Laserfiche WebLink
446 Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the excerpts of Roseville Code and the Rosemount <br />447 amended code pertaining to solar recently reviewed; and recommended the input <br />448 from the City's Planning Commission and Community Development Department <br />449 staff, as well as other City departments in this discussion. Mr. Schwartz <br />450 suggested that input be addressed through a joint meeting or with staff of those <br />451 responsible departments. <br />452 <br />453 Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed the need to address this soon, as the Minnesota <br />454 Department of Energy encouraged the City of Roseville to be among forty <br />455 Minnesota cities who would become "solar readycities" and eligible for grant <br />456 funds to update their ordinances and other procedures to implement solar systems. <br />457 Mr. Schwartz noted that the City Council's goal was to participate in that process. <br />458 <br />459 Over the next few months, Mr. Schwartz suggestel that the PWETC brainstorm <br />460 other issues to be ready for the application process for community solar to <br />461 become an energy provider within that two month window; and the role of the <br />462 City in that process. Mr. Schwartz suggested speakers be invited to the PWETC <br />463 meetings to allow more education of the PWETCAN public on the entire process, <br />464 including Public Utility Commission (PUC) rules for energy cproduced <br />465 under community solar systems; financial equations for participantticommunity <br />466 solar projects; vendors willing to place solar gardens; and public and/or private <br />467 leasing of rooftops. Mr. Schwartz opined that having that wave of information <br />468 should allow the PWETC to get up to speed prior to their recommendation to the <br />469 City Council on how t ey shoul participate. <br />470 <br />471 Mr. Schwartz sought feedback fro PWETC o their additional information <br />472 needs and/or requested speakers. <br />473 <br />474Cthose <br />n, in his research an comparison of ordinances, specifically between <br />475 e Cities of Rosemount and Roseville, reported that he hadn't found a <br />476 rence between them. Mr. Johnson did note one obvious revision in the <br />477 City of Rosemount's ordinan e as they expanded references from "solar" as <br />urrent <br />478 incorporated in the cCi of Roseville ordinance to "alternative energy <br />479 systems" and broadened the definition to allow more diversity, including satellite <br />480 dishes as part of the revised language. While the wording of both ordinances is <br />481 similar, Mr. Johnson noted that the revised Rosemount ordinance had been <br />482 broadened to cover more, making sure that everything had to blend with building <br />483 architecture, etc. Mr. Johnson suggested it would be good for Roseville to <br />484 consider those areas beyond solar energy that are now popular and will continue <br />485 as new technologies come forward; with the goal of encouraging more <br />486 participation to reduce carbon footprints. <br />487 <br />488 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Johnson reported that he didn't find <br />489 anything in the Roseville ordinance that would be prohibitive of alternative solar <br />490 initiatives. <br />491 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br />