Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />perfect for solar energy collection, but future language would attempt to protect <br />147 <br />reasonable solar energy production for residential and/or commercial properties. <br />148 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the exact language of such an easement remained unknown at <br />149 <br />this time, and would also be affected by the City’s ongoing discussion about tree <br />150 <br />preservation, and be developed in tandem as the community discussed the value of trees <br />151 <br />while recognizing their impact with solar access and energy production. Mr. Lloyd noted <br />152 <br />that the ultimate goal would be to reach a trade-off or ability to clearly work together to <br />153 <br />encourage and facilitate both in Roseville at this time and as new solar technologies <br />154 <br />evolve. Mr. Lloyd noted that, at this time, staff had simply included a placeholder in the <br />155 <br />draft Subdivision Code and encouraged input from the Commission to reach a <br />156 <br />reasonable and effective balance for both issues. <br />157 <br />Discussion ensued on solar access stipulations and their application for new parcels <br />158 <br />created in a subdivision, similar to the requirements for drainage and/or utility easements <br />159 <br />applying when new parcels are developed or subdividing plats; and potential public <br />160 <br />easements for commercial or industrial rooftops for installation of solar gardens or for <br />161 <br />solar collection purpose, as well as potentially wind structures in industrial areas and <br />162 <br />whether or not this may be a future consideration to encourage such uses and <br />163 <br />addressing shadow lines created by other buildings. <br />164 <br />Specific to solar arrays on commercial buildings, Mr. Lloyd advised that he did not see <br />165 <br />any type of public easement for such a collection side in an industrial area, but <br />166 <br />recognized that the Zoning Code may need to facilitate those if a public utility or private <br />167 <br />owner sought such a use. <br />168 <br />Community Development Director Paul Bilotta advised that staff was currently looking <br />169 <br />into how best to facilitate such a use. Mr. Bilotta noted that a recent joint venture was <br />170 <br />approved by the City Council and the St. Paul Port Authority for financing solar <br />171 <br />installations, with a solar installation at St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church near Highway <br />172 <br />36 in Roseville being one of the first recipients of that financing. Not only is this the first <br />173 <br />time a religious entity was doing so, but Mr. Bilotta reported that a typically difficult to <br />174 <br />finance installation such as this had been accomplished by the St. Paul Port Authority. <br />175 <br />Since such installations do not add to a property’s value, Mr. Bilotta advised that banks <br />176 <br />were hesitant to finance them; so the Port Authority’s ability to finance them upfront and <br />177 <br />be paid off as a special assessment on the local tax rolls kept the bank out of the picture, <br />178 <br />but allowed the City the ability to serve as a funding conduit, while the Port Authority bore <br />179 <br />all the risk. Mr. Bilotta advised that this financing tool was available for businesses, multi- <br />180 <br />family residential projects of four or more units, and all commercial uses, and was now in <br />181 <br />place. <br />182 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that additional text amendments <br />183 <br />and provisions such as solar energy systems would involved more thought and public <br />184 <br />input. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that the City Council would be reviewing revisions to the <br />185 <br />current Tree Preservation Ordinance in the near future but had delayed it as it also <br />186 <br />considered alternatives to filling the full-time Forester position beyond the original <br />187 <br />proposal for the position. Until those options are fully considered, Mr. Bilotta advised that <br />188 <br />the City Council had put the tree preservation ordinance update on hold, and it and this <br />189 <br />Subdivision Ordinance would both provide numerous opportunities for public input, <br />190 <br />informally and formally, as they overlapped in some areas. <br />191 <br />Further discussion included how broad parameters of the Subdivision Code would be <br />192 <br />related to solar access easements and similarities to other easements and which <br />193 <br />easements would be required or optional as a developer tool; Minnesota climate <br />194 <br />considerations on such a tool; differences in established neighborhood versus new <br />195 <br />projects moving forward and what type or size of subdivision action triggered solar <br />196 <br />easements; and how much the City wanted to regulate or facilitate this tool. <br />197 <br />Attachment B, Page 6, (B. Sketch Plan, Lines 181 - 197) <br />198 <br />Member Cunningham asked if a sketch plan was essentially in place of a preliminary plat; <br />199 <br /> <br />