This transcript is for the **Hastings Planning Commission** meeting on October 9th, 2023. Based on the provided list of officials and the context of the dialogue, here are the identified speakers: [0:00] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** This is the uh Hastings Planning Commission meeting for October 9th, 2023 regular meeting. Call the meeting to order. First up on the agenda: approval of the minutes from September 25th meeting. Commissioners, any changes, corrections? If none, we'll consider those to be approved. There are no public hearings tonight, so under other actions: first one is McKinstry Ascension LLC variance back 1590 Highway 55 and staff report by Justin Fortney. [0:40] **Justin Fortney (City Planner):** Thank you very much. Um, the county is intending to incorporate renewable energy into their facilities. The consultants have been identifying uh location for solar um array at the government center here in Hastings, and they have a proposed location shown on this uh aerial photograph um marked with a star as feasible and um well screened. They found that the age of the building roofs would not allow for rooftop installation. The open space to the north has steep slopes; some areas are identified for possible uh expansion. The southwest corner of the campus is highly visible from area streets, entrances, and seems to be more identifiable as the front uh carport array in the parking lot would provide substantially less energy and is not ideal due to the parking lot configuration. This is a—an above aerial screenshot showing the location of the solar arrays in blue. You can see the site is pretty well screened with trees um those yellow dots kind of represent an open area that would be uh planted with additional trees. On this um sheet you—you can see some of the more specific uh planting locations for evergreen trees and um you can see at the top of the screen it shows the face of the building, which is about 150 ft away from the solar array. And at the bottom of the screen you can see the uh North Frontage Road and um at the bottom of the screen there's an elevation profile showing the kind of an elevation view of the difference in elevation, starting with the—the building at the highest point on the left, going down to the lowest portion about where the solar array would start, and then it would go up the hill to the south um stopping about the crest of the hill and then uh there's another hill that goes—slopes down to the—to the road. And that red line just kind of shows uh just the—the general elevation uh profile where that was taken from. So you can see that the elevation will hide much of the—the solar array in addition to the existing trees and the proposed trees. This is a photograph taken from uh North Frontage Road. You can see the—the slope going up to the—the crest um and then it would slope down and then back up again to the building. This is taken um on the street side of the trees towards the building. This is taken on the other side of the trees um looking to the north at the building. And this is taken from the top of the hill uh towards the street um the—the lower hill, not the one up by where the building building is, of course. Um, this is just a zoomed-in uh screenshot of the civil plan showing the uh proposed uh 6-foot evergreen trees that are proposed for planting um also you can see that there's uh the fence um that would be around the proposal. And this is a—a plan drawing and a—elevation drawing of the proposed solar array uh mount and units um on the high side they're about uh 9 ft tall and um about 4–54 in clearance from the bottom to the ground. Um, accessory uses are not allowed in the front yards to assure that the principal buildings are the—the—the most visible. The front is determined by the address uh for consistency. The south side of the campus does not include main driveways or doors—main doors—but it does appear to have the most prominent architecture in um in mass of the building. The proposed arrays are such a distance away at about 150 ft and below grade that they wouldn't block or detract from the architectural prominence of the—the visual elevation of the—that front of the building. Um, the public within 350 ft were notified—property owners—of the proposal. Staff has not received any comments. Staff um did a review of the—of the variance and I'll—I go through that right now. Um, the variances are deviations from a strict compliance um of city code. They're regulated by the city code and state statute. Um, the Board of Adjustment, which is the City Council, and um the Planning Commission as a recommending body must make findings that the owner would suffer practical difficulties um if the strict compliance were required rather than um it just being an inconvenience um and this kind of boils down to—to some of—some of these main points being that there is something physically unique with the property that contributes to the practical difficulty. The variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or the income potential of the property. The variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, unreasonable, or contrary to the comprehensive plan. And practical difficulties must be created by the code rather than a past or present property owner. Staff is recommending approval of the—of—of the variance um based on the—oops—based on the—the findings that are in the staff report. Um, but um as a—a summary of that um the owner would suffer practical difficulties with a strict compliance of city code due to the unique nature of the site developing as a campus with the front being not identifiable in one specific location, and the code does not address this in regards to accessory structures. There are unique physical conditions that would not allow the array in alternative locations including steep slopes. In addition, the older building roofs wouldn't support uh roof-mounted solar array. Also, having locations that are more prominent to streets and entrances would not be um an option. The comprehensive plan is also supportive of solar energy and even suggests that there may be reasons to exempt it from certain standards. So with that, I can answer any questions um also the—the agents for the applicant are—are in attendance if uh they need to provide any additional background or information. [8:24] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay, thanks Justin, appreciate that. Commissioners, I'll open up to any questions or discussion. Just for the record, I'll be abstaining from any discussion or voting tonight due to my connection to the project to the county. So with that, I'll open it up. [8:35] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** Commissioners, questions, comments? I'll take a motion wherever you want to go with it. Commissioner Moes, any questions? [8:44] **John Moes (Commissioner):** All right um I was looking at the fence and it says "proposed silt fence." Is that a permanent structure or is that temporary? [9:02] **Justin Fortney (City Planner):** Um, the silt fence would just be during construction. [9:07] **John Moes (Commissioner):** And then do we allow 7-foot tall chain link fences in people's front yards? [9:12] **Justin Fortney (City Planner):** Um, the—the fencing regulations that we have are—apply to residential properties; commercial ones don't have uh prohibition on a 7-foot tall fence in the front yard. [9:24] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Okay. Um, and you know, my comment was I—I looked at this I'm like, "There's no way that you can't see that from the road," and I drove by and I'm like, "Oh wow, I never realized there was a—a dip behind that." Um, the only other question I have: does this open us up to more variances of people putting solar in their front yard if their—their backyard is wooded or...? [9:52] **Justin Fortney (City Planner):** Uh, this on itself staff doesn't believe would um because of the—the reasons that we cited um I don't think would apply to any residential properties. I think it's—we differentiated it based on the fact that it's a—it's a complicated campus that has uh an address and prominent uh view from one side, but other—other sides function more as a—as a front yard, and this is 150 ft away from the—from the building and is um at a significantly lower elevation. [10:33] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Okay, thank you Madam Chair, that's all I had. [10:43] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** Commissioner Silber, I just have a question— [10:55] **Jennifer Silber (Commissioner):** I just have a question on the tree line, if that's going to be maintained on the west side of the um the solar array, if those are going to stay in place. [11:05] **Justin Fortney (City Planner):** Yes. [11:10] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** Okay. Commissioner—anyone? No? Okay. Commissioner Moes? [11:15] **John Moes (Commissioner):** I'll make a motion that uh we recommend approval of variance 2023-30. [11:30] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** Second? [11:32] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** Second. [11:35] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** Commissioner McGrath, second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say "Aye." [11:37] **Commissioners:** Aye. [11:38] **Rachel Swedin (Vice Chair):** All opposed? And I'll abstain. Motion carries. Thank you. [11:40] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** All right, on to other business. Justin, thanks for coming, have a good evening. [11:42] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Welcome. The City Council approved the South Oaks Fourth Edition plat and we've got uh public hearing scheduled for October 23rd Planning Commission meeting um for two adjacent parcels in Industrial Park, both requesting special use permits for uh service uses. [12:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Thank you. Commissioners, any other business? If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn. [12:05] **Jennifer Silber (Commissioner):** So moved. [12:08] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** All right, Commissioner Silber. Second? [12:10] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** Second. [12:12] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** All right, on a second. All in favor say "Aye." [12:14] **Commissioners:** Aye. [12:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Opposed? We are adjourned.