're going to kind of dive back into that uh with this group. So, uh, Jill, I think, can you pull that Zoom screen back up just to give us a little bit of background on, um, how the the Just Can you pull the Zoom screen back up?

Yep. Um, to give us some background on on how the DNR manages that program, what it looks like from their end of things, and then the process for a municipality to make updates to their standards. Um, we do have Dan Petrick with us and Ryan Berkkey. Uh, so I'm going to have them introduce themselves, uh, talk a little bit about what they do with the DNR and then, um, walk us through the the process of performing updates a little bit before we dive in a bit to our options locally. So, go ahead you guys. We should be able to hear you.

Okay. Hi, everyone. I am Dan Patrick. I'm the shoreline program manager at the DNR. I've been doing this for nearly 15 years. Um, prior to coming to the DNR, I worked as a planning consultant for eight years, mostly in the Twin Cities area. Um, so I've worked with cities and counties uh on a wide variety of comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, and I've also been on a planning commission, so I know what it's like on on your side of the table. Um, and so that is my background and um, that's what I have to say. Brian or Ryan, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure, Dan. Thanks. Yeah, Ryan Berkkey here. I've been an area hydraologist with the Department of Natural Resources for 12 years now. Spent the first n and a half years in the Ortonville field office at the southern end of Bigstone Lake. For the last two and a half years, I've been in the Fergus Falls office. and my predecessor uh was Julie Adland. As an area hydraologist, I primarily work with public waters and I support the shoreland and flood plane programs as well. That's what I've got. Dan, you are muted. Oh, thank you. Um, so first of all, are you seeing my screen at all?

Yes, we can see it. Thank you. Okay, so you're seeing a a PowerPoint that says Shoreline Basics on it. Yep.

All right. Excellent. So, um, Claire asked me to give you a little background on the Shoreline program. I think most of you are new to this or don't know much about it. Uh, so that's, uh, what we're going to cover here. And um you can ask questions whenever you want, but uh I thought I would give you a brief history of the program's history and spend most of the time talking about the the shoreline standards and the purpose that we have these standards. Um so you understand why you have the ordinance that you do. So um to start this uh it was in 1969 that the state passed the shoreline management act and that's what kicked off the shoreland rules. But the the point of the act was a multiffold, but it was a reaction to a lot of post-war development around uh lakes primarily in the central RA lakes region um Crowing County, Cass, um Becker, Hovered, and there was just so much uncontrolled growth. Uh there were no minimum lot sizes, no requirements for septic systems. Uh it was just sort of very very haphazard. And so that was the kind of the the the development style that really led to the the act. Um but the formal purpose of the act is to protect and preserve water quality um natural environment um habitat vegetation but while also allowing development that pro preserves economic values. So to protect you know property rights uh to use the land within the confines of the the development standards. Um it was not to prohibit development. So um after that act we had some shorland rules that were first developed um in in uh and this slide here goes through the regulatory history. So in ' 69 um we had the Shoreline Management

Act. 1970 we had our first rules for counties and then um in 1971 Ottertale adopted their first shoreline ordinance. In 1973 the Shoreline Management Act was amended to include cities. It was cities were not included in the original act. Um and then in 1976 the DNR developed rules for cities and then in 79 Fergus Falls adopted their first shoreland ordinance. Um in 1989 the shoreline rules were updated. In this case they were the same for cities and counties. And then um in 1992 Fergus Falls and Ottertale in the same year adopted updates to their ordinances to comply with the new 1989 rules. Well, the new 1989 rules aren't so new anymore. In fact, they're quite old. But that's still the rule package we're dealing with. Um, and so that's, you know, for your purposes of understanding that, that's that's we're dealing with a rule package that was essentially put together in the late 80s based on development issues going on at that time. So, a bit outdated. Um but some basic components of the program uh the shoreline boundary is 1,000 ft from the ordinary high water level for for basins or lakes and 300 ft from the river or stream. Uh it's usually considered the the top of bank is considered the ordinary high water level for a river or stream. Um but there is the possibility that that boundary could extend to the full extent of a flood plane for a river or stream. So the the boundary of shorelines around rivers and streams varies depending on the presence of flood planes. Um so uh the shorland program covers the land around most public waters and so

this would include for counties the shoreline around any lake that's greater than 25 acres or for cities the shoreland 1,000 ft around any lake over 10 acres in cities. Um lakes do include wetlands and there's you know wetland categorization format or you know categorization scheme and in this case it happens to be the three four and five classified wetlands are also considered public waters. Um and then for streams and rivers it's any water course that drains more than two acres is um also covered um by the shoreline program. Now we talk about the ordinary high water level quite a bit. That's a very common boundary that's used. This elevation is a line around every lake and river. uh it's not visible of course but it is that point on the landscape where the highest water level has been maintained for a long enough period to demark the change in vegetation from more of a riparian style I mean an aquatic style vegetation or an upland style vegetation um for many many lakes we have the ordinary high is published um and in other cases uh it's something that can be estimated based on a visual assessment of the vegetation. Um, and this is where Ryan and and other area hydros might come in if you need to verify an ordinary high. Um, that's one of the jobs that our area hydraologists do. But it's this this water level elevation is used also for determining DNR's jurisdiction for work in public waters. So if somebody wants to excavate in the body of a lake, um if that excavation is below the ordinary high, then you need a DNR permit. That's where the DNR has complete jurisdiction for work. Above the ordinary high, it's

local governments with their land use controls. Um one of the features of the shoreland program is that we categorize lakes and rivers um into ascending order of sensitivity. Uh so for lakes there are three categories. Uh natural environment which are the most sensitive to human development and thus have the the most stringent standards upwards to general development lakes which are the least sensitive to human impacts and have the least rigorous standards. And the type of standards I'm talking about that pertain to these lakes are um lot area, lot width, structure setback and septic setback. And this grid here is just simply to show that um you know for the more sensitive water body uh you get more stringent standards signified by increasing number of plus signs. Um we also have five different river categories as well. It's the same concept there. Um, as you get more sensitive, the standards get bigger and bigger or you know, lot area gets larger, the lot width gets larger, so on and so forth. There are two basic concepts that um are involved in a lot of these rules that you have in your um ordinance. Uh we have something called a shore impact zone which is 50% of the structure setback. This is the most sensitive area for development, you know, where you can have uh soil movement, vegetation removal that can affect how sediments and nutrients flow into the the lake. Um and then we have the bluff impact zone or bis uh which is the bluff itself and then 20 ft on top of the bluff. So we don't use the word bluff so much, but we use the term bluff impact zone. And

again, it's just the bluff plus 20 feet um from the top of the bluff. So, I'll just go through a few of the standards that we have. Um you know, we have vegetation management standards. And the most important thing here is that intensive clearing is prohibited in those two sensitive areas, the shore impact and the bluff impact zone, as well as on steep slopes, which are anything over 12%. Um, so in those areas it's prohibited unlike this picture I'm showing you. Somebody went and clearcut that area in a strict violation of a local ordinance. Um, so that's prohibited, but there is limited clearing allowed for access to the water, you know, for beaches, picnic areas, for putting in accessory structures near the water or for creating a view to the lake from your home. So, you know, it's not all prohibited. It's selective cutting for specific purposes like those listed here. And and the reason for those is that we want to stabilize banks and shorelines to keep soil and nutrients from flowing into the water. Um you know the vegetation along the shoreline is especially important for intercepting and filtering nutrients. Um and just simply reducing rate and runoff. You know, these are natural storm water methods and and of course to just preserve an aesthetic, a lake shore or a riverine aesthetic. You know, it's one of the reasons people want to live on a lake is because of its scenic beauty. And so, you know, here's an example of a shoreline where, you know, people are are living in pretty good harmony with that aesthetic. They haven't ripped out the vegetation and put in, you know, massive beaches or, you know, lawns. So, you know, this is sort of an ideal um shoreline landscape where people can can use and um and still enjoy that access. Another set of standards that we have

are called land alteration standards. Um this is primarily just a permit program. So if somebody wants to alter land within um the shore impact zone and a bluff impact zone or a steep slope, if that alteration includes more than 10 cubic yards, then they need a permit from the local government. Um if they want to move more than 50 cubic yards anywhere else in Shoreland, then you need a permit. But again, these sensitive areas are where we have the most uh restrictions and where we want local government staff to oversee, you know, what kind of land alteration is going on in this area through the the method of a permit. Um the one thing I won't get into here, but the land alteration permit does include design specifications for rip wrap above the ordinary high water level. So there are some dimensional standards that limit how much rip you can put in. So and again the purpose for these standards are very similar to the the vegetation management standards primarily trying to minimize sediment and nutrients flowing into the surface waters aesthetics um and to prevent bank slumping and also to protect fish and wildlife habitat. So um moving on uh we have bluff standards and if you have a determined bluff uh in an area there is no intensive vegetation removal allowed on the bluff. Um other than some modest vegetation removal for access like for stairs or a lift if you have um but there's also a requirement to set structures 30 feet back from the top of the bluff. So, um, but yeah, here's an example of, um, a bluff that collapsed once after all the vegetation

had been removed. So, pretty extreme example of that. Um, and again, the purpose for these standards are to risk uh reduce the the risk of failure uh for a bluff, which is also a property risk. I mean, this is an example of a river bank along the Mississippi River, and you can see the homes right on the right hand side there. And you can see the bluff is starting to to move downhill. Um, and so, you know, eventually if this isn't stabilized, these homes could be at risk as well. So, um, but again, one of the big purposes here is to to minimize the loss of natural character. So we want to maintain um vegetation on bluffs and that vegetation is also important to stabilizing them. Next big category of standards are impervious surface limits. We have a standard 25% limit per lot. Um again it's to minimize runoff into the surface water um and to leave room for vegetation and habitat especially in the nearshore area. And so that's sort of what I've got for our shoreland standards. Um, does anybody have any questions about that at all?

Anybody live on a lake here, lake or river? Seen shaking heads. Okay. No waterfront owners. That's too bad. I have a question. If you can tell um tell me what what's the number one um has the number one effect on water quality would you say with shoreline? Well, yeah.

Well, with with shoreline development, the number one um contributor to pollution to surface waters is still failing septic systems. Um but after that, it would be shoreline erosion due to uh loss of the natural vegetative buffer. along the edge. Okay.

Yeah. And just for the benefit of um the group here in the room, septic systems are not allowed in the city limits of Fergus Falls. So if there are existing septic units, they are generally on their way to being phased out. Um that's that's not something that we generally allow. Yep. Great. Any other questions about the shoreline regulations? Nope. One thing I'm Oh, yeah.

One thing I did want to mention, I I forgot is that, you know, this is a a program that the DNR administers through local government partners. So our goal and our job mainly is to work with local governments to make sure that they have ordinances that comply with the state rules. Uh and then it's up to the local government to administer those and enforce them. Uh you know the DNR can assist in some cases but we don't have any authority uh to to do that um because the way the program is structured. So, you know, if your local ordinance isn't compliant, um, then our job is to get it into compliance, um, working with you. Um, but say if you receive an application, for example, um, and you know, your shoreline ordinance isn't in strict compliance, you know, that's something that you need to review and against your current ordinance. And that's something that people, I think, oftenimes have questions about. And then we get a we can get pulled into a lot of you know difficulties with local government. But but the reality is even though we don't like it is that your local ordinance as it is today is the controlling ordinance for development once you receive an application. So um we we find out time time and time again that local governments don't comply by learning about applications and how they were approved. But then our job is to work with the local government to try to amend the ordinance to get it back into compliance again. So, so um one of the things Clar wanted to share with you is the the amendment process. And uh so at the DNR we have what we call a five-step process um for ordinance review and approval. And this is just the big picture. Not all ordinances go through this lengthy of an approval process. Um, but the first step

is just for the local government to either let us know that they want to amend their ordinance or we notify the local government that they need to update their ordinance to bring it into compliance. Those are usually the the two routes that start a process. Um, step two is um we call this sort of a preliminary review. It's it's kind of like, you know, a sketch plan review. a developer submits a concept or sketch plan to you to look at. You give comments and they go back and then they work on a preliminary plat. Um, but in this case, step two is more like a preliminary review. Uh, it's an informal review and comment. And this often times is helpful when a city or county is looking at some complex changes. Maybe they don't want to comply letter for letter to the rules. They want to try something different. So that takes a little more time to look at. Uh step three is really the formal uh approval process. Uh it's like preliminary plan approval conveys development rights. Here we're basically saying if we give you conditional approval, this is good to go, you know, for for adoption by your city council. Um and that step we usually like to have um like a 30-day review period for that. Um, and then we give you that and then you take it to public hearing and at that point in step five, um, the city council adopts it. The city sends us the adopted ordinance and we just take a look at that, make sure it's the same. We're very similar to the one we conditionally approved and process is done. And so that's sort of the the quick and dirty. Um, I put together a another little slide animation here. Uh, yeah, I think you were interested a little bit, Claire, and how much time this could take. Um, you know, I think we're sort of at this ideas for amendment right now. Um, and I

don't know if you've gone through the U staff memo you put together yet, but you're I think you're looking for some ideas or support from this group for how to proceed. Um, and that might start a formal amendment process. Um, you know, there's this P piece here where the staff gathers input and drafts something. Um, we would provide preliminary comments. That's like step two. You might have a few work sessions in there to look at some of these draft ordinances. Maybe then staff prepares a final draft based on your feedback, submits it to us for conditional approval. It goes to a public hearing. I don't know if you have public hearings at both the planning commission and city council level, but some places do. Um, and then finally, city council would adopt an amendment and we would do our final review. So, you know, the timing of this can take a long time or not much time depending on the comprehensiveness of the amendments and basically how interested the community is or not in what's being proposed. So, um that's what I have. Um

question about the end of the process. So, if we go through the public hearing process um and then it is recommended that there are some changes made to the final draft, the final draft goes to the DNR um and is not approved. Do we have to go back and redo a public hearing? Um I boy I I would say you would want to check with your attorney on that. Uh I I I think you're suggesting that we conditionally approve something. it comes out of a public hearing looking different in some way. Um and and the council adopts that version. Is that what you're saying? Yeah.

Um what at that point we would probably say, you know, if it was a significant deviation from what we approved, we would say, you know, we can't approve this. This is different than what we conditionally approved. Here's what you need to change, and we would send it back to you um to amend it. to be in compliance or you know, but you would you would if we do talk to our city attorney about that, they say, you know, it because the change was made publicly, we do not need to redo a public hearing. Your side of things would not require another public hearing necessarily.

No, no, no. We we we just I'm just putting this here that the public hearing requirement is in in 462, you know, for uh you to comply with. That's these aren't our rules. the the public hearing requirements are just simply the the planning and zoning enabling statutes that require them over and above that. Okay. Nope. No. Great. Thank you. Any questions? Anybody? What's the cost?

It would just be the cost that the city bears for doing an updated ordinance. So, there's always a cost related to a public hearing. um we have to do the notice, mailings, etc. Uh the and then actually codifying it is also a cost to the city to put that into city code. So it hasn't been updated for quite some time. Why now? Are there lawsuits? What's the what's what's happening that

No, no, no lawsuits. Um, we've just we've been talking to the DNR about making updates for several years now and we've gotten through the process to the point of a public hearing on our own but did not get approval for the the amendments to be made and so we just sort of didn't touch it for a while and so now we're back at it. This has been a topic on the planning commission agenda for the last four years. So it's always been there. We I feel like we've been trying to work on it, but then there's other hot irons that come into the fire that we shift towards, it seems like. So, so right now the DNR's ordinance looks different than the cities.

If there was an issue today, which of those sets would that owner be the city ordinance? The city ordinance you would use? Yep. So, the so the DNRs would not override the cities today. Okay. Right. And Dan explained that earlier when he was talking about the enforcement part of it because they they help craft the rules and they help us they can help us to administer those by you know understanding how to administer them but it is up to the municipality to enforce those rules.

What are the what are the city specific um you know in here it talks about the option four being more favorable than option three. Is there what are the specifics what the where the city deviates from what the DNR would want?

Yeah, it has to do with um things like the set the setback numbers. So the we can be more restrictive than state rules but we cannot be less restrictive and in some instances municipalities do choose to be more restrictive or there is language in there about things like building height etc. things that we we stipulate elsewhere in our code and then kind of carry into the shoreland management piece of it as well. So, it's it's places like that where things differ. And then I don't know, Dan, if you want to give any other examples that you've seen, you mean and how your ordinance is different

or just ordinances in general from the you know, if cities don't adopt the model ordinance. Well, I mean, the the cities do need to be compliant with the the rules. The model ordinance is a convenient way of communicating what the rules look like in an ordinance format. Um, and the model ordinance contains the minimum state standards as well as some optional higher standards. And so, when people talk about the model ordinance, I just wanted to be clear that there is some optional higher standards that we've written into it. they're identified by, you know, blue bold print, uh, to make it easy to know what is optional. Um, but, you know, the cities and counties do need to be compliant with with the state rules. Um, and, you know, we will continue to, I don't know, notify you or, you know, elevate, you know, our involvement, uh, until that happens. uh you know we usually like just cities to work and to figure it out on their own uh without any sort of heavy-handedness but you know that it is a state law and in both the 462 statutes um as well as in the uh water statutes in 103F. So it's it's in both places

and so um chair to to address your question earlier about you know why now? So, it was several years ago we kicked this process off because we got a letter from our area hydraologist, her name was Julie, um that there were sections of that were out of compliance or just not updated appropriate appropriately like we had um water body classifications that needed to be updated, things like that. So, she flagged those for us and that's where the conversation started. Clara, I don't expect you to have all the answers because there's a lot in here and a lot of different options, but how does the city's ordinance differ with the counties in terms of restrictiveness?

Um, yeah, that's a good question. and I've done. So, there's a lot in these ordinances. And uh I will say from a city perspective, we don't um I don't spend a ton of time in the shoreland management ordinance just because we don't have a ton of properties that are necessarily affected. Um, but when I do go through it and when I am looking at because I've been in conversations with the county about what does it look like for us to, you know, work together a little bit more because they have more staff than we do here. Um, they recently made updates to their uh I they've recently made some changes to the the structure of their office and how they're managing shoreland in Ottertale County. Um, that seemed relevant relevant to some of the conversations that we were having here. Um, so the county's ordinance um does follow more closely the 19 it must be the 1989 ordinance

structure than ours does. Um, and I'm not sure why that deviation took place if we both made updates around the same time, but it it did. They look different. Um, and then they have um slightly more restrictive setbacks than we do currently in our code. So when you're looking to build something on a lot near a river, if you were using county standards, they're about 50 ft more restrictive in certain places than than the cities. It seems like option three would be quite logical to streamline everything. Is there something specifically like is there a specific instance that you can think of that you say it should not be option three?

Um just the fact that they are more restrictive and and that has been a a cause for pause for members before. They there there have been members of this body in particular who want to be the least restrictive possible. Going with the county ordinance is not that. H how many properties are affected by that in Fergus Falls? Is that is that something? It's a known thing or I could probably have more engineering try to put together a list but off the top of my head I'm not sure. S that's where I was going with it with my question to declare about the differences. It seems like it would take a lot off the city's plate if we incorporated the counties by reference. Yes.

As a local authority. And I did. So I mean I think ultimately what we will end up with is some amalgamation of county model and then bits of the city thrown in. So I do think we will end up maintaining our own code language at the end of the day. Um, if we can streamline that process though, I would like to. Why why why does it have to be like that? Is it just because it's more restrictive than it should be or like is somebody pushing for that?

They have in the past. Um, and they may continue to. This is a community this we will be required to seek community input on how we do this and that has been a a point of contention in the past of how restrictive are we for people specifically we have the Ottertale River running through town right and people who own properties that abut the river have been vocal in the past that they don't want the most restrictive options when when looking at the options would would it affect them like they have to comply I would it change or only when they change something?

Only when they change something. So we wouldn't retroactively go back and say move your house but if they were and that's what's come forward in the past or in the yeah in the past is there is an area for development. They want to be they want to have as much flexibility to develop as they possibly can. And if we go in with the strictest standards they do not feel that they have that option. does. So like um I would say that Fergus Falls doesn't have a lot of city property doesn't have a lot of room for new raw development, right? In residential. Yeah.

But there's areas like down by the where the cheese factory was which we're looking to develop that does would that something like that be affected by more? Yep.

Okay. Yeah. So, we can um So, on on Friday, I talked with with our city attorney, Mr. Ralph Nickelmo, about, you know, what what I presented him some of the options. What does he recommend as as city attorney? and he is kind of of the mind similar to what I was saying before of let's get something that is that still maintains the standards that we that we have here in Fergus Falls but obviously he's incorporating new necessary language that keeps us compliant um but also provides us with with flexibility when it comes to um the things that we would like some flexibility with and have the option to provide

but so it can be less restrictive not less restrictive than the state, but less restrictive than the county. Yes. Okay. And the county is historically more restrictive than the state. Uh Dan, would you agree that the county is more restrictive than the state? I think we talked about that earlier. Yeah. Over the history of this program, Ottertale has been they've gone back and forth a bit, you know, as the political climate changes at the county board level, but uh but yeah, they I would say yes, that's true.

I have to say their their ordinance is a it's a very easy to read and understand ordinance. It's well organized

and they do have staff who are administering it more much more regularly than we are here in Fergus Falls. So we do have to probably do a little bit of a balancing act of you know how can we lean on the resources that we have available to us staff at Ottertale County working with the state to make this process and then the continued administration as um least painful as possible for us because you know it's just Jill and me in our in our planning department that are administering this code. I I'm still struggling a little bit with why we would have to have a full shoreline ordinance as a city versus just incorporate my reference. And if there was one or two places where we want to be more restrictive, say, you know, Ottertale economy carries the day,

but for setbacks in these tables are hereby these instead, you know. Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, something like that would be I guess what's but what's our what's our goal for this meeting here just to get some of that direction like what what do you I mean do you want just for me it'd be helpful to know where are we different than the county specifically you know is this is this a matter of we're 10 feet different or are we radically different from setbacks and what really is important to Fergus Falls to differ on because it could also just be the state by reference reference then the same way as it can be to county.

Uh yeah, I think you could structure it that way. Dan, have communities done that where they're simply referencing the state or are they putting the full language in?

Well, most CA I think all cases uh they adopt the full ordinance. Okay. Uh or or some version of the full rules. You know, some cities certain things just don't apply. like, you know, you probably don't allow metallic mining or, you know, gravel and, you know, or feed lots. So, you you don't need to put those provisions in your ordinance, but um but it it's also the state law does allow local governments to just reference through citation a state rule uh as part of their regulation. I if if would if it would be reference to the state, would that alleviate any concerns for needing additional language from the city?

Well, that remains to be seen. So, we would have to go through that process, see if there are members of the community who do feel that that would be a problem. We have to give that opportunity for There couldn't be if it's referring to state, there couldn't be a deviation that's more lenient. Oh, right. No. Yes. Good point. So, it's I think I think one one comment that could come up is that's not very local control versus if you have it with the county at least that's that's more more of a local control than and those were conversations we had in the past. Yeah, I I recall that being one of the talking points there. So, this is a political issue as well.

Yeah, it sounds that way. Is it? So this is from the county's perspective, this is just about the health of the river or the bodies of water. Well, I mean, from from what Dan was saying, it's it's both, you know, it's it's the health of your natural environment, but it's also to help guide development. I It's for the health of the community as a whole. Interesting. So what do we

I think one one if I may too that that the providing these rules provides consistent development regulations across jurisdiction um you know so that one city on one side of a river can't have absolutely nothing and then the city on the other side has something different uh you know we want to provide consistency in how we develop our land around our waters so that there's you know minimum protections in place in terms of vegetation protection and setbacks and to provide consistency to developers u you know who are working across the state or across the region to to find consistency in how development is to be uh expected and approved around lakes and rivers. So that's that's a valuable benefit as well.

Do do you expect the state to tighten up those rules like closer matching out county?

Well, you know, that's a good question. Um there's been many efforts over the years to update these rules. There was a big effort in 2009 and 10 um massive effort that um sort of failed. Uh the governor at the time didn't want them and so he didn't didn't sign off on them. So uh but they are ripe for updating um you know and amending. We're not, you know, we haven't had a statewide conversation yet with uh cities and counties about what might might look like. Um but our defin development pressures and needs have changed over time. You know, some things aren't that the rules address aren't really important anymore. So, you know, there's some rule components that probably aren't needed, whereas maybe in some other areas we need to tighten those up a bit.

Interesting. So, so for the push back to adopt just to state by reference would be that it's not restrictive enough on the local side then is that what No, I think the push back would be we we're seing our our ability to change ordinance to the state rather than have local input on that. We're just saying we're going to do whatever the DNR says we should do.

But that would only be to the more restrictive side. There's no there's nothing else. Well, I would say that would be if if our decision was to incorporate the DNRs um verbatim. I think that would be the comment we get from the public is that you seated your ordinance ability over to the state of Minnesota versus keep it within our municipality. That's what we've heard before. My question, okay, if we do that, we have to meet those standards at a minimum anyway. That's so I mean, so I don't I still I'm kind of with you. I'm a little confused in why that's a problem for the public because we got to meet those standards at a minimum. It's not a fully logical argument, but it is the argument that has been

I think I think the logical piece of it would be that if it's if it's locally controlled, it can be theoretically more easily changed. Yes. You know, by by your local commissioners, your city council beyond the stand not we always got to meet those minimum standards. Correct. Correct. That's a given. So the only way we could change them is by making more by making it more restrictive. grant. That seems like a wild public argument.

So maybe it's a messaging thing. Maybe we just need to message it better. Like, hey, if we're adopting standards, we're not seating our local control. In fact, what we are doing is making it easier for us locally to administer. And we they although there's always then the fear that the state becomes more restrictive to your question you know are there changes at the state level and then we would have we would be adopting those but we we would have to either way right there's that's always the minimum baseline. You could we could push back on it. Yeah. I mean you on the state you can push back on the state.

Well I mean we haven't adopted the DNRs for how many years now? Right. Yes. Many years. But it sounds like that's why we are addressing this because that's likely to change because it's undesirable from the DNR's perspective that we don't align.

It is it is legally required for us to align. I I think I I think I I'm confusing myself, but it seems like there's just a legal requirement to stick with the state law, and this should not hardly be a discussion that that's what it feels like to me. It's just what do you do you have an opinion on this, Claire, yourself? Like where are you at with this? Yeah, I mean um we we I I I did push when we first started having these discussions after Julie um first reached out and was like, "Hey, it's been a long time since you guys have done anything. Like, let's look at this. Here are the ber bodies and things that you need to get updated." Um we did first approach the planning commission about simply wholesale adopting the state ordinance, and that did not get us very far. Um I I don't think it made it past one meeting before we went back to just simply amending what we already had in code. Um and we made, you know, a couple minor amendments, moved some things around and um changed some of those classifications, but ultimately maintained our own ordinance. Um but we there were greater changes that need to be made that we did not make. Does adopting the state ordinance solve those problems for us? Yes, it does. Um, does that mean that we no longer I mean we will have to have aspects of it that are local because we have it calls out specific water bodies, things like that in our code. So, we would maintain aspects of that. So, there will always be some instance of locality.

Do we have to call out specific water bodies in our code? I I do. Dan's nodding and I think yes, we do. Yep. Okay. Yeah, you need to specifically identify the the public waters that you're regulating. Um, so it's, you know, transparent to the public about, you know, what the the scope and the boundaries are for development regulations in the shoreland ordinance.

And the way that we have them presented in our code right now is not very transparent. It's they they have like the classification names are unless you are a wizard with GIS, nearly impossible to find. Um so that is something on our end that we do need to update. We do you know if we want this to be something that the public can can approach in an easy way. We need to update how we are presenting that material. The state does not identify those. There is there are mapping tools at the state level but you have to know that they exist and you have to know how to use them

and and I think I think we've given you a list of those water bodies that just need to put into your ordinance. It's not a it's not a mystery. It's it's a concrete specific list, right? But not all of our water bodies are named. So unless you know what the water what water body is being referenced, uh it's and you're reading the code and you're just seeing ID number, whatever, you won't know where to find that. And it's including wetlands as well, right? Interesting.

Yeah, we have a surprising number of just unnamed wetlands and unnamed lakes. It Could we just take the temperature of of of this panel here to see if just adopting the state reference would be an acceptable solution? Is that something I don't know where this discussion has to lead, but could we just do that once or is that I don't know if that's appropriate or not, but go ahead. What how about let's just start down here.

Well, yeah. I mean it seems to me like we got to we got to have those as a minimal standard but are there if there's something specific that we want to have stricter we can still put that in there right we can adopt the state but still have tailor it to our to some extent right yes so it' be like a hybrid of options to hybrid of two and four yeah I don't we could adopt we could fasttrack just just to be an update and then apply restrictions at any given point or does it have to be done all like is there

I I I feel like this should just be done next week but that's just me like yeah well we saw the timeline that won't be the case um we can aim for quickly updating the the the only the only thing is that when you are making ordinance changes it does require the public hearing process and it is going to require ire approval by the DNR. So, we still have to go through the process each time. So, you can either do it wholesale at once or we can parcel it out. That's that's not a problem.

So, um and forgive me for my lack of understanding because I'm not following all of this. I don't maybe think any of us really are totally understanding this, but so the the changes that are in blue that we are looking at are they based um based on the state

those are so yeah so that is the draft that Dan put together for us very helpful or or um not Dan Ricky sorry um very helpfully put together for us um using our existing ordinance but adding in language that would get us into compliance the um so if we wanted to maintain our existing ordinance and still get into compliance, we would use Ricky's ordinance. The thing is that there are ordinance models that exist that are like Dan was saying about the county one, much easier to approach. So just easier from the perspective of somebody looking at it and trying to understand what the standards are. Ours are kind of all over the place. They're confusing. They exist in multiple locations. Um it's it's it's hard to it's hard to read and administer.

So um back to the other point about within our municipality, are there affected areas without doing a lot of research? Are there areas that are going going to be affected immediately for any changes or development in our city if we would adapt the state?

Yeah. No, I don't think that our setbacks um differ significantly from the state setbacks. I'm thinking specifically of the dairy property, which is directly along the river. Um I do not think from our standards to the state standards that we differ. So that would be the one that could be the most effective. Anything that's already existing is not going to be affected by a change. It would just be changes coming in the future, development coming in the future which limited as it would be right within the city. Y

I don't know what else to say. I guess I guess I I like option three, adopting the counties by reference because that gives us, you know, I I I think it'll assuage some public's concern of seating that local authority. And I think we have then the the the the resources right here in town. If we had an interpretation question, we could call the county up or drive over there and say, "How have you guys enforced this in the county?"

And they're happy to help us with that. So that and where we do differ. I mean it'd be easy to drop both into AI and just say where where's the differences here and then we can look through is this an important difference or not and whatever those differ we could we could incorporate those specifically. So I have a by reference but have a paired down um city city ordinance. That would be my thought. Dan, quick question for you. the county ordinance. Are they do you know um have they gotten any recent letters about needing to be more in compliance in any places or are they sitting pretty well right now?

They're sitting in pretty good shape. Uh we um they just adopted they went through a major overhaul I think in 21 I guess. You know it was four years ago but um it's it's in good shape now. you know, there's there's no need to do anything with it unless they want to. Okay. Thank you. You know, so what So the county is in compliance with the state and the city is not correct.

I don't know what's so difficult about this. I I don't I I must is there is there is there a way for us to nail down somehow a specific example of a negative impact for just either adopting the state or the county. Do you sound like I think Claire talked about setbacks differ. So if if the county say your setback's 50 more feet, that could be a big deal for some people who own property by, you know, by a river or lake, but that would make it more restrictive and that's the only thing that would be more restrictive for the county. Mhm. So is is it just between all of us just down to should it be more restrictive or less restrictive?

That seems to be the only vote that Well, I I think that as well as how is how is the public going to perceive the change? But but it's the public doesn't have the option not to adapt the state. There is no we that we can have a public hearing but right but we do have the option to maintain our local code just with some changes. You're just thinking in your head but they're going to they're going to match the state no matter what with the county. My concern is that we take the more restrictive route because once you adopt it, that's what you got to live by, right? Yeah.

So, if you want I mean, can you if something can you make a change, you know, if something comes up and instead of 50 ft more, it's you know, I I don't know. Seems like it's probably harder to make a change later than it is to just be less restrictive off the bat here. Right. Right. Can we assume that the state has done a decent job protecting these bodies of water? We can absolutely assume that not everyone is going to believe that. I see. So, this really is just the argument about this is an environmental argument.

We are doing our due diligence to ensure that we're having the public conversations required to move forward together as a community to changes that probably not everyone will be happy with, but that get us in compliance with the state and then also make us feel good that we're doing the things that are right for Fergus Falls. So the representation that you're referring to for the local body of government is only to protect it more. That's the only there is no other part to this conversation. Right. Say that again. Well, if we leave it up to the state and just do that by reference and clean all this up and let it

float along, then that's the least restrictive compliance that we can have. or we go to the county where there's more restrictions that are only based on being more protective to the environment or we stay with the city and we determine that the city is out of compliance. I I think when it comes to the concern about just in court by DNR, it's not necessarily a issue of what it is now is what it could be what what what could what it could be changed to in the future without us having a say. But we have to we have to stick by those things no matter what. I I feel like I'm not understanding this at all. I'm so sorry. I'm not computing. I think

it's not it's not about understanding or not understanding. It's just about having a very different idea of how we get to a final point. So, you're wanting to simply make a decision tonight about a direction to go, which is valid, but everybody needs to be on board on board with what direction that is, and then that's what we move forward with, and that's what we get the community on board with. So if the state became less restrictive, we maybe wouldn't be in favor of that because we have is that I think it's highly unlikely that the state would ever Exactly. But that's the only thing that

Yes. Or they become or they they change things that maybe aren't applicable to Fergus Falls or they they make changes that we just don't agree with. And there are I mean there are conversations to be had between state and local municipalities about what possible changes could look like in the future and we would be part of those conversations but there's just there's always a fear that you know if you're not brought along as part of the conversation then those changes can simply take place I think is what Paul was trying to say. So, can we just adopt the state guidelines as by law and

agree to have a conversation about whether we go with county or we direct our own Fergus Falls community? So that's that is yes that was Sanders uh idea about can we just get up to the standards by adopting the state statute as it is now the ordinance the model ordinance and then make our changes as we go. Yes, you can do that. We are just continue that but we just would continue to go through the ordinance change process with the DNR. Let's say hypothetically we we adopted the DNR's language and a citizen had a question on on that. Who would they go to?

They would come to the local municipality because it would be our rules that we have adopted. Okay. Well, it would be you would be they would be incorporated by reference, right? But it would still it would still be our rules that we have incorporated. Yes, by reference, but we're still the ones that are administering and maintaining those rules. So, what do you say now when they come? Do you say, "Well, we're out of compliance." No, we still we we administer by what we have existing, but not less than the DNR allows for. I I don't know specifically if there are places where we are less restrictive than the DNR. Okay. Off the top of my head,

Clara, if I might add, I think the the main issue is that there there are just some pieces from your ordinance that are missing. Um it's it's not necess I mean so I guess you could say you're less restrictive but I think your ordinance is probably difficult to administer because there are gaps in it that other pieces rely on but for whatever reason piece of your ordinance were went missing sometime in the past. Um you know it's been a long time and so I think that's the part of the challenge here is that there are just simply gaps in it. Um, but I I think it's also just, if I may, some principles to consider if going forward, what are some of the goals you have for ordinance administration? I I've heard that the city council is interested in in language that the public can read and understand themselves. You know, that seems like that's an pretty important objective for the community. And so, I I don't think you should lose sight of of that idea because I think that's probably pretty important to the city at large. Um, so with that in mind, you know, there are are strategies for for doing that. Uh, I think the county's ordinance is very simply written, easy to understand, could take their ordinance and amend it, you know, to remove the higher standards that they have. Um, you could take the Shoreline model and delete pieces of it that are not applicable to you. That model itself is pretty easy to understand. or you could kind of continue with your existing ordinance and make some of the changes we've recommended to sort of um sort things out and remove duplication. Right. And I as a staff member have not recommended that we maintain our current ordinance due to the fact that it is hard to approach from an outside perspective. It is not well organized. It is not easy to read.

So then we're down to using the counties as a basis or the DNRs as a basis, right? Because the states isn't easy to interpret. No, that Okay, I understand. So you were all going around and deciding how you feel. We didn't get over to this half about well I like this last comment that we could just use a better guide or a better you know template if the counties has a good template and make some revisions. Okay. Because but we don't also know what they recommended for the city to change in the current ordinance.

You do. It's in your packet. That is the the draft that's in your packet. The red lines which I true. So Sanders's original question was about adopting the state ordinance. I'm sensing a shift to maybe more interest in the county ordinance from here.

Not on my side. I think that this should be a this should be very straightforward and simple, but that's just how I I feel like this that I trust that the DNR has done their job and I feel that I I can't understand the negative impact and I don't understand why we would want to make something more restrictive unless it's to protect something very specific, but the DNR should be doing that already. And it's I it seems so straight. Anyone have an example of how to challenge Sanders? I don't have an example. I I don't have an example. I

I'm just curious the difference between the state and the con and why the con would be more beneficial to us beyond it's easier to interpret. It would it would be down to maybe the resources that the county could offer from an administration standpoint. So, they are willing to be a partner in administration. They have rules that they're already maintaining for the rest of the county. Um, we could simply call them up and say, "Hey, you know, so and so wants to do this by the river. How would you interpret this piece of code or how have you approached this in the past?" And they would be able to provide that insight. I'm not saying that that's not the case. If we do the state ordinance either,

you could call up the con. You would have to call up the DNR. That's likely the route I would go. Yeah. Okay. And the and the DNR is not in the business of doing the actual administration, right? So, that's that is where the county would excel because they are out there doing that administration. They're doing the permitting. They're answering the questions. The state is is very much helping you to guide helping to guide in understanding the ordinance language. So the county's privy on theirs, correct? If we did the state, then they'd be like, well, you know, we're not doing that,

right? Yep. So they would be maintaining their own their own county standards that may differ from the state. Correct. I I mean I think from an adjacency perspective, if you're dealing with someone near city limits to, I mean, you and your neighbor are half a mile apart, you'd be operating under the same conditions basically. Um, but I I'd be all in favor of rolling back whatever the county is more restrictive in, you know, pull that back to make, you know, align it with something that that the city can live with. Yeah. I'd still like to see the the differences laid out. Yeah. and then take that into consideration.

Even if we like adopt the DNR by reference, we still have to have a section of city ordinance that like you said calls out the water bodies and calls out a few other things. So, but then it'll automatically update forever more and stay in compliance and this doesn't have to be addressed again. Well, or say the same with the county too because when the county update theirs that would automatically update ours as well. So then the choice still comes down to less restrictive or more restrictive with the assumptions that the less restrictive will eventually become the more restrictive. Anyway,

I think this decision comes down to who are you more comfortable with guiding the changes and going to for uh implementation? Are there are there other I'm assuming there are other municipalities that are dealing with what we're dealing with right now because there's a requirement or a push for um I I can't I don't know. Yeah. A push for getting us to where we need to be per the state. Are there other counties and cities? I mean,

well, there they're always they always are. It's it's a it's a continual program management issue that we're we're always working with cities and counties to update their ordinances. Um you know, in some cases there's people like people like you um trying to bring your ordinance into compliance. Others are wanting to um modify to address local conditions, local issues that they run into. Um you know, we can customize for them them. um you know there's always a and some people just adopting the model ordinance cart blanch um that way. So it there's a huge variation and it there's always um a mix of different types of situations going on. So it's you're you're not necessarily unique in this situation. Um but yeah, I'm not sure if that you'll get any guidance from knowing that there there are certainly others. It's just a normal part of the business.

Yep. So, so with that being said, Clara, is there other reference cities that we can we've done it before, right? we've reached out to others for the sign sign thing we worked on for a long time to see how how do they deal with it or is that not just the right thing to do or um I think in this instance I'd prefer to stick with the options that we have in front of us which would be state or county or adopting or amending what we currently have just because I think like Dan said there are there's so much variation and it would be very specific to each community what they are doing

and so the struggle with this is because the public is not going to see this as a good thing. They have not yet. Um that's that was several years ago though. So we it might be a different climate now. Okay. And the push back from the public at that point was just environmental. No, it was development. It was they did not want to be restricted in development. So they would likely love the fact if we would just adopt a DNR's code. If they were to understand that it is less restrictive. Yes. So again, like I was saying earlier, the messaging piece of it. Why are we being so restrictive?

Well, and again, we're we're not necessarily more restrictive than what the state is. We are out of compliance in areas, but it's not because we're we're more restrictive or less restrict. It's that's not the issue necessarily, but we are less restrictive than the county. But the push back from the public, you say it's an education piece, but we can't tell them they have the option that it could be less restrictive than the DNR. That's not that's not even a an option,

right? So there, if we would just go with the DNR option, would I would be in favor of that? That's how I'm going to say it. I I would love to know how everybody else feels about that at this point. But how how does it, you know, you talk about the administration part? I mean, how how big of a deal is that? You know, if somebody comes in and wants something, we got to enforce it, administrate. Is that a huge deal? so that we would want somebody locally to help handle it or or can we take out the restrictive the more restrictive ones and if we feel that we don't have to can we change it a little bit will they still help us and I see that option but I'm sure that they would not just leave us cold on the doorstep

I'm assuming the county is more restrictive because of the all the waterways they got to deal with I mean the whole county thousand lakes it's totally different than what we're dealing with in the city right yes I could completely see that I I it seems like a full adoption of one or the other is perfectly un that should be the only conversation. It seems like to me pick one or the other. Which one we incorporate? Yeah. And just go with it all the way and just because it wipes out a lot of work for the city. I'm assuming it cleans things up.

It it definitely cleans things up. Yes. But if you take the counties and they become more restrictive and people don't understand that developer comes in and says, "Well, you got to be another 50 ft set back." They're going to say, "Well, that's not what the state says." Now you're a battle again. But that's really the only battle then. It's just a matter of how how the council views the restriction. Should it be more or less basically that there's no It really comes down to that. Can we make a motion today for that? Let me make a motion. Would you like to make a motion? And what are we making this motion for? Just to choose between Well, I was wondering if you'd make a motion that we adopt the state policy or the state rules.

County. I have a question though for Clara just on that county. So, but you're we're talking verbiage here a little bit, right? Where even though if we adopt something like that, is that word for word adoption or is there things that we still have to put in our words? There there will there will still there will be a draft that comes back based on the direction that you would like to go tonight. There will be a draft that comes back. It will include some language that is unique to us locally related to the actual water bodies that we are regulating. However, if you are choosing to wholesale adopt other language, all of our existing language would be repealed and replaced with that new language,

which in your opinion would not be good, right? No, I'm okay with that. I am okay with that. Okay. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Because our current language is is difficult to maneuver. Yes. Somebody

Dan, sorry. I thought it was one of them up here. Sorry, I I'm sorry if this is out of order a bit, but one option maybe that isn't on your list that I kind of heard might work is maybe use the county ordinance, adopt the ordinance, but modify it to the minimum state standards. That way, the county is very familiar with the structure of how that ordinance reads. They they're available to help you administer it because they're close by. It's you there's this jurisdictional uh coordination that's available. Um and it's a nicely written ordinance. Um so that you know just use their template the words just change the dimensional standards back to the state minimum standards. Um and if there's any other textual standards that are higher just strike them, you know, or something like that. And then you have your own ordinance and it looks a lot like the county so that they feel comfortable helping you.

I like it. That seems pretty logical. Yeah, I could live with that. That seems and that's easily that's easily adaptable throughout the going forward then too. Yeah, it wouldn't be necessarily just by reference. It would be sections that we still have to maintain, but that's okay. So, I'm going to make a motion to adopt the county's template with the but modified to with the modifications to state standard minimums. Anyone want to second that? I'll second that. Is that Does that make sense? Does it have to be?

It's basically option four, right? We're repealing what we have now. We're replacing it with Yes. Correct. the county in structure and substance, but we're retaining any Fergus specific. I guess that's me the questioning motion. Are you saying, you know, the the Fergus specific provisions that we currently have? Are we getting rid of those and just reverting back to the DNR minimums? Correct. That's that's that's the motion, right? Correct. And that's only be done so this the county would help in case there's a question. There's no other reason. Well, no. I think it's also very much more understandable. Yes, they are telling us the county has a great ordinance, but he also said the DNR has a great ordinance. That's easily to read.

No. Yes, that is also true.

Okay. Well, well, yeah. Okay. Because it does create future work again. There's always going to be future work. There's never going to be a scenario where there is no future work. So, more restrictive, but the county and the county will back up this. Why would the Why does the county We're not going to be more restrictive. We're going to follow the DNR's rules. Yeah. So, the But we're using the template from the county and then we're putting strikethroughs in anything that's more restrictive, citing them back to the Minnesota DNR rules. But isn't that just adopting the DNR rules? I just don't understand. I'm sorry.

It is. But now we have collaboration with a county by including them in the language that we are following their template agree with their ordinances but we can strike through what we don't want. But we're we're not at all doing that with them, right? Like that's just an illusion. We're just telling them regional regional consistency and support. Yeah. We want their support when needed. But we're literally going to them saying we'll accept everything you're saying except all the stuff you're saying. Yep. Well, no, except for the few places that you're more restrictive. Yeah, we're accepting the way that they say it and the way that they're administering it, but with the requirements that are more comfortable for us. We're just not going to be as restrictive.

Okay. And and it's what you wanted. Now I feel like you're overthinking this. It could be, but it seems like very it seems very confusing. It seems like the county so are so then if we do this right like this is the way it's prescribed there will be things that are regulated by the county's words that would be different than the DNR rules. That is correct. The county is regulating differently than the state model ordinance says that they may regulate. But we will be adopting the DNR minimums. Yes. I

if I might just help clarify a bit here that we we've approved the county's ordinance. We we are very comfortable with their approach to meeting the statewide minimum standards in how they've drafted their ordinance. And in fact, in a few instances, they have slightly higher standards. So it's it's not like they're deviating uh from the state standards at all. they they are meeting by and large all the minimum standards in a nicely written package of of words. Um and and that works very well for us. Uh their staff is very competent in what they're doing and and having them close at hand. Working with a document that is similar and familiar to them probably has a lot of administrative advantages for for Fergus Falls. And that's why I think that might be a really good move for you. Um and and you certainly could go with the model ordinance, the DNR model ordinance, but you know, it it's in a different format and template. It would basically have the same minimum standards. The organization would be a little different, but I think you got a a a helpful county there. I would work with them and and minimize your administrative um headaches.

So then just accepting what they already done, how is that what who are we negatively impacting by more restrictive just It's not going to be more restrictive, but if it is, if we just accept it as it is, we we are putting strike.

It depends on it depends on how you interpret negative. So you could see it as a bonus for environmental concerns to adopt more restrictive requirements than what the DNR has currently. Or if you are interested in the development side of it, you could see it as a negative that we are more restrictive than the state because that makes it harder to develop. So it just depends on what you see as a negative. But like for the city of Fergus Falls, we're talking about a very minute I it's minute that the people that could be affected by this. I I I wouldn't say minute. It's I mean it will affect

like are we talking hundreds of people like 200 or could be maybe I mean if we develop the river and put 200 units in there it's going to affect those people. But again, as I understand it, we will not be more restrictive than the state because we're going to adopt the city's we're going to take the city's language and then revise it back to the DNR minimums. But from a a understanding perspective, it's going to read like the county code. Yeah, I I understand that. Okay. I understand those words, I think. Yeah. Great.

Okay. So, you have a motion. You have a second. Madam Chair, would you like to take Well, what's the what's Can we Can you repeat the motion one more time so I understand what we're voting? Do Can I Do you mind? Yes, you can. The The motion is to uh move forward with adopting the county ordinance, but modifying it to the state standards. And this will all be much more clear when you have a draft in front of you that shows you what it actually looks like. So right now, what you have in your packets is our existing code with changes to it to make it more compliant with the state. This would be a a brand new draft that will look different that you would look at for your next review. So we had a motion and a second.

Yeah. Um, the chair made the motion and um, Commissioner Bud Key made the second. All in favor? I I. All opposed? No. I Yeah. Okay. So, Sander was nay. Nay. Is that what we're saying? Nay on that. I'm just saying nay. You said all opposed. Same sign. I is a no. Sander. Okay, very good. So, I will come back to you next week with sorry, next month

with a new draft. Gentlemen from the DNR, thank you so very kindly for joining us. Please go watch American Idol and vote for our local idol. Thank you. Thanks. All right. Good luck everyone. See you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Right. Next um part of the meeting is the old business battery en battery energy storage systems ordinance or just the end. What are you confused on? Oh, I'm not confused. I just think you just opposed.

Yeah, I think it's a crazy amount of It doesn't mean make doesn't make any sense to me at all. My brain doesn't work this way. I either say pick A or B and not co-mingle A and B. And I don't understand why there is a I I would just I would just put in the county reference and call it good and not mess with the restrictions. If we're talking about possibly affecting a few hundred people and I'm guessing I'm making that number up and then not have any and out of those people there's a much smaller percentage that would be affected. I just think it's crazy to go through any amount of work writing it. I I don't I to me it just should be just either do DNR or not DNR and more restrictive or less restrictive. To me that makes I would just go with accounting go just move on. But that's me.

So moving on the subject of moving on. Um battery energy storage systems always I'll I'll recuse myself from this conversation since I help work on these as part of my job.

Okay. Thank you for letting us know. Um all right. So we we can spend as much time or as little time on this as you would like tonight. We are not under any time crunch for battery energy storage um necessarily at this point in time um other than there is always interest in what the new technologies are going to look like. So the planning commission first started uh um addressing battery energy storage needs back in 2025. We had a project that had come forward that ended up not occurring. Um, but it was for battery energy storage systems. Um, which are, you know, adjacent to things like solar, like physically often adjacent, but also just adjacent in the ways that they maybe need to be um, regulated. And so it's just language that we don't currently have in our code and we will need because it is something that will be coming up in the not too distant future. So we had done in 2025 a an initial draft and a second draft. That second draft didn't get a ton of airtime um toward the end of the year because we just had other stuff that came up. So um I did go back and make some revisions. So technically what I have uh included in your packets is more of a draft three. I think I did include both of the drafts but um if we can maybe flip through. So the the third the third draft that I have well maybe let's can you go to the next slide? Yeah. So in essence, battery energy storage, we have gone down a track of regulating them two different ways. There are smaller systems that are under 600 kilowatts and then there are systems that are larger than 600 kilowatts. And that's where you're going to find um not necessarily your your residential projects that are going to be attached

to solar on your house or something like that, but you're going to be finding larger projects that you know corporations like Ottertale Power are going to be doing. Um, so we're regulating on two tracks. Um, we are in our current draft, all of the drafts that we've had thus far, we are permitting the smaller systems in all zoning districts. So, they can be used residentially. They can also be used commercially. We have included that in our in our language saying, "Yes, we recognize that these are going to be used in a variety of different projects and we allow them without extra permitting." Um there are you know zoning and building requirements that do go along with systems even even residential systems that they will be required to um adhere to. So electrical permits, building permits etc. Um but for the most part planning commission would not see projects like that. Where you would see projects is the larger side of things over 600 kilowatts. Those are going to be your principal or utility scale projects. Um and the zoning direction that we've gone with those is allowing them in residential agricultural zones and industrial zones both with a conditional use permit. So any of the larger projects are going to be in front of the planning commission and then ultimately the council with conditional use permits. Jill, can you hit the next slide for me please? Um so the third draft that I've put together um we had kind of vaguely referenced in the second draft some national standards. Uh I found now in 2026 an even better model ordinance from which to draw that includes uh much clearer language about the standards that are required to be maintained for um uh systems like utility scale energy storage systems. Um, so I have in the new draft more explicitly referenced those with their actual names and then

we've given them definitions so that we can continue to um, maintain those going forward and with a full understanding of what they are referencing. Um, added some more terms. Jill, just leave it for a sec. Oh, yep. Just leave it on that. Oh, yes. Uh there are uh certification requirements also along with like the kinds of batteries and things that they would use. I've added language that's more specific to what that actually looks like um in reality and like what those certifications are. So we've included language that's that's more clearly references those. And then um the model ordinance that I was looking at also included language that I thought was really helpful. So I just added it kind of wholesale an augmentation plan. So as as a utility scale project is coming forward, a lot of times they'll have, you know, maybe kind of a phased approach. There's a phase one, there's a phase two. An augmentation plan gives them the option of having planned growth that maybe doesn't affect the overall footprint of the project, but would not require them to come back and get a new cup. They could make those changes under their existing conditional use permit. So it just gives a little bit more flexibility to the developers of the project as they move forward and maybe scale up a project. If if they know that they're going to be making those changes, they can submit language in the beginning that allows them to make those changes. Um if you want to go to the next slide. So, I don't know if you had a ton of time to look over over the third draft or the drafts. Um, but uh we would be in the process of just continuing to revise and then our next steps as a planning commission would be to land on language that we all are at least relatively happy with, which would then move on to the the city council process, which would include likely a public hearing. Um, if we're not doing it at this level, we do it at the planning commission or

at the city council level. So, that is very quickly what I have for you tonight. Do you watch American Idol, Clara? I have seen two episodes. Are you going to watch tonight? I don't know. Should we I mean, we've been here a long time. Should we get out of here and and move this to the next time? I don't watch it, but if you do you watch it, you do. I want Chris to So, you want to make this motion to adjurnn and I think so. Revisit this next time? Yes, I'll make that motion. Anyone want to second that? I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I I. Thank you all. Perfect. Thank you, Clara. Are you going to watch your American Idol? I don't. Huh?

No. No. I'm going to watch it. I'll wake you up. Are you