Stay. >> Um, any changes to the agenda today? >> No changes. >> Okay. Um, see on the consent agenda, we have uh minutes from last month's meeting on May 4th. Anybody have any questions or comments on those meeting minutes? Hearing none. Do I have a motion to approve? >> I so move. >> Second. >> Motion a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Eyes have it. >> All [clears throat] right. Um, any other business? Looks like it's blank, so that would be a no. Um, we'll jump into the zoning text amendment public hearing and presentation. And Mr. Chair and commission members, just give this a second while it pulls up. All right. As mentioned, the item in front of you is a zoning code text amendment application submitted by Sunshare for the city to amend our zoning code to allow for community solar gardens. A little bit of a background on how the city currently um handles community solar gardens and solar generally. Solar both freestanding and building mounted is currently an accessory use within all the zoning districts besides SB which is our service business district which is primarily industrial properties. Um based on the above, community solar gardens or large scale solar would not be a permitted use within the community. Um, the city received a zoning code text amendment request from Sunshare, which is the applicant requesting amendments to various sections of the city code, which I'll detail here shortly. Um, and the application indirectly corresponds to a potential solar garden at 11315 Park Drive. Um, this is an identified location that they have, but prior to submitting any sort of approvals for the actual community solar garden itself, we have to go through the process of potentially changing our city code first. Um, you've seen this pyramid before, this pyramid of discretion from the League of Minnesota Cities. Uh, with zoning code amendments, the city has a higher level of discretion. Um, so with that being said, we drafted a potential code for the commission to and council to consider. Uh, obviously there's a few different options that were detailed in your staff report of ways the commission could recommend based on the what's been written or if there's changes requested or um if you'd like to recommend not going in that direction. Uh so the first proposed change would be to section 125102. Um this is just adding a definition for what a community solar garden is. Uh this definition is what has been utilized in some other communities. Uh section 12550. This is our use table within our zoning code. So the use table identifies what sort of approvals if any and what sort of uses are allowed within the community. Um so the proposed alteration would be adding community solar gardens as an interim use within the R1 zoning district only. And then the more nitty-gritty details on community solar garden code would be found in section 12593 which is our um alternative [clears throat] energy code section. Um so it lists out the general um idea of what the the community solar garden code is set to provide. The duration so um being up to 30 years based on this code. The size being a maximum of 5 megawatts which is give or take 20 acres uh depending some site characteristics. uh setbacks from adjacent buildings and properties, the overall height of what the panels could be at, which is at 15 ft at the maximum height of design tilt for the panels. Uh the proximity requirement, so a requirement that a community solar garden shall not be located within 1/4 of a mile to any other community solar garden as measured by property lines. um a section on glare to ensure that they're placed in a manner to prevent any glare towards any inhabited buildings and adjacent properties as well as any public roadways. Uh landscaping requirements, so ensuring that the perimeter of the community solar garden does have landscaping that's around it. This is mostly to provide screening of the actual equipment and panels themselves. um referring back to our storm water code. So, ensuring that the community solar garden would meet any of our storm water requirements. Um a little on utilities and um how they actually bury the lines for and actually have the lines intermix throughout the uh community solar garden storage, which is essentially stating no outdoor storage of any part, supplies, or unused equipment. Uh security and access. Um, this has a requirement to allow for a minimum of a or would require a minimum of 10-ft improved access road throughout the site. This is mostly due to uh fire department uh comments and ensuring that they have the proper access around the site should it be needed. Uh easement dedication section. So this would be if the city has any identified trail corridors or things of that nature that we get the easements at the time of community solar garden being put in place. Uh you so a utility notification so no building performance would be issued uh until there's evidence that it's been submitted um that the owner or applicant has received approval from the utility distribution company aka Excel decommissioning. Uh this is probably the biggest one, a decommissioning plan being required at the time of application to ensure that once the duration ends or the community solar garden is no longer um going to be active that there's a proper removal and disposal of the panels and the site is restored to a nice fashion. Um and then a section on submitts. Uh so there's a few items to this. we have it as an interim use because this is something that would be not long-standing in nature. So, similar to mining that we have as an interim use, this is uh for the communities that do allow for community solar gardens, they tend to be interim uses. It tends to work the best to ensure that it's not extended duration and that it kind of matches overall lifespan of the actual panels themselves. Um, we have it in the R1 only. it would get very challenging to include other areas such as the R2 district purely because those are our identified growth areas that are expected to see development happen within a 20 to 30-year period. Um so that's why you just see R1 included. Um, we did send out public hearing notices to all the surrounding properties of the identified parcel, even though it's uh this application is not specific to that parcel because it would apply to all of R1. Uh, we only received comments back from one neighbor who generally was did not have concerns with the proposed location. Um, he said he wouldn't personally put one in on his property, but he understands that that site would make a good location for one. Um, and the applicant is here tonight. They do have a brief presentation. Um, I'll let them do that. I'll share the presentation, but prior to that, if there's any questions for staff, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Comment the code amendment. So in the definition it says it can be integrated into a building or freestanding but then the height maximum is 15 feet kind of contradictory right >> Mr. Sharing Commission, that's a good point. We would amend the height to be purely for freestanding. That's a good catch. >> Thank you. >> Um, is this zoning text from the League of Minnesota? So, kind of standard >> the actual language being utilized. A lot of the language came from St. Michael's um, city code. Uh they went through a pretty extensive process to update their code a few years ago. Um I did review about 20 different cities to see if they allowed it, if they didn't. I'd say it's pretty split about 50/50 for the communities that I looked at which were really just fast growing suburban communities. I didn't really go greater Minnesota much or inner ring for obvious reasons cuz there's not a lot of opportunities in those. Um, so I'd say it was pretty 50/50. All of them that I saw except for one community were v IUP, an interim use permit. Um, generally a lot of the same requirements than what you see within this. Um, but it the code itself was not directly from the League of Minnesota cities unless St. Michael use that extensively for theirs. >> Thank you. when you researched the other uh communities, was R1 kind of a common theme or was it more egg or what was the zoning that you saw during your research? >> Mr. Chair and Commission, that's a a really good question. It's a little bit tricky because every city defines their districts a little bit differently. Um they were all whe egg or R1. Egg was a common one, but our egg zoning district is really just for egg preserve. Um, so it's not as commonly used as some communities have it, but a lot had either egg or rural residential. Those are two options. And I should also note one community allowed for it purely on just commercial rooftops, which was a unique one that I had seen and I didn't see any other communities have that same Seeing no other questions, I'll pull up the applicants presentation. All right. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Colin O'Neal. I'm the development manager for Sunshare, uh, based in Minneapolis, and I work on all of our Minnesota projects. And you can go to the next slide. Um, so we're here proposing uh, a tax amendment to support a 5 megawatt project uh, just on the west side of the city of Rogers. Uh, Sunshare historically were one of the first community solar uh, garden operators in the United States. We helped create the legislation in Colorado that started this program. A couple years later, Minnesota in 2013 adopted similar legislation that started uh, community solar. And so we have a history in Minnesota. Um, many of these projects mostly uh, rural but some around the Twin Cities and have been Ramsey County as well. Um you can go to the next slide. So community solar is um I mean it's been around for a few decades but it's a way for folks who can't afford or are unable to install solar on their own home or business to participate in the benefits of renewable energy. And so what we do is essentially install panels um you know in a field and generate energy on behalf of our subscribers. They get a credit from XL Energy for the energy that's generated and then Sunshare would provide them with a bill for the amount of energy that we're producing on their behalf. Um, this program is now under the Department of Commerce. There was in uh 2023 this new program was created. So these gardens over half of the energy goes to support uh incomequalified residents and nonprofits. Um and in all this size of project would support the energy for about 800 to a,000 homes per year. Uh next slide here. Um and so some of the benefits of community solar I mean certainly it's concentrated in in one location and can provide quite a bit of energy for homes. Um but for moderate uh low and moderate income subscribers, they see uh on average about 30% bill savings um compared to what XL would be charging them for that electricity. So there's quite a bit of savings there. Um and regular residences or business will also see uh some bill credits as well. Um on top of that, there's quite a bit of environmental factors um just offsetting, you know, the the carbon emissions that's needed to create the energy from other sources. Uh next slide here. And so just a a brief project overview. Um so this is in an area that's zoned R1 just west of the city of Rogers. Um I guess what we're proposing is a 5 megawatt project. It's a little bit over 20 acres total. Uh it connects into the existing XL Energy infrastructure and we've worked um with XL Energy to look at and make sure that we are able to interconnect into their system. Um and we expect to have final approval in the coming months here on this on this project. Uh this is also a unique system um in that we are looking to partner with local business hailing. They are panel manufacturer and cell producer um previously or they still have their facility in Mount Iron, Minnesota, but they open up their facility here in the city of Rogers. Uh we have used their panels on all of our systems for the last couple of years and have a great relationship with them and they have expressed interest in using this garden uh as a test facility for some of their panels that have yet to come to market. And so we're proposing to set aside a portion of this garden that they can access at any time um to install sort of emerging technologies and be able to gather all that data and information kind of in real time. And it's great for them because it's, you know, the shortest delivery that they'll have to make to the the site. Um on top of that, we also work and have um sheep grazers that come to the site for vegetation management. And so we work with a a group out of Canon uh Cannon Falls, Minnesota. Um and they come periodically to these systems. They bring sheep um as a form of vegetated management. There's some spot treating that needs to happen. Um but ultimately that leads to great biodiversity and soil health over the 25 years. And so when these systems are decommissioned at the end, um they're really productive a sites. Um and next slide. And you know, I think I mentioned a lot of these um and then the rest is FAQ. So, I'll leave it there and um appreciate your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> So, you mentioned sheep are brought on site. Like how many sheep for a site this size? Um, I don't know the exact number. I'd have to double check. I Historically in Minnesota, we have mostly one megawatt sites, so they're about five acres. Uh, when the new legislation passed in 2023 that created these larger systems up to 5 megawatts are about 20 acres. And so most of our the sites that are grazed um yeah, I I don't know the exact answer, but this would be a little bit of a bigger operation than our historic sites. So, how about like the smaller sites? How many sheep are on those? >> Um, they rotationally graze several times throughout the year. I would say at a time there's maybe 30 to 50 sheep there. Um, you know, once or twice, sometimes up to four times a year, just depending on what vegetation is planted and um, yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. So, >> would we have to look at that for our one zone, >> Mr. chair, commission members, and council member. We would have to look at how that fits into our animal code um I do have to review that um just to see if that would work since they're not technically on the site. I don't know if it qualifies, but that's a legal question I'm going to have to chat with our city attorney about. >> Other cities might have a temporary grazing uh type of ordinance um similar to like an IUP. So, it'd be uh like in Dayton, there's a temporary goat ordinance that was passed when I was there that allowed goats on larger properties for vegetation management just temporarily. So, um I think it just depends on how you the city wants to to go about that. >> Mr. Chair and Commissioner, uh Alex Ferno, the consultant with for Sunshare from Emmens and Oliver Resources. One of the other things that you might explore in that is uh many uh jurisdictions also will use just the Minnesota Department of Transportation native seed mixes as the required ground cover uh for th for um for those projects. So those can just be uh kind of established over time. They provide a good kind of habitat quality in there and are relatively low maintenance. So there's there's option in addition to sheep grazing, there's other options that you might want to cons you may consider as you kind of look through that. >> I have a question. So it's 5 megawatts. You're selling that to Excel. >> Um we it's not being sold directly to Excel. the power does go onto the grid and and gets tied into the local substation, >> but then ultimately it is, you know, anybody that subscribes to the garden that is, I guess, technically the purchaser of the power. >> And so we would bill them for the power that their home uses in a year and then they would, you know, essentially pay us instead of XL Energy, um, kind of a discounted rate since we're providing the energy for them. >> And the subscribers could be from where? Is there a radius? >> Uh, anybody that's within XL Energy Territory can subscribe to these gardens. >> So that's multiple states. >> Uh, sorry. Anybody within Minnesota that's in XL Energy territory? Okay. Yeah. Excuse me. >> Does the proposed project include any battery storage? >> Uh, it does not include any battery storage at this time. Uh, and I guess sorry, one other thing to mention. I did speak with uh the the nearby neighbors and one of the things that was discussed and that we would plan to do is provide you know screening of course along all the roads and of any nearby residences so that there's um very minimal visual impact. >> And I have a question for staff. How does this um get reviewed adjacent to Hanover? Um are there any concerns about uh setback requirements they may have that are different than ours related to this use? Can you can you repeat that? Oh, >> this is adjacent to the city of Hanover. Is that correct? >> So, do they have any uh say on this as far as if they have a you know a buffer requirement of adjacent uses that say that solar gardens need to be 200 ft away and we're only 100 ft away. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and commission members, that's a good question. Their zoning ordinances specific to the actual property itself does not apply to ours because it's not within their jurisdiction. However, we do send notices out. So, when I sent the notices out for tonight, it did go to all the handover residents within the direct area as well. >> Thank you. I'm just curious because I've seen a lot of the rooftop farms, which I know are not as big, but we have a couple of warehouses in Rogers. So, has anybody ever explored putting this on warehouses? >> You know, the first conversation we had with Haleen is can we put panels on top of their system? I mean, that that made sense. um they don't own the building and so it gets complicated if if they're not the owners and they're leasing. Um so [clears throat] that's primarily the the reason why you don't see as much of that. Um yeah, Mr. Chair and commission members, just to add one item to that, we do have solar on quite a few rooftops throughout, but that's seen as an accessory use because it's directly benefiting that property itself for those instances. Yeah, I was talking specifically on putting like some of the larger warehouses because I know I've seen where they do they will do they it's not specifically for the building. Not saying they don't use it, but there are people that farm them that way. >> Yeah, Haleen did look at it pretty intensely when they moved in a year and a half ago. Um is one of the things that I talked to them about actually cuz their building's 230,000 ft. So, it's a very large building. Um but at that time it was a little tricky with the lease negotiations to get that included. Greco has a big building. >> Are you guys purchasing this land or renting it? Leasing it. >> Uh, this would be a lease agreement. Yeah. With the owner. >> With the property owner. Yep. >> For 25 years. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. Um, and he couldn't make it here tonight. You know, the plan, this doesn't encompass the entire property. Um, there's some transmission lines that sort of biseect the property. And you our proposed location is north of the transmission lines and it's my understanding that you know it' be continued to be farmed around and south of the transmission lines. Um so yeah this would just encompass kind of that northern portion. >> Do you have um farms this large? You said it recently got expanded. Do you have any this size? >> We do. Um so yeah in the state of Minnesota we've gone through this is the third kind of program for community solar. The original one that started in 2013 allowed for systems of these size. Um so we do have I think maybe seven or eight operational gardens of this size and then in 2017 up until 2023 those were reduced to one megawatt. So a lot of our more recent projects are smaller and then we're now starting to install these these larger projects again. And just to confirm, sorry. Um, like somebody would a resident in Excel territory in Minnesota would come and buy their electric from you instead of Excel. >> That's kind of the oversimplification way of saying it. Um, but yeah, any any resident within Excel, they can subscribe to the garden. And if they use, for example, 10 panels worth of power in a year, then they can say, you know, we're we're going to subscribe to these 10 panels. And then they would pay us on a monthly basis for the energy being generated by those panels, which in essence would cover how much energy they use in their home in a year or or in a given month. And then because we are providing the energy, you know, from those 10 panels, not directly to their home, but kind of through the grid, they receive a bill credit from Excel Energy that says, "We don't you don't owe XL because Sunshare is providing the energy on your behalf." So, they effectively get a $0 bill from Excel Energy and it is replaced by a bill from Sunshare. Um, and the Department of Commerce program does kind of mandate discounts that are provided to subscribers. Uh so m low and moderate income subscribers and nonprofits they see um I think it's like 25 or 30% discount throughout the year on the rates. Um and then it's kind of tiered for different subscribers, but um it's great for folks to see that immediate benefit on their electric bill. >> But as a [clears throat] community garden going into the grid, it uh it helps with resiliency for everybody that receives power within this region. Is that correct? >> That is correct. So part of the kind of studies that are done with XL Energy looks at the local infrastructure and um they look at the substation, the transmission lines, uh the three-phase and singlephase in the area. And part of this project being installed is that Sunshare kind of foots the bill for several upgrades at the substation and along the electric lines. And so that's certainly, you know, poles being replaced, new wires being put in, um, in some cases, you know, substation equipment being upgraded that probably hasn't been touched for a few decades. Um, certainly provides that benefit and is, you know, paid for by the developer of the community solar garden. >> Yeah. And I'm just trying to understand that. I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm So ultimately, you're saying a subscription. So, I mean, it could be there could be ultimately nobody from Rogers subscribing to this, not getting any power from it, right? >> That's true. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I mean, theoretically, you could have a thousand homes from Minneapolis that sign up or, you know, it could be somebody from Pipstone, Minnesota that signs up. >> Um, yeah. >> Um, do you intend to advertise or or try to build any community awareness of this program? >> We would love to. Yeah. Um, we certainly I mean we offer kind of a a very significantly discounted rate for the land owner obviously kind of for hosting the garden um and sort of a friends and family rate for anybody in the area you know relatives of the land owner but then yes we do try to get as many folks subscribed locally um and because we love to see kind of that benefit be seen you know right near where the garden is. We think that's kind of a cool thing. So >> I think so too. >> Yeah. And just from the ne I don't know the I don't know that area that well. I know all the neighbors are on board. They're not not any issues. >> Um so it's a lot of agg that that's going on. So south of the project is the the land owner that we're leasing the property from. Um east across the road is his property as well that's being farmed. On the north side, I think it's Three Rivers Park District. There's not any homes there. And then um homes that would actually kind of have visibility. I spoke with both of them. Um they didn't have any concerns. They had some questions about it. Um but yeah, there were there were no concerns other than um of course we offered screening and that was I think helpful. So >> Okay. And then I guess nobody's brought much up about environmental studies or any impact on the environment. Did you guys go talk about that? Yeah, like studies that we do at that or just kind of general >> just in general studies over the impact of the 20 acres of a solar farm. >> Yeah, I mean so I and maybe would it be possible uh Brett to go back to that? I think it's back one slide one more. Yeah, here we go. Um, so this average impact that's being shown right here, it says 21 card cars taken off the road or about 100,000 pounds of coal um, not needing to be burned. That's for a one megawatt project because historically we've done those. So there's about 500,000 pounds of coal that you would, you know, eliminate the need. Um, so it's quite a significant benefit. And you know, one of the questions that I frequently get is, you know, these panels obviously there the manufacturing process to make them is not green. There is, you know, carbon footprint that's associated with that. Um, and so what the statistics that you're looking at that includes kind of throughout manufacturing, transportation, um, these being made locally here in Minnesota certainly cuts down on that quite a bit, but generally speaking, it's quite a significant net benefit environmentally. Um, I think also, you know, we have other sites where we've we've done the sheep grazing, um, and have worked with local farmers and I think just the biodiversity of the soil and the benefits that you get there long term over the life of the system. Um, you know, the nitrogen and phosphorus that's being put back in, you see, you know, really healthy soil over the life of the system. So, there's certain local local benefits as well. >> Yeah. Aren't sheep the one cattle farmers don't like? [laughter] We were actually trying to do a a cattle graze system out in western Minnesota, too. The University of Minnesota, um, Twin Cities campus in Morris, they have a small system that's grazed by cattle. >> Um, and they are a lot taller, so there's a lot more steel that goes in, so it's tougher to >> Yeah, I may be wrong on I think it's sheep that graze, if not managed correctly, will will actually graze the grass out to the ground. I may be wrong on that. >> Yeah, I know XL Energy hates goats. We've seen some photos of them on some of their work trucks and stuff, but yeah, >> I can imagine they don't like them. They they'll probably eat your solar panels. >> Yeah, they might be up on top of the solar array. So, >> uh sheep seem to be a nice Yeah. >> All right. >> Who are your current? Go ahead. >> Who are your current subscribers? Like, how do you get your clients right now? Like, um you said it's a lot of low income or stuff like that. Yeah. So, Sunshare uh and one thing about Sunshare, so we've built our company to be um sort of we take care of everything internally. So, we own and operate these systems for the the 25 to 30 year life cycle. So, we don't sell this project to another developer. Um we also do all of our subscription in-house and we have a team that that does all of that work. Um, I think we're right now partnering with a like a housing authority and some nonprofits that do affordable um, housing. And so that's primarily where we're finding most of the subscribers because there is a mandate for us to have over 50% of the garden go towards, you know, income qualified folks. Um, but you know, we advertise. Well, I guess we don't do too much advertising, but we have a website and we do some online advertisement for anybody that would like to sign up and um certainly, you know, there could be uh something in the print or something that we do with the city of Rogers that could kind of advertise this benefit to folks and um kind of get the word out there should this be approved. >> So, like Catholic Charities, AGOT, like organizations that offer like rental subsidies. >> Yep. Yeah. I don't I I'm not on that side of the of the work, so I don't know the exact uh partners, but I know that we do have about I think it's five or 10 um partners in the Twin Cities area that connect us with Yeah. [clears throat] affordable housing or Yeah. income qualified residents. >> Okay. And you said your requirement is 50%. >> Yeah, it's it's actually 55%. Okay. >> We generally are seeing more of the garden being subscribed to low and moderate income folks, but yeah, the minimum is 55%. >> Okay. Thank you. Yep. >> Um, bringing this back to uh what we're here for, which is a zoning text amendment. I appreciate your presentation. Yep. Um, does there any other questions for the applicant? >> So, I do have one one second. Go ahead. So, um, when it comes to decommissioning, are these panhels recyclable? Like, do they have to be torn apart to recycle them? How does that work? And who takes them? >> Yeah, it's a great question. Um, most of the parts of the panel are recyclable. There are local facilities, I think there's two in Blaine and one in Anoka that do recycling. Um, I would expect with the amount of, you know, solar that's gone in throughout the country that recycling is going to be more common over the next 25, 30 years as these systems get to their life cycles. But, um, yes, they can be recycled. >> Okay. So, and I'm assuming they have to take them apart to do that. >> They do. Yep. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Question for staff here real quick. Sorry. No, go ahead. >> Um, with the decommissioning technologies are evolving, um, setting a decommissioning plan now may look very different than 5 years, 10 years from now, is there a review or a requirement to reapply or update your decommissioning plan? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and commission members, since they' be an interim use permit, should they make changes, we could have a requirement. So, similar to our mining premise, they have a decommissioning and if they're making alterations that are against the IEP, it technically would be in violation unless they're getting express written approval beforehand. >> Okay. And the escrow account, does it have any uh inflation index attached to it? >> Mr. Chair and Commission, we it'd be difficult to do an inflation in uh we could we could add that in. Um we just have to calculate it at the time of application. >> Thank you. I just had one quick question maybe for the applicant. Um just for comparison, you said the five megawatts is 20 to 30 acres. What is a one megawatt roughly in in acreage? >> Um like 5 to 10. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Any more questions? All right. Hearing none of this is a public hearing, so I'd like to open this for public comment. Anybody in a audience have any questions or would like to speak hearing? Nobody. Do we have anybody online? Take a look here. No, doesn't look like we have anybody. No hands raised. So, with that, I will make a motion to close the cocaine. Or did I just close it? [laughter] All right, I'll close the public hearing. Well, um, do we have any discussion we'd like to have or would like to make a motion? There are, as been pointed out, there are three different options. accept the uh draft ordinance um recommend with changes um or deny and keep the current code structure. I for one would like to see um some changes to the decommissioning process um of that. I I don't have any concerns with the way it's been presented. gets adopted. >> How does that work for like future? >> Does it come back through the process? Um, >> yeah. >> Is it just available for anywhere in R1? >> Mr. Chair and Commission, members, it would be available for all R1 properties. Every application or every solar garden request would go through an interim use permit requirement and process, which includes a public hearing. So every community solar garden that's being proposed would come before the planning commission and city council for approval. >> Will there be a limit acreage because 20 acres is large and if we get 10 more applicants that's a lot of solar gardens. >> Yeah Mr. Chair and commission members it is not capped a total number of community solar gardens. Each one would be capped at five megawws being the maximum. >> Okay. So, yeah, that I got that part. It's what we gonna Would we cap the city of Rogers to have 10 or or 100? You know, how many of these would we want? >> Mr. Chair and Commission, that's up to if you guys want to do a cap, that's up to you. >> I think there needs to be some kind of um cap on it. I mean, I don't know how many more are going to apply, but um >> question to the >> I I mean I think it's a good idea to cons >> and you know I know we're just we're starting down the path of you know the commission planning and future planning and you know It's hard to kind of suggest a cap without >> let's cap it at the size general population of Rogers if it's even possible. You say you have 20,000 people and that five megawws covers a thousand. So that's 20 sites or something, right? I don't think that [clears throat] you have instances where you're putting in garden solar sites, community garden solar sites that would be in such proximity to the the others that it becomes such a nuisance to you. >> Thanks. Um I would I would say the these are probably in themselves capped just based on the capacity of the substation. Um you you could not install more than 10 of these on the infrastructure that exists without Yeah, it's just not possible. >> That's your broad estimate on the whole of Rogers >> just on this on this specific substation. I guess I don't know how many substations are in the city of Rogers. Um, >> I don't know that either, but >> I mean, is there a town like Rogers where you have 80 I mean exaggerating five sites like this even >> with these going in as larger systems? No. >> Okay. What's the most you have in a city this size already? >> Maybe I don't know if you have a thought, Alex. I I think from where we've worked in one area or like clustered around one city, maybe we've seen 20 to 30 megawws total >> and that would be four to five sites maybe, right? >> Yeah, that'd be at this size that would be six sites. >> Okay. And competitors in those towns. >> Uh yeah, I mean um any developer could sign a lease. We've we've seen maybe, you know, five different companies that'll do five or six gardens in an area. >> Okay. Um I mean when they were smaller there's more of them but in total it's yeah probably 20 to 30 megawatts that I've seen in one area. So >> okay is there I get into the questions of how then we if you give us some guidance the the commission it's >> Mr. chair and commission members. There is kind of an alternative to that for which you can consider. >> If we're getting a lot of them, it's a zoning code, so you have a lot of discretion. You could always make the recommendation to change it back >> should you choose to, then the ones that are there are continued to allowed to be there >> as a previously approved prior to a code change. Um, but if it was >> to what it currently is as an accessory use only for >> software. >> So there is the option you can make adjustments to the code as this goes. Like if you're seeing a lot of applications, that's one option you could consider. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I'm inclined to um I just don't think it's practical for staff to track how many megawatts of solar we're going to have. Um, >> right. And that changes too, right? Hopefully the productivity of technology continues to multiply. So all of a sudden you're m you're creating megawws on >> I wasn't suggesting capping the megawatts. I was talking about the acreage >> right in the sites. >> Yeah. >> But if we can divert because that current commission or the city views that there's too many solar sites then you just revert back to stating accessory use only is what he's saying. rather than putting a cap on it, which I don't know how you do that right now. So, >> are other communities around? Do they have a similar size maximum to what's in the proposed? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and Commission, they are pretty consistent around that five megawatt piece. The reason why I used megawws rather than acres was specifically what Commissioner Mullen mentioned. technology could change and an acreage today that hits five megawatts could be say 30 megawws if technology continues to advance for the panels. So I kept it at a megawatt cap and so theoretically the sites could shrink down if technology increases but that's a little background of why it has megawatts rather than acres. I'm gonna call lazy fair Adam Smith to the table and say allow to happen what happens if we like the idea of it generally and if there's this overabundance of applications again that was what I was seeking there so thank you Brett um just some ability to control without any you know semantics or yeah So, >> well, do we have any motions to uh amend the language or are we okay with the way it's written? >> I think I have a question. Do you have a question as well? >> Yeah, I Well, after hearing you talk, Brett, I I think I'd rather have it capped at an acreage rather than a megawatt because we're going to use more energy. The humans have done that um consistently. Um so, I'm more worried about how many acres it is, not how many how much energy is being produced if they produce. That is what I was saying. >> Curious. That's better. >> Yeah. Well, that that's actually savvy. Um, you have to also imagine I don't know how many parcels there are out there with a willing agent that wants to lease, but you know, is it 40 acres? Is it 60? And then is that 60 acres actually buildable? Or is half of that marsh? And so you're kind of dictating for a willing agent that may want to lease to say, "Well, it has to be a 20 acre site only." Make sense? >> I get what you're saying, but they can ask for a variance. >> Is that fair, Commissioner? We can do an up to number of acres. So it could be up to 20 up to what whichever number you decide if you want to go that route. >> So in aggregate, so they have a corner of five over here and 10. >> It would be contiguous. we'd write it to be contiguous. >> Yeah, the cap should be written carefully because we don't want to make it um confusing in other languages like per cited cap to 20 acres because then there won't be a total cap for acreage for the city. So you'll need to figure out what a total cap might be. What would that might look like for the entire city? Commissioner, you mean cap for in aggregate then or do you mean per site? [clears throat] The original comment was regarding the city of Rogers. >> Yeah. A cab, >> not a site. >> Okay. >> Total acreage. >> How many acres are in Rogers? >> Uh 26 square miles, whatever acreage is that, but it in the R1 >> Yeah. >> side of it, >> the better. Yeah. >> And if you're thinking that acorage, well, I guess it these could potentially be put in wetlands if there's a no loss considered no loss in restoration afterwards. Maybe depending on >> how the T panel might consider that. But the um >> we also have the fourth mile buffer written in a quarter mile buffer there too. >> Yep. >> Looking at the zoning map, it looks like R1 encompasses about a third or fourth of our of our zoning districts. >> So there is a possibility that these could be placed, you know, all over there. Um, but Mr. Chair and Commission, you could also expand that buffer out further. So instead of a quarter mile, it could be a half mile or whatever distance you feel fit, >> half mile between solar facilities. >> Correct. >> I have a question for you two, gentlemen. Um, do we know how much low and income subsidized housing is in Rogers? Not off the top of my head. Um, we don't have much for the natural occurring from the single family housing stock. We have a few different developments that are Pleasant Place. The new Duffy development on Main Street are kind of the two primary ones. Um, we have that info. I just not off the top of my head. It's fairly limited though. >> Mr. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> Well, the reason I bring that up is because, you know, we're here to what's the biggest benefit for Rogers? And if all the electricity is going to go to, you know, low income subsidi people in Minneapolis or cities downtown, it doesn't really benefit our community as much. It would be 55% going elsewhere. >> Agreed. >> Still the power that's in our grid in our community that we would benefit from. I >> I would use the analogy of that they're all drawing from the same well. They're building the um the well to feed from, to drink from. And so any subscriber again from any part of Minnesota could subscribe to some they could say that this panel here is what I'm subscribing to. But you know, one is producing at 80% and another is producing at 110%. So you're drawing from the the aggregate well, right? So to discriminate that way, I don't agree with that. You're either in or you're out as far as helping to develop. Makes sense. >> I hear you. >> Um, do you have a proposal for numbers? I don't know how many acres are available. I mean, 26 square miles is a lot of acres. >> Yeah. And then a third or a quarter of a one. So I I just I mean you know one farm is one thing but if >> or a number of sites because then we just state you know 20 or 30 acres a you know site and then times 10 sites times 20 sites times five. >> Yeah man I think what you he the gentleman said is one location was like three or four in a city. So whatever that is 20, you know, whatever that would encompass if you're doing them all 20 acre sites. >> Yeah. What I mean by lazy fair is inevitably again you're trying to find the right party that's has that amount of acreage R1 or more and then they want to lease it, right? >> Yeah. I just like to have something Yeah. >> in writing that states that they can always come and ask, you know, even if it, let's just say it's make it 40 acres that's capped. We already have the 40 acres and somebody wants to they can always come and ask to expand that. >> Okay. So, yeah, I'm just looking for an upper poll number there. >> Yeah. I mean, >> so we can recommend >> like one per quarter section. Can we do it like by that kind of a land use breakup? >> I I tend to disagree with setting that limit because now we're saying this the first person that gets in if their neighbor wants to do it. Now we're not allowing them because they got in before them. If they all go into a a public hearing, then the public has the ability to come out and disagree with it. So if whatever [clears throat] limits we set, we're >> now preventing anybody from I I think there wouldn't be that that many to be that big of a concern. And once it gets in, then we'll start hearing it at a at a public hearing to not put them in. So I think we let that it naturally be controlled. What is our discretion on IUP? Can we make a discretionary decision based on proximity to other facilities? >> So your interim use permit criteria is what the code is set for for the that particular use. So your if your solar garden use says these things can be met for that solar garden, that's the rational rationale for your approval. Um, so tip what I usually foritial uses or interim uses, I typically think of that as a permitted use with conditions. So, so long as you're meeting the the requirements of the code and the interim use permit section of code, then you should have an approved project. >> Yep. >> Yes, sir. Well, that being said, even if there's public hearing, you kind of still are leading towards you have to approve, right? Because they met all the conditions. >> So, I think at the the public hearing is the intent is to bring forward additional facts and on the ground from nearby residents who who are more familiar with the land. Um so um so take for you know this is a probably a poor example but Edgewater Cove right steep slopes they they're aware of the steep slopes present towards drainage issues that might be present nearby. Um so it can inform additional conditions more than likely um uh rather than you know because there there might be um you know hey there's there is record of an endangered species where we've seen this kind of thing so it might limit the project in that manner. So >> so would proximity of other solar gardens be a relevant thing to consider to deny if in this case. >> So, let's say someone comes next door to this one and it's clearly down a quarter mile and they can submit an application. Uh, we'd have to ask our attorney if we can administratively deny an application. Uh, but that would be a clear indication that it wouldn't meet the quarter mile spacing requirement. um that that does mean they can still submit a variance request along with an interim use permit to to get around or deviate from the code. I'm just going to put some math on the table so we can try to move toward a recommendation. Um 26 odd,000 acres 20 26 mile square mile city that's 25,000 square feet square miles I think. If approximately uh we have quarter of that as R1, I don't know what the numbers are. That gives you 4,000 square miles to work with. If you divide that by 20 acre parcels, that's 200 parcels. If I want to limit that to just 10% of it and no more, that's 20 sites. So, you say 20 sites, and if you want to try to be conservative with that, um, you actually get to 10. I I don't know. But I'm just trying to put a number on there so that we can if we want to try to limit things without having to go back to accessory use and amending the use code, then start with 20. I'll put that on the table. The other ones I would suggest is we increase the approximate proximity size um from a quarter to my thought was at least a mile. Um I think that would help limit the the amount that was coming across as well, right? Because that would would reduce your your parcels. Um, and then I I think the setback of 100 ft is too little. I would increase that setback. I mean, I'm thinking 100 ft from a residential structure is really not that much space. Um, so I don't know how many once again, how many parcels in the future that that could be, but I would I would propose we increase the step back up to maybe 200 to 250t away from residential structure. Those would be my recommendations. >> I agree with that. >> Staff, do you have any problems with that? Practical difficulties? >> No. >> Any further discussion? Um just so I'm ensuring that I have the recommended changes proximity and that everyone's on the same page for it. Proximity to a mile setbacks at 250 amending the height to not include the building rooftop ones. >> One mile uh from another site >> from >> that's that's a long time depending on the day. It might take me six and a half minutes or 20 minutes to run that. So >> yeah, but we're talking R1 here though, right? It's not like >> Well, but sometimes R1 is going to be adjacent. And what if we wanted to cluster one next to another? Um I'm just recalling when we had to make an amendment for um what were they THC shops or CBD or whatever it was? But we had to make an amendment for space and I was just shocked that it was 500 ft from a daycare um provider. So then we had to make an amendment to it. One mile is quite aggressive especially when you consider at the size of the city apparently is about 26 miles. And if you have a rad I mean that that's aggressive. >> Yeah. >> I would cut that down or again I I mean you either limit one or you limit the other. You don't I don't think you say 20 and try to fit these into a peg hole with the circle that we're giving you. Um, now you go from 20 as site management to five because no engineer can help fit that into that space. I don't think it's I don't know does that make sense? I think um you either limit the site size or you limit the I don't know I mean even a half mile seems like one neighbor lived within a half mile again of the first site now they're out and the commission has dictated that rather than [clears throat] the N I don't the uh yeah the ability to do it. So >> I would just recommend that um the basis for your performance standards always comes back to what's the rational basis for the requirement. Right? So the the the you know the 20 project cap you know that clearly speaks back to you know a population of around 20,000 your users for a mega you know megawatt for five megawatt is around thousand subscribers right that are the rational basis for limiting the number in that way that way you're hopefully securing more benefit specifically for Rogers users >> right instead of allowing more that goes further beyond on borders. There's some rational basis to that. Um, so I think just, you know, reasoning behind, you know, why this particular use requires additional buffering or additional setbacks. It's just to make sure that you're bringing it back to the reasons behind that specifically. Um, and think about other uses we have currently that are of a similar intensity or a similar type of use and what those requirements might be. Right? So solar gardens are this is a new thing right is a new thing for Rogers but is this as intense as like a distribution facility or some other type of use right so that's just all I'm will say on the matter for that >> well there's certainly neighbors that have lived there for 80 years and the last thing they want is somebody that moved in and has been there a few years right to right also put something on their land where they've been >> clearly there is competing thoughts on the use of of property, preserving the ability for a uses and not filling up uh making sure you're you're not taking up >> lots for future subdivision, things like there are competing interests for land use. >> Hunting land. Hunting land. Yep. >> There is rational basis to be found for any particular requirement. It's just you need to make sure it's always coming back to what is the reason. >> Yeah. I don't like the idea of trying to make this radial map and um giving any distance. I mean, if you wanted to say a thousand feet, uh something within reason, moderate reason, but I think you're still going to get variance requests. I look ahead 10 years or five years and um I think you just cap it. If you don't like 20, you say 10 because what is the Alex suggestion? What's the point of trying to restrict it with a radial measurement when you could just say five sites? So either you like it or you don't. And if we want to restrict it, then you restrict it on count and not on putting a square in a round hole or vice. So opinions? Well, I mean, if it's an R1 district and it's a IUP for an R1 district, it applies equally to everybody in that district. So, you can't just say that these people, they came in first, they're going to get, you know, and then we're going to stop. Uh, if we were to do that, we would have to, like I said, uh, revert to our old zoning text and, you know, just rewrite the zoning code. Well, and that's what putting a cap kind of does is right. It's like if you can in in the first 20 sites, then you're you're allowing the first 20 applications to be in and no more. Yeah, that's why I don't really like the like the idea of like a finite cap because especially if these exist for 25 30 years, you're limiting, you know, other individuals in the future that come in. And that's why I was trying to think of a way that you're still kind of capping the potential sites. M >> um and obviously when you're looking at a 20 acre site, right, there's there's there's not like a million of them around here, right? There's a there's a few few amount of sites that would apply to that that size requirement. >> What if we got to nine sites and our cap is 10 and we have applicants in line for four or more? What does the city planning commission think? What do we do? >> [snorts] >> Well, first of all, staff would have to be tracking that information. >> And then third, we would have to make a motion to amend the zoning code to remove this. I mean, it's it it can't be one or the other, >> right? So, which is less friction? staff. >> Mr. Chair and Commission, I would say from an administration standpoint, it's easier to use a buffer than it would be to track the cap for each one. [clears throat] >> Okay. >> Otherwise, you're dealing with lotteryies or whatever what have you and and and all that. Making sure the hat's the same size you're pulling out of whatever whatever the criteria might be. So, >> so what's the rationale? And you're talking again the radial 500 ft a mile that type of buffer, correct? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So, what's the logic of >> the code >> whatever number >> that Yeah. I like they're saying the distance rule or this those buffers would be the easiest way to do that to say that you know no two um community solar gardens can be placed within a onem radius of each other. Um that [clears throat] would be the way to do it. And now the question is the one mile is that the right number to me that seems like quite a big big distance. Um >> a mile was too far. Quarter mile's too close to an end. >> Exactly. >> Mr. Chair and Commissioners, for context, St. Michael has half mile. Yeah. For >> half mile. >> Okay. >> Could we be more innovative and say 2,000 ft? [laughter] I I'm just saying. >> Yeah, I think that's a great idea. >> There's truth and humor or humor and truth story. So, um, yeah. >> All right. >> Measure it with your shoe when you say feet instead of miles. >> I'd like to make a motion unless there's further discussion. >> Please. >> Yeah. I have one other comment that I'd like to change on this besides I agree with the half mile. Um, I think we should change it from a maximum of to 20 acres um rather than the five megawatt. Let's say Helen comes up with a amazing system. I don't think we should then say that they're they have to be in the a small section like we shouldn't we should say it by the the area of the the land. >> Yeah. If they increase the power output it shouldn't shrink the size of the acreage is what you're saying. >> However you want to word that. >> So in theory you could say they if the technology gets better it could end up being 10 megawatts in the same size acreage. just that >> just by following where you're going. >> The question about area is are we talking about the lease area? We talking about the property area or are we talking about the area of the footprint of the solar garden? >> I'll take a pass on that one just because of the questions. I and it actually bring up another sorry I don't just thinking that um do we want something that is it abuts the other? So, you know, you have 100 ft or we say 200 ft. Do you want to make an exception that allows for a neighbor to say, "I'll do the same." And it's going to be something that now is a 40 acre parcel. I'm just throwing that in there, too, because otherwise, again, you kind of have this first to market scenario. >> Yeah. No, I understand. And that I guess >> Fred and Jane might know each other real well. Well, if it's, let's just say it's 20 acres or whatever it is, >> Mr. Chair and Commissioner, the way that this code is written, it can go across property lines. So, technically, two property owners could combine to do one. >> Okay. >> I would judge the acreage based on the actual project site. So, that's everything from the landscaping perimeter inward. if it's not a separate parcel by itself already. So the changes that I have noted are proximity to half mile setbacks, change from megawatts to acres, the height removing building integrated and then some additional language on decommissioning. >> Those are the options on the table here. Yeah. What What do we want to do about those numbers? Want to say uh kept at 20 acres, no closer than a half mile from another facility. >> Yeah. Y and um the height and uh the decommissioning set to an inflation index >> and I think we said the setback was 250 not 100 was that the right >> 250 from single family or from >> structure >> residential structures um >> yeah I'm okay with Yeah. So yeah. So, >> like to make a motion to approve um amending the ordinance section 125-102 and 125-50 and 125-93 um to allow for community solar gardens provided they uh meet the criteria of the zoning code as written with additional um conditions being stated as the distance apart uh being a half mile, the 250 ft from structures. Um the height item and uh what's the other one? >> And the decommissioning. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Uh new business consider consideration of a site plan application for the expansion of uh the building at 20615 Commerce Boulevard Twin City Hose. All right, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, my name is Eric Burton. I'm the community development specialist here for the city of Rogers. And tonight I have uh the honor of uh bringing to you a site plan amendment consideration for Twin City Hose um at 20615 Commerce Boulevard. And I think this is an exciting project. Um it's a great business retention story here for the city of Rogers. Um so we're talking about Commerce Boulevard. It is zoned RC. Uh and Twin City Host has been operating out of this site um since 1977. So next year will mark 50 years of business as one of the longest standing businesses here in the city of Rogers. Um they are known as a global leader in specialized industrial manufacturing and they're trying to choose to grow in Rogers instead of looking elsewhere. Um this site is approximately 3 acres. Um they are in a existing building of almost 25,000 feet and uh it's surrounded by compatible industrial users. So they are proposing a 9,648 square foot addition to existing building bringing it to just over 34,000 square ft. Uh it would still be used it would be the same use uh as light manufacturing and warehouse storage. Um there would be a expansion to this is to accommodate the growth of the business. Um and beyond that they are also proposing to invest in different site improvements. Um for instance parking um going from 39 stalls to 53 stalls. Um adding an extra access point on Commerce Boulevard which would help with traffic flow. Actually drove there today and it was a tricky parking lot. So, um I do think that would be helpful. Uh they did provide for you in the packet a uh turning radius so um trucks could turn around on either side of the building based on their proposed plan and uh also uh upgrading the storm water infrastructure as well. So, the additional building um that they're proposing would be an east side addition. Uh it would match the construction of textured panels, pre-cast concrete, and structured steel. Um so it should look the same as the rest of the building. It should fit in perfectly with the surrounding businesses. Um the expansion would then have 22,000ish square ft for factory. Uh the proposed 9,648 ft uh of warehouse and then 2200 square ft of office. And this building um more than meets um or exceeds all of the uh required setbacks uh by the city. >> Thank you for your >> Hold on. Hold on. We still got a little bit more. [laughter] >> Um for the storm water plan, um existing regional storm water pond would be expanded in this. Um that's to the southeast of the building. And then a new filtration for bay just to the east side of the building um is proposed here as well. Uh there would be it's at this point it's subject to city engineering review um as well as Elm Creek wershed management commission review which is in process now and they would be required to have a new storm water maintenance agreement um prior to any permits being issued. And as for the landscaping and lighting plan, um overstory trees, shrubs, perennials, and seed mixes around a pond area. Um and then for the lighting plan, wall-mounted LEDs, um with good coverage and no spillover, which means it would meet all of our city code as well. And for our recommendation for this um this is you know Twin City Hose supporting local employment meeting all zoning codes and uh adhering to the comprehensive plan. Um they're wellestablished employer here who is hoping to deepen their roots within the community. And so we we have a motion to recommend approval of a site plan amendment for Twin City Hose construct uh 9,648 ft building addition at 20615 Commerce Boulevard subject to all conditions listed in the staff report. And um Mr. Chair and members of the commission, I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the city, but also we have a nice contingency from uh Twin City Hose and the applicant here. Um Mr. Edar um from Edfar Architects um wanted to uh introduce himself and uh talk on the project as well if you have any questions for the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners and staff. Uh and my name is Ed Far with Edward Far Architects. I'm the project architect. Of course, with me tonight is uh Kirk Garry, uh the co-owner of Twin City Hose, as well as Jay Donaldson, our builder. He'll be the contractor for it, and Brian Field from Anderson Engineering, civil engineer, who also did the uh landscaping from his firm as well. So, yeah, we've been working with Twin City uh hose for a while on this edition. Very excited to bring it to fruition. Appreciate your uh uh review of our submitt and looking forward to the approvals tonight. Uh we're here to answer any questions. Of course, um if you have any historical things for for Mr. Gary, that's fine. Um otherwise, we think we dotted the eyes and crossed the tees on our application. Um we are agreeable to all of staff's uh conditions of approval in the staff report and uh we've already added that door for the fire marshall on the north side of the building on our drawings. And so we're looking forward to uh getting building permit drawings into you relatively soon after city council approval and started construction this summer. there's any questions, I stand for them. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good question for me. So, there's no variance being requested. Okay. I just want to make sure I followed. Thanks. >> Um, question for staff with regards to the uh storm water pond spilling over to the other site. I saw that there's a condition for a mutual agreement uh for maintenance. Is there an easement on that portion of the site for drainage utility? >> Um, Mr. chair and members of the commission. Um yeah, at this point we have our engineering team working with um Elm Creek Wershed Management Commission on answering a couple of those questions. I know that they were having that conversation today and they were hoping to have a better answer for you guys for tonight. Um, ultimately the idea would be that um, there's probably going to need to be a DNU easement vacation and a new DNU easement would have to be put in place and then obviously they would need to have a storm water management plan since the city wouldn't be part of any of that plan. Um, so there is obviously some agreement that still needs to happen um, from the applicant side and with neighboring businesses, but um, I'm assuming they can speak um, even more possibly to um, you know, maybe some of the thoughts of some of the neighbors at this point. >> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind uh, addressing that question. Do you have permission to expand the pond onto the Egyptian property? uh by right of easement. Yes. Um the property due east was actually part of this property. It was twice the size for from its original planning. Um it was sold off in thank you 26 years agoish. Uh obviously it was developed uh with a new office warehouse building and there is a easement that is retained for storm water between the two that runs along the south southern half probably not even half southern portion of that easterly lot. So um obviously we're enlarging the pond. >> Sure. >> Good development. >> Thank you. Um, I think this is great. I'm happy to see you guys are in the community and growing and being successful. Um, guys have any discussion or would you like to this a motion for a site plan approval? Okay. Is this this is a public hearing or no? It's not a public hearing. Thank you. Well, uh, absent, uh, the fact that there's no variances, um, and that the approval will be, uh, conditioned upon, uh, meeting staff, uh, requirements, staff review. I'd like a motion to approve the site plan. >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion and a second. >> I'll second it. Okay. >> All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Opposed. Nice have it. Thank you. >> Done. Here you want to run over the past uh planning commission items report. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and Commission. I'll just highlight a couple things. Uh looking at the 2050 comp plan, we did that kickoff meeting at the last meet um meeting that we had for planning commission and community engagement will be starting up this month. uh project website should be um published within the next week or so. We reviewed it today and then we're going to have some virtual survey as well as some in-person events that are starting in June. Um so numerous opportunities for people to participate whether it's online or in person. We're going to do our best to really publicize it as much as possible. going to be putting some placards on tables at various restaurants, uh, brewery sip happens, trying to get the gathering places for people, uh, some pop-up events that will occur at the farmers market, night to unite, uh, bigger events such as that. Um, and then the other big one to note is on city facilities. At the last council meeting, uh, the city council awarded bid package one for the new civic campus. So, you should see the former Boyer building coming down here by the end of this month. Um, so that project's moving forward. There's still another bid package to do, but uh we're anticipating the demo and site work to start in June here. And with that, I can answer any questions. >> Um, question about the, uh, Doran affordable housing workforce pro project. Um, this was a couple years ago that came. Has that expired or have they asked for renewal of that approval? >> Yeah, Mr. Commission, the Roars, this was on the corner of South Diamond and Brockton. Um, with that workforce development proposal, which I think was around 270 units, if I remember right, >> um, they went for state bonding and they went multiple rounds of applications for various bonds and unfortunately they got to the first on the priority list, then it expired. So, they were never awarded bonds. um and the developer and property owner couldn't come to an agreement to extend any further from the time knowing that it was going to be unknown how long it would take to get the bonds for it. So that development is not moving forward at this time. >> Thank you. The land use changes did go into effect. So that is high density on that corner. >> All right. Comments, questions hearing none. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Second. All those in favor say I. I. Post. Meet.