So I will now call the meeting to order. Welcome to the September 4th, 2024 meeting of the Plumeth Planning Commission. We will now rise and say the pledge of allegiance. I'm going to ask you to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to Again, welcome to the Plymouth Planning Commission meeting. Planning commissioners are Plymouth citizen volunteers that serve at the Player pleasure of the Mayor and the City Council. The map that you can see shows where we live and what districts we represent. Any action we take tonight will be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council on these matters. So I'm going to introduce our staff here tonight. We have Sophie Cacera, our community and economic development intern. Next to me we have Chloe McGuire, who is our planning and development manager. And also in the audience, we have Lillian Prieble, who is the MWSP consultant, who will be also participating in the staff type discussion. So if anyone wishes to address the planning commission tonight on a matter on the agenda, we ask that you fill out a blue card and present that to us. That will give us a chance to have your name and address in the spelling correctly and so forth so we can get that into the minutes. The first part of the Planning Commission meeting here is called the Public Forum. And the Public Forum is a chance to allow anybody in the audience to speak to the Commission on a matter that is not currently on the agenda. We will take a maximum of 15 minutes for the forum. Does anyone wish to address the commission tonight? Seeing no one approaching, then we will move on to item three, which is the approval of the agenda. Does anyone have any additions or subtractions from tonight's agenda? If not, a motion would be in order for approving the agenda. Make a motion to approve the agenda. And we have a second. I second. All those in favor? Second of all. I'm going to have to say hi. Hi. OK. The next item on the agenda is the consent agenda, which we considered routine and would be enacted by one motion. We'll have no separate discussion on these items unless a commissioner, a citizen or petitioner requests such in which case it would be removed from the consent agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. Tonight we just have one item on the consent agenda which is the adoption of the August 21st meeting minute, actually draft minutes is what we are calling them. So does any commissioner wish to remove this item from the consent agenda? Does anyone in the audience wish to remove this item from the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to move to the consent agenda. I'm going to look at is our public hearings. And tonight we have three public hearings. And we will follow the same procedure for all three of them. First, we will ask the staff for an overview of the project where it's located and any particulars and give the opportunity for the commissioners to ask questions. Then we will invite the applicant to address the commission. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant. We will then open the public hearing and call upon anybody who submitted a blue card. And when they come to speak, we ask that they state their name and address for the audio record. So we have that. And we'd ask that you limit your comments to five minutes unless you're representing a group. And if you have any written material, then you would submit that to one of the staff members at the beginning of your testimony. So during the public hearing, the commission will not engage in debate or discussion with anyone. Any questions that are asked will be written down, and then we will attempt to with the help of staff to answer those questions at the conclusion of the hearing. We'll give everybody an opportunity to speak at the public hearing but once it's closed then we will proceed with discussion, the commission will discussion to make the matter and make a recommendation to the city council. At that point we will announce a tentative date. It goes to the city council but also things do change so it's important that the applicants keep in touch with staff on that. So our first public hearing tonight is a review of the Conditional Use Permit for a Sports and Fitness Club use in the I-2 Zoning District located at 12755 Highway 55 and this is for Broward Baseball. Sophie, you're the one that would be presenting this item from the staff, so go ahead and give us your staff report. Yes, thank you commissioners. So like you said, this is a conditional use permit application from Broward Baseball LLC for a sports and fitness club use in the general industrial district located at 12, 7, 5, 5 highway 55. This is also, this is the Jet 55 Corporate Center for those who are familiar, who are familiar. It's right off of County Road 6 in State Highway 55. The application would be for a 32,262 square foot in Norfitness use in a tenant suite within the existing 229 square foot building. The hours would be generally offset from the neighboring uses in the facility with peak demand being December through March, primarily on evenings and weekends is when they would be open. At peak busyness, they would have roughly 30 to 36 clients turning over every hour and a half. This would be after business expansion. So this is their largest estimate that they gave us. You can see it in the chart below that September through May, their hours are 330-10 PM and June and August, their weekday hours are 930-04 PM. These are offset from the other uses in the building, which generally have closing hours between 5 and 8 PM. For parking, we calculated 97 parking spaces would be required for their use based off of our zoning code. The building has 588 existing on-site parking, which is sufficient for the 544 parking spaces that were calculated to be required for the whole building in all uses. So staff finds that the conditional use permit would comply with all CUP standards and conditions and staff recommends approval. Thank you, Sophie. Do we have questions for staff? Sophie, can you give us those square footages again? They are going to occupy 38. Approximately 32,000 square feet. And the building is 229,000 square feet. That's a huge building. Yeah, OK. All right. Other questions from the commission? Chair, I have a question. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, come here, Chair. So it talked about the number of individuals and it gave the time frames of September, October, into November. So that is number of players. Was there anything given in terms of the number of non-players that would be within the facility? Commissioner, thank you for your question. There was not a number provided for non-player participants who would be at this location, like a staffing number was not given. Or spectators, like for for example relatives that are coming or anything like that. I would defer to the applicant as far as spectators go. However looking at their preliminary site plans it looks as though there's not really space for spectators to go it's really just a training facility. For job offs. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Olson. Thanks. One quick question. The building is it fully occupied? Is it empty? Are there other tenants in the building? I mean, it doesn't look like anyone's objecting, so I'm just wondering what the occupancy is of that building. Yes, thank you, Commissioner. That's a good question. So the building does have other tenants. I believe doing a search on Google Maps, on Yelp, you know, there is about five or six tenants currently in that building. There's an electrical parts manufacturer. There's two five or six tenants currently in that building. There's an electrical parts manufacturer. There's two software developers. There's one civil engineer firm. So they're largely office uses. And it looks as though as of right now, the warehouse space, which takes up the largest component of the building is largely unoccupied. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the commission? All right, at this point, I will invite the applicant to say anything they'd like to say or if we have questions for the applicant, I think we do have one question. Yes, a blue card. Thank you. All right. So Jessica, bro. Yes. Yes, I'm Jessica. I'm Jessica Broward with Broward Baseball. So I just want to answer your question about the number of people that are in the building including spectators So majority of kids are dropped off. They're I mean parents can stay it is very Very unusual to have every parent stay for every kid that's brought And then we have four coaches that that would be max So if I'm if I'm maxing the facility in our peak time, there's four coaches running the four programs. And then myself, so one, maybe two, Admin, and then one or two strength coaches. So that's probably the max. And if you have very rarely do I see both parents come with a player, if a parent stays, it's one with their laptops. So yeah, we require a lot of space to throw a baseball so two people they get a ginormous space so nobody else is in the way so so is there a lounge or someplace that those parents are going to be an entrance and there will be an area that if people want to go and sit and watch they could But we're not devoting many square feet to that. So I'll have like a little side table or I'm in my entrance. I don't have the furniture layout yet, but I'll probably have a table there So especially if a parent needs to be able to hear themself think they're gonna go to the Side with me. I'm kind of barging in with questions here. Maybe other go ahead. Where are you drawing? Are you drawing from Minneapolis and St. Paul and rural areas? Where do you get, and is it mostly children? Yes, oh yes. So we, right now, our training goes down to age 10. So that's the youngest that we have right now. And then we have through, I mean, college aged. We have some professionals. That's our background is pro ball and we're higher end development. So that's that's kind of our clientele. But we're drawing from, I mean, really we have some people that drive from Southeast, but majority of where we pull from is we have a large Minotanka base. We have a large Wizada Hamel base. We have a lot of adina. We pull from, we have some in the cities, but not as much. And to be honest, I don't always know exactly where, you know, people live, but from the schools, that's the major. Do high school and college teams use your services? Oh, yeah. So we have, it's one of our favorite aspects of what we do is that we're a huge support to associations. So we have like Minnetonka-Baseball Association. We've really been an integral part of helping them expand their baseball program and kind of take their development in their training to the next level. We have incredible relationships with associations, some of the schools that come in. We do a lot of charity work for helping teams get to their kind of next level from competition standpoint. So yeah, we work with really anyone. That's the one lovely thing is we don't have teams. So we're not a club team outfit. We are development focused. So that's our special team. Yeah. I have a quick question. Yes, I'm going to ask. Where are you located now? Where will you be moving from? So we have our facility currently is in Eden Prairie. It's right on the border of Eden Prairie in Adina. So kind of in that golden triangle area. OK. OK. And have you been doing it for a while? Well, this is, yes, this is all we know. So it's my husband and myself. So Jim Browr is Browr baseball. And the funny part is that when I met him, I didn't know how many innings were in a baseball game and had ever been to a professional baseball game. So I have the fun part of interacting with the families and I do the communications and he wanted to be here, but he's training tonight. So he would be able to answer your questions kind of baseball forward, but it's been a journey and we were in professional baseball for 27 years. So, and then we started Broward Baseball when he stopped playing and started coaching professionally. So it's really all we've ever done and all we've opening a facility here and having a brick and mortar was a decision we made about five years ago but we started by our baseball established our LLC I think it's been about 13 years now so and we did it even before establishing the LLC and even when he was a player he would come home from his professional season and train and teach he loves he's a born coach so it just loves it. So it's also a great job. It's always been fun and also a roller coaster ride, just like every career, right? But I think that that is also what has created our perspective and the ability to step back and be like, love what you do that also comes with its challenges, because professional baseball is a roller coaster ride. We did both sides of it, so playing and coaching. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Do you do anything with softball? So we hope to, but that is something we don't currently have. I have actually in our current facility. I mean, I just had a whole softball team that was getting ready for a game come in and they would rent our space and use, you know, but we don't have it set up for softball. But that could be in the future. So yeah. OK. Any other questions for the applicant? OK, at this point, thank you very much. I'm going to open the public hearing. And I have no blue cards on this topic. I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand or anything. I'm going to close the public hearing and turn it over to the commission as to what they would like to do. Chair Anderson. I would say that this is a great idea and that we should recommend to approve the conditional What is it the conditional use permit? Yep. Thank you. Okay. So is that in the form of emotion? Yes. Okay So we have a motion to approve the conditional use permit. Do we have a second? Second that. OK, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? I'll just say one thing. One of the things I've observed that happens in Plymouth is there are a lot of sports type facilities around. And so we welcome you very much and it's just continuing year after year whether it's gymnastics or whatever you know here we are the center of the center of that so all right a roll call vote. Yes, Commissioner Wixson. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Fowler. I, Commissioner Marconda. Hi. Commissioner Olson. Hi. Chair Anderson. Hi. That passes. Thank you. So our recommendation is for approval and that goes to the City Council and we have a date on that. September 24th. September 24th. September 24th. But do stay in touch with staff because sometimes things change. All right. That is the first item on the agenda here of public hearings. And now we have a second item. So our second public hearing tonight is the review of the electrical vehicle and solar code update. As you recall, this came before us last month or the month before, and we had some specific questions and issues that needed some research, and we did not take action on that at that time, that we wanted additional information. And I think the topics were one architectural height-wise, also setbacks associated with the actual, what do you call these things, charging stations, and the setbacks there. Also, the parking issue. So those were the questions that I remember, and that Chloe remembered, because she gave me some tips on this earlier today. So we have a lowly and pre-bull here of WSB to update us on what we have in front of us for changes on this code update here. So Lollian, go ahead. Thank you, thank you, Chair and thank you, Commission. So yes, we're looking at a proposed ordinance amendment for electric vehicle charging and the solar ordinance amendment. So I'm going to take us through still the basics of what was in the original proposal, but I will highlight specifically what has changed in this round of review. So the rationale here is to make a quick streamlined permitting process that can be completed administratively for solar development as well as electric vehicle charging stations, both as an accessory use to a property. And so this would improve the existing ordinance and any gaps that are in that existing ordinance on these topics and improve the process overall for residents and for staff. So specifically with solar, like we discussed before, the definition for solar energy systems would be a system with the primary intention of generating electricity, storing electricity or otherwise converting electricity to a different form of energy. So that's a broad definition and that allows your flexibility amidst changing technologies and it would allow for technologies like solar hot water heaters, which you can see in photo number four. And then the two sub-definitions would be ground mounted systems and then roof mounted solar energy systems, which you can see in the range of photos on the right-hand side. So the proposed ordinance amendment would include performance standards to make this possible to implement by staff and to supplement requirements like building code and electrical code, but also refer to those codes. So the first change that I like to call your attention to is regarding height limits. So previously the height limits were classified based on zoning district. Now there are simply two categories. So flat roofed and slope roof. So that simplified, it clarifies and makes sure that houses with flat roofs would be able to have solar energy systems. Additionally as far as the roof pitch, we had discussion at the last meeting about whether houses with slope roofs would be allowed to do anything other than a flush mount, so something that would match the roof pitch. That would still be allowed administratively, and we've elected to keep the standard to match the pitch. We did a review of previous applications and found that we didn't find any examples of projects that were anything other than, like, flush mount with the roof for sub-roofs. So the second thing I'll highlight, this is not a change, but I do wanna clarify for the commission is that for setbacks, the ground mountedmounted solar energy systems would be subject to the same setbacks as accessory structures and then for roof-mounted they could be on any any surface of the building roof. So the permitting process would still be a building permit with planning department approval and then an electrical permit as well. And then the ground-mounted solar would require administrative permit additionally and this would not be allowed in the city center district. So the proposed amendment for electric vehicle charging has three primary definitions and these are all long acronyms. But the first is electric vehicle supply equipment or EVSE and so that's what is in the pictures on the right so that's the actual charging hardware you could say. And then the electric vehicle charging stations is the term for the parking space that is serviced by that charging equipment. So then a dedicated electric vehicle charging station is a charging station that's exclusively for electric vehicle charging used as opposed to being shared with other vehicles. So the proposed ordinance generally replaces unclear language and definitions and as performance standards, much like the solar energy ordinance that's proposed. I call out here the next change in the proposed ordinance amendment is that we've amended the residential district setbacks to require electric vehicles apply equipment to follow the same setbacks as accessory buildings. So this varies per district but it can be a setback from the property line, and then you also wouldn't be able to build in like an easement or anything like that. They would not be allowed in front yards in almost every case. And in all other districts, the requirement remains unchanged where this infrastructure would not be subject to structural setbacks and it could be located anywhere within the property lines. So the permitting pathway would still be a building permit with review or an electrical permit with review by planning division. So only in rare cases would a building permit be required and that's if they're messing with accessible parking spaces. So the additional ordinance items for the electric vehicle charging include a few incentives, which I have a slide where I'll go over in further detail. But overall, there is a proposed reduction in off-street parking spaces, an increase in allowable share of compact car spaces and some instances, and then an increase in on-site of compact car spaces and some instances, and then an increase in on-site directional signage in some instances. So first, the setbacks instance to kind of illustrate what this looks like on an existing site in Plymouth. On the right side of this slide, you can see the ice centers parking lot. A portion of this parking lot, they have installed some electric vehicle chargers. So the blue circles are the actual electric vehicles apply equipment and then the yellow boxes are transformer boxes which likely are owned by Excel that were installed associated with this. So you can see that those are located directly up against the curb. And so for this reason, the practical limitations of this staff recommends that there's no required setback. And instead, they'll practically be placed adjacent to the parking lot. And just for illustration sake, we've provided a drawing in the left side of where charging would be likely at a site like target so typically you'd probably expect to see these around the outside of the parking lot where there's already a grassy space where you could build this infrastructure and right up against the edge there. As an illustration for the setbacks, the setbacks that apply to both ground mounted solar energy systems and electric vehicle charging within electric vehicle charging specifically in residential districts, ground mounted solar everywhere would be the accessory building setbacks. So, this photo is just a photo of the accessory building hand out in Plymouth. So what's applicable here is the setbacks portion. And then again, you could put an electric vehicle charger in your garage. Okay, so now the complicated part, the parking. So we're going to envision a hypothetical site, a 45,000 square foot grocery store in the C4 district. So that it looks like basically the cub. It's a little smaller, but that's about the size of this building. So under the current ordinance, you just want to kind of explain this chart first. So the center portion is the requirements under the ordinance and then the portion on the right side is what that would look like as far as standard and compact spaces. So under the proposed ordinance, it would follow the same requirements as the existing Plymouth ordinance. So there'd be 225 spaces required, 20% of which could be allowable compact spaces. And then, under their proposed ordinance, if this developer wanted to provide anywhere between 5 and 22 chargers, the only Parkinson's that would apply would be an increase in compact spaces. So that would increase the allowable amount of compact spaces by 11. It would not affect the total amount of parking that's required on site. And the AstraCure is explaining that charging stations do count towards your minimum and maximum parking spaces. So in this example, we can't really predict where weather charging stations will all be compact or all be standard side spaces. And then the parking reduction standard would come into play only if 22 or more chargers, all of which would have to be level three were supplied on the site. And in that case, the total spaces would be reduced by 11. And then the compact space addition would still apply, like this middle example. So you'd still see the compact space as a 54 being larger than the 45. I'm happy to go over further questions on this chart if anybody has any questions, but this concludes the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Julian. Questions for her on this? Yes, go ahead. Commissioner Olson. A couple of things. You said that the solar is not allowed in the city center district. Why is that? So that's specifically for the ground-mounted solar energy systems. And so based on the density that's desired in the city center district, it's seen as not the most desirable use of land. Yep. Okay. And how much are charging stations being used in Plymouth right now? Thank you. That's a great question. I can't really comment on that. I kind of defer to Chloe. Yeah. Yeah, I don't have those numbers for you, but I can get them from our public works team. We have, we were one of the first cities to roll out electric vehicles for some of our fleet. So I know that those are used quite frequently and we have quite a few chargers like you saw out at the pick center the ice center and at the PCC. I know we charge low levels for those so I can reach out to our facility supervisor. I think she has that data. And then I think that that would be a good question because if we're going to give incentives for people to put them in we should see if they're popular. Yes, and I do know that for residential we are seeing what I think Sophie did an analysis not about 50 a quarter going into residential homes. We're seeing about 50 a quarter for applications for electrical permits. So, what if you residents have them? That's so kind of popular. Yeah. I think so. I did see in there reading through it that people can't use the parking space where the EV is unless they're charging. So yes, that is only the case if an incentive were to be given by the city. So if you're a developer and you, for example, if you own a grocery store like CUB and you want to put in 10 chargers that can be used by anyone, that's totally fine. That's allowed. That's agreeable. You can have whatever you structure you'd like, but any incentive like the compact space increase, signage increase or parking reduction would not apply in that case. Okay. My question though, I don't think I was very clear, is if you have, like say for example, 22 spaces, and they're all EVss and all the other parking spots are taken up. It look like if someone parked in there that that would they could get a ticket. Is that right? Yes, only in the case where the spaces are signed as such and that's, unless there is one of these incentives being given that's up to the landowner, landowner, whether they sign it as such and whether they choose to enforce it as well. Okay, that's not a city. The city would not be enforcing those parking regulations. So really up to the developer and landowner, how they'd like to handle that. Okay, and then the last question is, what is the cost of a permit? Chloe depends on the type of permit. An electrical permit I believe is based on valuation of the work so in the contractor submits typically they have to lay out the value of the work and then it's a percentage of that. I will pull up a previous one and see how much it was. I was just curious. Yeah, I'll check. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Other questions for the lion here? Yep. In the instance of the city center, I'm wondering, I know sometimes you see solar that doubles as covered parking. Would that count as ground mounted or would that be roof mounted and allowed? Great question. So, car port solar is counted as roof mounted. So that would be allowed. Okay. Great. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So what I'm hearing is that in a garage, you can put in a charging station with an electrical permit. Does that apply not only to single family, but does that apply to town homes as well where you have many grudges in one building? Thank you for your question. Yes, so that's that's a enforced via the electrical code and the building code, but yes, currently under the building code you need an electrical permit to install within a garage space and that is allowed in any sort of garage space. I've seen them in multi-family housing in Minneapolis. Yes, they can be in any sort of garage structure parking ramps similar. All right. And then talking about the parking reduction that's allowed when you have 22 or more chargers that are level three only, I mean that to me seems like a lot. I mean it seemed like you know a big expenditure and infrastructure and so forth and have you in your discoveries seen places that have done that many level three in one location or is this just a hypothetical it's never going to happen because it's just too far out there what do you know about that number? That's a great question thank you chair. So in my research and kind of just driving around, I haven't seen a site that so the standard is 10% of your required parking. I haven't seen a site commercial or industrial site that's done that. I actually know that in my personal apartment building, 10% of the parking spaces are electric vehicle charging spaces that are at least out to tenants. So I can comment on that. But I have not seen that in a commercial or industrial setting, which is the only place where a parking reduction in incentive would apply under this ordinance. So I think, yes, it would apply to a very limited number of sites and honestly, I'm not sure when we could predict that to happen, maybe in five years, but likely not in the coming couple of years that anyone would be building to that extent. There. Another question you talked about setbacks of the actual charging facility as having a nose setback from the edge of the parking. To me that could be troublesome in that a lot of times people will pull up until their wheels hit the curb You know the stopping point In which case by then you would have hit it So is there any thought given to maybe we ought to have it 18 inches back or something so You're not gonna run into it as easily. Yeah, thank you. That's a great question. So the building code actually requires ballards or a curb stop to protect that exact incidence and prevent that. So that's already standard within the state building code. Okay, so ballards. Yes, someone has thought about that and that is protected. We're thinking on the same page here. Yep. Final question is you know out in the future where are we going with this? California is saying by 2040 or something only electric vehicles can be used in that state, something like that. At some point electric vehicles may be much greater percentage of the total vehicles on the road. So, and this is maybe a question more for Chloe than for you. But are we putting something in here that will have the flexibility to move over time over the next 10, 20, 50 years to move with how the market goes with vehicles? I can comment briefly on that. So yeah, you're right, there's this market is changing a lot and we're seeing vast increases in the purchasing rate of electric vehicles, but right now it's still a very small percentage of the vehicles on the road in Minnesota. There have been state legislature items that are considering a clean fuel standard for Minnesota so far that hasn't gone super far, but it's possible that that comes up for reconsideration. And there is some sort of clean fuel standard. As far as this ordinance, I think that it's very flexible in that it refers to the standards like the building code. I'd call to note that a previous question at the previous commission meeting was about whether Plymouth should require electric vehicle ready charging. So actually the Department of Labor and Industry who makes the Minnesota State Building Codes, they formed a committee on that item and that issue. And one of the considerations of that committee has been whether or not to include and require electric vehicle readiness for our new buildings. So we can expect that there will be changes in the building code related to this and I think that this ordinance will be flexible to that. And when Plymouth adopts a new building code, then it'll just merge right in and allow flexibility. All right. It's good to hear the thinking of it. One little fun note. And Julie, it can probably relate to this because we're both in real estate. I have noticed over the years that somebody would buy a house by a property for one particular item. It's like I'm buying this view with a house attached or I'm buying this kitchen or this countertop with this house attached. Well, in the last six months, I have heard it at least twice that one of the really important things that they were buying was the charging station in the garage with a house attached. How did I ask how much it premium was? We love it. Yeah. They haven't answered for you. The good news to the residents at home is that an electric, okay, well, this is what I found right away, our building official will make sure you know I'm not quoting you a price, but it looks like a previous electrical permit we've issued for solar was $200 total for the building and electrical permit, and then for an electric vehicle charging station $46. Oh, let's go. Let's go. We'll take three. Again, I am not quoting that, and you need to submit for your own permit. I've got it. All right. All right, any other questions? Yes, go ahead. Commissioner. So if I have a hybrid vehicle, and I plug it in in my garage, the provider Excel or whoever the company is, they want that business, I assume, because they're selling electricity. What if I have solar panels on my roof? Can I charge my vehicle from my own solar panels? And so that's, you can get a permit for that. And there's some mechanism you buy to convert that solar into an appropriate, yeah, you can do that. Thank you for your question. Yes, so if you have solar on your rooftop, it'll feed into an electrical meter on the site. I think it depends on the property, but I think that they could share the same electrical meter as your electric vehicle charger. And so then any electricity that's coming off of your solar in Minnesota, you're allowed to power your house with that electricity first. Any access then goes into the grid in your compensated for it by Excel. So yes, you can strategically plug in your vehicle and charge using your solar to avoid. And one other question, do you know or maybe Claude, do most people leases roof solar or do they buy them? So it can come from the residential standpoint. I think it's very common to just purchase those outright for residential solar installations, for homeowners in particular. There are a few different payment structures. One of them is a power purchase agreement. That's typically more common if you have like a large commercial building because those are razor larger and more expensive. Where the developer would own the panels themselves but you'd purchase the electricity from it so you'd receive your bill reduction. It's essentially like just defraining the cost over 20 years as opposed to paying it all upfront. Thank you. Chair. Yes, go ahead. I have two questions. So on this current slide that you have up, number 12, it talks about example calculations. Were there other calculations that were also run that you were able to share or comment on? Because this is a specific to 45,000 square feet correct? Yeah, that's a great question. So these calculations would look similar depending on the type of development. I don't have other slides that I can pull up and show you with other calculations. But if we wanted to, we could absolutely, during this meeting or afterwards, I could share an example of what this would look like for other commercial industrial uses. Where we get the first row here, the no-charging station scenario, depends both on the size of the building and the use of the building. So Plymouth has requirements of, it's like, x number of stalls per square feet of a certain use. So, for simplicity's sake, we chose a building where the use is all the same throughout. Like, for example, if we were looking at that 229,000 square feet building with baseball, it'd be a much more complicated calculation to get to the minimum number. But this scale is the same. So the maximum allowable percentage of compact spaces, you could have 5% of your charging of your spaces being chargers, or you could have 80%, which I don't think is gonna happen. You'd have 80, but your compact spaces would always max out at 25 if that helps. And then you can see in the, I don't know if you have a pointer or anything, yeah, okay, see where my mouse is here. This 214 number, we take the minimum number and multiply by 0.95. So it would always be a 5% reduction. If you have 10% of this 225 or 100, whatever it is, it would always be just a 5% reduction. Okay, I hope that's a little bit helpful, but don't have more tables right now. Okay. I hope that's a little bit helpful, but I don't have more tables right now. Okay. And then the second question that I have is in regards to comments as it relates to the future trajectory of electric vehicles and market conditions changing and that, you know, the non-electric vehicles, I don't see that being decommissioned or going out anytime soon. And maybe even in the next couple of decades, right, that may not be at a trend that we're looking at. Would this account for some sort of verbiage that would need to be specified within this type of a proposal that this is going to be all dependent in terms of those types of conditions that would be factored in to assess what we're going to do going forward. Thank you for the question. So I think the question is about whether if someone wants to build these, do they need to make is there an assessment based on market need? Is that kind of the question? Right. Or some sort of a caveat that is built into this to be able to say that, you know, it's not assumed that it's going to be an upward trajectory. And that trajectory, just like market conditions, change, is going to be driven by what the market condition and the electric automobile industry is going to call for. So it's not to give anyone a false sense that we're always constantly going to moving up the trend for electric vehicle stations. Yeah, that's a good question. I understand, yes. So the ordinance really is kind of unable to address the business risk that land owners would take on when they decide to build infrastructure like solar panels or electric vehicle charging stations. So ultimately we kind of can't guide the land owner on whether this is a good assessment of risk and whether they really will end up needing or people end up using that many charging stations at their property. But what we can do is make it clear standards for that infrastructure and refer to things like the building code so that if they choose to build the infrastructure or choose to solicit to build that infrastructure we can make sure it's in good working order and not a strain to the public. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. At this point, this is a public hearing. So I am going to open the public hearing and I see noble cards on this topic Anybody approaching the mic? No not saying anybody With that I will close the public hearing and Bring it back to the Commission for discussion and recommendations. So yeah, go ahead. So yeah, I think all of my concerns with the solar side of things were addressed. And I think, as we saw, kind of the no setback for the charging stations also makes a lot of sense that's something that's gonna be happening on those edges of the property, so it's gonna make it easier to do. And I'm also supportive of the reduction in parking and the reduction or the increase in compact sizes allowed. I think it's something we might not see a lot of based on the percentages of chargers required to hit that, but we're talking a fairly minor reduction if you have such a high percentage of chargers, which seems to make sense, and the increase in compact stalls to 25%, I think also makes a lot of sense. It's a fairly minor incentive based on the cost that it would be to install those. So if it's the little bit that pushes a developer into adding those, I think that makes a lot of sense. So I will be supportive of all of those. Thank you. Other discussion items here? Chair Anderson. Yes. I agree. I think the city has done a really good job addressing the concerns that we had. So I would be ordinance amendment of chapter 21 as something that were to approve, but I see three versions of it, and I see over a hundred pages of it. So, Chloe, can you clarify what we're actually supposed to recommend approval of here? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. In your packet, there is an ordinance with the EV and solar updates. There's also an ordinance with comments so that we flagged the areas that were changed since your previous meetings. You can ignore that. And then there is an ordinance for the incentive parking that's shown on the screen in front of you. So based on what Commissioner Fowler had said, if that is the intended motion this evening, you could just recommend approval of both ordinances and that would be sufficient. If you're not in favor of the incentive, you would just recommend approval of the first ordinance. Commissioner, do you want to formulate that in a motion? I motion the approval of the ordinance amendment. Is that the right one? Yes, the ordinance amending chapter 21 entitled the zoning ordinance of the Plymouth City Code and the optional ordinance Yeah for the incentive for the incentives and do we have a second on that? A second that. Okay. We have a motion and the second any further discussion? Uh, roll call vote please. Commissioner Wixson. I Commissioner Fowler. I Commissioner Mark Honda. I Commissioner Olson. I chair Anderson. I. And so that motion has been approved and recommended for approval and that will go to the City Council on September 24th. September 24th. Okay, so for those out there in TV land watching this stay tuned. Final recommendation or final approval on this would be City Council on the 24th of September. Our last public hearing tonight is a review of an ordinance rezoning of 18035 Old Rockford Road from FRD to office. So Chloe is gonna make this presentation. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Tonight in front of you is a very unique case. We have a rezoning from FRD to office as Chair Anderson mentioned. You saw this last year, however, it was processed incorrectly on staff staff processed it incorrectly. So we're bringing this back forward as an official ordinance. It was previously passed via a rezoning. So I'm going to just briefly go through the request. Again, here is the site 1 8 035 Old Rockford Road. It's on the northwest corner of 55 and P&E Lane. It is two properties that currently has a single family home on site. The proposal from the city as the applicant this evening is to reason the property from FRD on the left to office as you can see on the right. The existing land use is commercial office and office is a listed and corresponding zoning district within the 2040 comprehensive plan. The previous proposal that you saw last year did include the rezoning as well as a senior condominium project. The City Council approved that project and the developer is still working on it. But staff apparently drafted the approval as a resolution instead of an ordinance. In doing some cleanup of that project this year with the developer, we found that in the city attorney recommended we bring that forward and try to be as transparent as possible and leave a good paper trail for the rezoning. So we are bringing it forward this evening as an ordinance. As you all are well aware of rezoning, you have to make the following five findings. Staff has outlined those in your staff report this evening, so I won't go through all of those. The biggest of which is that the rezoning needs to be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. As I noted, the comprehensive plan guides this for commercial office and office is a corresponding zoning district. Our recommendation this evening is that you recommend the City Council approve the rezoning and with that I'll see him for questions. Questions for Chloe. No questions. All right, so this is a public hearing and so I'm going to open the public hearing. And I have no blue cards on this matter and I see no one approaching. So I am going to close the So we have basically we're changing from a approval of resolution to approval of a recommending approval of an ordinance for the same project that we approved last year. Correct. Okay, so any discussion or a motion would be in order to recommend approval of an ordinance for this. I'll motion to recommend approval of an ordinance amending chapter one of the city code to reclassify certain land located at 18035 Old Rockford Road. I'll second that and the associated resolutions and the associated resolutions. Thank you. Yep, that too. There we go. All right. Any discussion on this? Roll call vote please. Commissioner Wixen. Commissioner Fowler. Commissioner Marconda. Commissioner Olson. Chair Anderson. Hi Wixen. Aye. Commissioner Fowler. Aye. Commissioner Marconda. Aye. Commissioner Olson. Aye. Chair Anderson. Aye. Thank you. So our recommendation is for approval on this and this will go to the City Council on September 24th. You got it. All right. So those out in television land that want to tune in to the City Council at that point, you can see what's happening there. So, that finishes our three public hearings. So, do we have any updates for the commission, Chloe? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Some brief updates. I'll try to get you out of here before eight. Our economic development coordinator position is posted on the city website. So if you know anybody that would be well suited for that position, please urge them to apply or connect them with me. Summit Worthy PEDICS has officially broken ground out on the Prudential Campus. Prudential project is now being called the Boulevard. We are hoping to schedule a ground breaking for the entire site with you in the upcoming month or so so stay tuned for more information on that. And everything the Planning Commission has recommended approval of thus far has been approved by the City Council. The only other update I have this evening is that Commissioner Droulee provided us a letter of resignation today resigning from the commission. She will definitely be missed. And I'll follow up with the next week. We can get back to a full commission again. Okay. Thank you for that update. I'm going to go back to the commission. I'm going to go back to the commission. I'm going to go back to the commission. I'm going to go back to the commission. I'm going to go back to the commission. I'm going to go back to a full commission again. Okay, thank you for that update. Any other business? If not, I will adjourn the meeting.