Based on the context provided, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names added. **Note on Identifications:** * **John Moes** is identified as the **Acting Chair** (referred to as "Mr. Chairman" throughout, as the listed Chair, Melanie Peters, is addressed as a separate commissioner in the dialogue). * **John Hinzman** is explicitly named as the staff member giving the report. * **Bryan Braun** (Public Safety Advisory Commission) is identified as the speaker transcribed as "**LeBron**" due to phonetic similarity. * **Missy McGrath** is identified as the speaker transcribed as "**commission progress**" or "**McGrath**." * **Melanie Peters** is identified as the speaker transcribed as "**Hallberg**" or "**Peters**" based on the Chair’s address to her. * **Commissioner Tykan** (likely a phonetic transcription of a member like Jim Teiken, though not on the provided list) is kept as transcribed to maintain accuracy to the audio's phonetic output while acknowledging he is a member of the commission. *** [0:00] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** meeting we'll call the meeting to order first up is the approval of the minutes from the February 27 2023 regular meeting Commissioners any questions additions none okay we'll go ahead and consider those to be approved all right and next up is our one of two public hearings first one is city of Hastings amend the city code chapter 155 solar energy systems staff report by John hinsman John I got ahead of myself thank you [0:53] **John Hinzman:** Mr chairman planning commissioner so tonight we've got a member to our city code the zoning ordinance chapter 155 to establish solar energy system rules at present we do not have any rules pertaining to solar energy systems which are your typical solar panels or other facilities which I'll get into in a moment we've handled those through building permits which have been fine for for local systems however we have been approached by individuals that have been wanting to do solar Farms which is a larger type of use and we didn't really have any direction on that so we put together rules for solar energy systems these these rules pertain to residential use as well as the solar farm use and I'll get into some of the details here in a moment so when we look at the type of systems here's what here's what we're looking at here we've got rooftop mounted systems which I'm sure you're familiar with these are on either people's residential homes or they can be on larger businesses and larger buildings themselves they can have Wall Mountain systems which showed here these are typically not really much on residential but more on on larger commercial institutional buildings you've got ground mounted which are not located within a structure itself but located on its own structure within a piece of property and then as you expand that further you've got your ground mounted solar farms and gardens so these are used these are typically a primary use of a property as you can see here very larger acreage that go on and typically energy is produced given back to a co-op or energy provider to offset so that is the type of systems that we're looking at here so with the rules that we have established here they go into varying degrees so if you've got a solar system under six square feet uh there's nothing needed you can do them any place no permits needed no performance standards just go ahead and do it so we're not going to have small little panels that may uh for lights or for other things that that work for wall mounted systems they're also allowed in all districts with a building permit we do put some performance standards in there to limit visibility to the right-of-way want to integrate them into the building design and comply with the minimum setbacks so that really wouldn't change much from what we have today through the issuance of a building permit roof mounted individual use is similar to that we have rules that would say it would be flush to the roof it could only be angled if the flush is not feasible it would have to be at the height requirements established in the district with a limited view from right-of-way and with all these there'd be a limitation of glare to the neighbors on this as well another category we have is roof mounted solar Gardens so this would be a system where you'd have a large institutional building for example and you would have solar arrays on top of those the way that the the rules would be is that these could be allowed on flat roofs with a building permit and many of the same requirements we've had is above there would be a decommissioning plan established with this one as well as some of the other ones the decommissioning plan establishes rules for okay there's a certain lifetime period for this this type of panel or this type of garden and once that is over with there's plans and place for you to decommission it to remove it and to put this put the area back to where it was when it was uh free development we have ground mounted solar systems as an accessory use these are kind of smaller units similar to this those you could do in all districts that the property is more than five acres so that is a delimiter we don't have a lot of properties that are over five acres within this city certainly most Residential Properties would not be eligible for that but some commercial institutional properties AG properties would be we established some height provisions on there and setback standards in Prohibition in the front yard and then we have the ground-mounted solar garden this is where we spend some of the most time on it because this is really the the meat of what we wanted to establish here the way that we have presented the ground-mounted solar Gardens is that they're only allowed within the agricultural District if you have over five acres and they would be with an interim use permit now when an interim use permit is is it's like a special use permit but it's for a defined period of time so we could establish this for usually 20 years or 25 years is a typical length of time for a solar contract and after that period of time there would be an there'd be an agreement signed after that period of time certain Provisions for turning it back to uh to what it once was there would be setback requirements screening and buffering requirements for underground connections storm water management and a decommissioning plan with that as well so that's kind of how the regulations would work I characterized that most of this chart here is is little change to what we're doing right now it requires just a building permit we don't have a solar building permit but we have an electrical or other building permit that we review some of the performance standards are a little bit different that we have today but not terribly different than what we have presently I think where the meat of the ordinance comes here is really what that Community solar garden since we don't really have anything like that at present the other portions of the ordinance that we are amending would be in providing what a definition would be for an interim use under our zoning code this is a temporary use until a particular date until the occurrence of a particular event or until zoning regulations no longer permit so we didn't have a definition for interim use so I thought it would be good to put one in there the other language that we're amending is under the agricultural District itself interim uses at present we have one interim use that is allowed within the agricultural district and that's pertaining to a waiver of site plan requirements this has been used by United Heroes League and by extreme sandbox to do improvements for a period of time that don't meet our minimum site plan requirements typically a paved parking lot or a permanent building but there'd be a date certain usually 18 months that those improvements would need to be made so we modified that section to include two different types of interim uses one for what we presently have in there which is the waiver of site plan requirements and the other one for the ground mounted solar Gardens in amending that code the only change we made to the interim use waiver was taking out the limitation of 18 months in that permit the rationale was that we're going to have an intern use agreement with each one of these uses and we can establish a time frame that meets that that we wouldn't necessarily regulate a certain amount of time for that so those are the amendments that we have before you tonight these are all to chapter 155 what you're asked to do is to hold a public hearing to consider the changes of this and then discuss any changes and make a recommendation to the city council so I can stand pretty questions thanks [8:19] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** okay thanks John we'll go ahead and uh open the public hearing do we have anybody on Zoom uh nope okay nobody on Zoom nobody present here so we'll open the public hearing and we'll close the public hearing there we go open it up to Commissioners for questions if not I have a question real quick um for the all systems under six feet six square feet so and then you go down and it defines it a little bit further under applicability under General standards yep um what's two so what's to prevent somebody from doing a six square foot section here and then moving over a few feet and doing another six foot square section still under the six square feet um it says cumulative area but it doesn't Define how what cumulative means does that mean they're all connected to the same Source are they are they being used for the same output on the same that's what I'm trying to figure out is what there's a loophole there so what's to prevent you know five six under six square foot sections from being connected together in a certain area which would keep it under the the um don't need a permit sure that's what I'm looking at [9:24] **John Hinzman:** yeah I understand your question there Mr chair I looking at that the cumulative and in my interpretation if they're connected to the same not power source but the same charging Source on that one I I would count that as one if it's if they're distinct things that aren't connected to the same Source then uh they would be separate that's the way I would make that interpretation [9:48] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** okay would it be possible to modify that to say exactly what you just said sure and put that into the um let's see my other Commissioners think about that put that into that paragraph so that it specifically defines the source and the charging Source the output input so that um we eliminate that that loophole that potential loophole because if you put up a five foot one now then you come back in six months and you go well I'm gonna do another five foot and according to the ordinance I don't need a permit for that one either and then you come back in six more months and you stick another five square foot one up now you've got you know 15 now you're into a bigger system but yet you still were under the six square foot okay roll that makes any sense all right got it that's kind of where I was on that one so okay so I recommend I'd make a recommendation to include the language about the charging Source output input that we just discussed [10:51] **John Hinzman:** okay and I'll make that change [10:52] **Commissioner Tykan:** okay thanks commissioner taken to that point could we just add language like six square feet per lot [11:03] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** yeah yeah I feel like six square feet for what per lot per lot okay thanks and it just anything over once you break the six foot you have to get a building permit yeah okay that was sure yeah absolutely okay Commissioners any other comments questions [11:32] **Bryan Braun:** um yeah there was one thing that I noticed um in in reading through this earlier I like so on the roof mounted one of the first things I thought just looking at the grid when I first opened this up the other day um was the limit view from public right of way I would just hate to you know some people's property like mine for instance um you know the system just wouldn't work quite right because the just the directionality of it was was so that you know the the optimal placement of the solar would be visible from the right way right so I like the the provision under the roof mounted Energy System um number four provided that minimizing visibility still allows the property owner to reasonably capture solar energy I was wondering if we could also add um just a little caveat to the wall mounted as well similar okay um yeah I I I understand you know thrust of why we would want to limit visibility from the public right-up way but I also wouldn't want to limit somebody's ability to have a functional or you know a system that breaks even eventually basically or gives what they're expecting um because of that just because of the way their properties oriented to the right-of-way [12:34] **John Hinzman:** okay thank you [12:35] **Melanie Peters:** okay yeah I think um as I was reading through this I know sometimes solar panels are Grant funded in certain ways like there's different entities that will do Grant or is there anything that we want to put in terms of language especially as I think of decommissioning anything explicit in terms of who's responsible for that whether it's the property owner or the grantee the granting organization um just something for consideration so we don't find ourselves debating who's responsible [13:16] **John Hinzman:** okay yeah I commissioner when I'm looking at the decommissioning my intent was that the owner would be responsible for the decommissioning plan and it's its responsibilities and that we'd we would obligate them with a interim use permit agreement I'm looking through this to see if there's anything more on this one but uh to add I could add some language on there pertaining to owner responsibility on that one for decommissioning [14:15] **Melanie Peters:** it does say a number four to require the owner and or operator cover both I think so yeah for the city media its discretion require the owner and or operator of the solar energy system to provide Financial Security in the form of an escrow or revocable letter of credit so there's a financial obligation for the owner operator under four there so maybe that covers it [14:35] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** okay I do like that suggestion because yeah you want to you want to pinpoint who the responsible party is especially if there's more than one party involved in the construction of it initially so that's good that's a very good point commissioner Peters um my main question that I had when looking at this is um for structures and homes and things like that that might already have solar panels in place this they wouldn't have to go through and and do building permits because it's already on it they're grandfathered in okay and then in the meantime I don't know how long it would take if the city council would vote on this at the next meeting and then it would be in place but um what does it mean for anyone who would want to be putting in solar panels and like kind of in this little interim period between once it's introduced here does it in the will the city council act on it right away [15:27] **John Hinzman:** sure okay answer that question commissioner with existing solar energy systems that are that are in place they would be grandfathered in so there would not be any retrofits necessary to meet any ordinance requirement on this if they were to go through and do a major uh a major change to that system than they would they'd be applicable at that point what we've done in the past with solar energy systems with and these have been on people's homes it's a building permit so it would continue to be a building permit as far as what happens between now and the adoption of the code um they would still be going in for building permit the regulations that would come in place here be more for the you know some of the height requirements and some of the more visual aesthetic things in the glare which don't have in there right now some of the other distance requirements like height are in there already so there shouldn't be too much of a change in that one at this point right now at the commission we're to take action tonight on this one there'd be a first and second reading by the council taking place on April 3rd and then April 17th so the 17th would be the final adoption date if I was to go forward [16:58] **Missy McGrath:** all right commissioner McGrath one more question um in the angled only if flush is not feasible not having installed a lot of solar panels is that um is it easy to make a determination if something is feasible in terms of whether it can be a flush or angle mounted [17:21] **John Hinzman:** yeah with that one we would we would look at the designer of the solar energy system to say if they're coming in with an angle say well why can't this be flush and to really have them tell us why it can't be and so I've left it intentionally open so we didn't we didn't have a hard requirement done that we we wrangled back and forth a lot of it internally with staff as far as what we wanted to do but we we left it a little bit open so we could make those determinations [17:48] **Missy McGrath:** good thank you [17:50] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** thank you commissioner thank you Mr chair uh John under four additional requirements letter C it says applications for solar energy systems all solar energy systems require a building permit it must include in the following information a site plan of existing and proposed site conditions is one clarification because you said anything under six feet wouldn't require any kind of a permit correct [18:13] **John Hinzman:** yep that's uh the way that this is handled in here the anything under six feet would be exempt from anything that would be within this code here so when you we're taking a look at the general standards the applicability exempts everything and then we go to the additional requirements it's imply that this would not I just yeah I just didn't know if the implication followed or if there needed to be language in there as well repeating it yeah I was just looking for clarification okay yeah I think the way it's stated right now it's clear to me that this would be not applicable for under six okay thank you John [18:41] **Commissioner Tykan:** okay good thank you thank you commissioner tyken thank you Mr chair um what do you mean I I think I know what we mean but what do we mean by flush to rough because flushed means the same height [18:59] **John Hinzman:** yeah I think what we really mean is the same angle as a roof right right right flush to me would be two things one would be at the same angle of the roof and as close to the rough physically as possible and I believe that there's some systems in which there's a racking mechanism where there's a separation for water to run down there so it's not exactly the panel itself is not attached fully fully but the the main portion of the structure is not attached directly to the roof there's a bracket in between there so when I'm looking at that I'm looking at at the angle of it and uh being close to the rough line okay in my mind and so to me the really the big part about here this thing is the solar Gardens and the solar Farms how many Lots do we have in the city that would could potentially put something like this up [19:48] **John Hinzman:** commissioner not much I mean the AG District that we have within the city is primarily located along County Road 15 and Glendale Road you know that that area 54 and Glendale Road that would really be the area within the city limits when you look to the the West there isn't any AG land within the city north to the South all the AG land there would be within within unincorporated Township area so the applicability of this is probably pretty limited but we did have individuals that are looking at that area about three four months ago okay and then if we acquired land that had a solar garden on it what would that look like for those landowners [20:39] **John Hinzman:** if we acquired land that had a solar garden on it um it would be a good question we we would likely we would have them come in for an interim use permit if it's a zoned AG District enter into an interim use permanent agreement for that I'm the question that would really come before us is would we want what would be the purpose for us doing that if it's a situation where a solar garden it's towards its its usable life for example 20 years down the road it's it's a 25-year contract and we're on year 22 and the develop and the owner is looking at Future residential development well then you know we could look at that in a very very smaller time period you know I would I think you know from future decisions the council might have I I don't know what the advantages would be for us to incorporate that an existing solar garden unless there was a development imminent within it [21:32] **Commissioner Tykan:** well I was just thinking like if they put one right next to the city and then we'd started oh sure outside of that solar garden area what did that look like I was just curious otherwise I think it's great and we should promote it solar energy as much as we can so thank you for doing this [21:49] **John Hinzman:** sure [21:55] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** and before we make a motion I'd like to hear what we propose for changes again Mr chair thank you sure um I think the first proposal was under General regulations well actually we're going to address that six square foot under the um applicability so General standards 3A to include language per lot correct that's what we agreed on was never a lot and then the second well the second recommendation was was to exempt the six square foot but John I think you explained that one that you interpret that as big all systems except for what we already said would be not included I think that's okay there um Commissioners am I forgetting any other [22:42] **John Hinzman:** yeah what I've what I've got down here so far and correct me if I'm wrong here was the perlot under the applicability section on 3A that we specify that that that's per lot that we put a modification in that same section that defines cumulative better that if it's if it's a system that's connected to the same output that's connected and if it's not within the same system that's individual put some some better word of definite better word of language than that within there under threes 3c4 when we're talking about roof mounted we would that reasonably capture of solar energy and some of those other phrasing in here we would also include those within 3B the wall mounted I think commissioner LeBron had suggested that and that might be it as far as what I have unless we'll go back here I got more pages um under the decommissioning which is on page seven that we make some specification on on owner's responsibility and existing sooner oh that was just a comment I made that's what I have unless I've missed something [24:12] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** uh nope that's what I have okay there you go commissioner Brown [24:18] **Bryan Braun:** yeah just one just one more question um just thinking on the ground mounted accessory use so the five acres I'm just thinking hypothetically so say I had an accessory shed right or um something some other accessory structure um if I wanted to do rough mounted on that I could under this ordinance right with the build information what if we just remove the structure and it was a solar panel sorry solar panel of similar you know size to an accessory use on a say residential residential parcel if somebody has like a larger parcel I guess it's mostly just the five acres I just wonder if I don't know how common it would be um but I don't know if I care either way you know if there's a shed or a Pergola or a structure underneath it or not if there's a solar panel instead if that makes sense you kind of follow so I just wonder if um you know where the five acres came from on the on the ground mounted accessory use um because I believe there's you know a lot coverage setbacks things about accessory structures and if we incorporated that in there if we could just fold that rather than disallow completely [25:27] **John Hinzman:** yeah my rationale for it is when you're taking a look in a residential scenario on something that's you know under an acre or so when you've got a structure for just a ground-mounted structure itself uh I don't know how well it fits into the residential character of the neighborhood frankly I mean if it's integrated within another structure on top of it great but when it's a standalone system it's a little bit it's a little bit different looking so it's really I came at it primarily from an aesthetic standpoint that is this really something that we want to see a standalone certainly want to encourage solar energy assistance but the Standalone there just wasn't too crazy about from an aesthetic standpoint that that's where I was coming from [Laughter] thank you commissioner LeBron [26:15] **Commissioner Tykan:** thank you Mr chair I just thought of this when you were talking about um would we allow the city to put solar panels in a park I mean let's see if the park is zoned agriculture what if it's on a structure you could yes like I say a warming house you could you could do that uh if it was a ground-mounted system and a park over five acres you could there's that'd be some other Regional Parks uh if a park is zoned Agriculture and there might be a few that are that could provide for a solar energy Garden if we wanted to do that so possibly I mean I I live across the street from a large Park I'm sure it's more than five acres I'm pretty much guaranteed it's bigger than five acres um is that something we want the city I'm looking to my fellow Commissioners here is that something we allow the city to do or not do you mean do we want the city to go into the solar energy business is that what we're kind of looking at because I can't remember I'm not saying they're going to solar business but um maybe there's a need or just a community action to provide solar and so the city wants to kind of step up to the plate and show how it can be done I I'm just throwing it out there like there's large tracts of land in the city that the city owns yeah that they could put up I'm not saying put up uh you know five kilowatt solar garden but maybe it's something on smaller scale or provides power for a well pump pulse or something like that [28:30] **John Hinzman:** yeah and we don't have to change this but I'm just saying I'm just throwing this filter like could we see uh where the city we want the city to do something wouldn't that come before us at some point in time and if it's yeah there's kind of two instances that I see if if it is a ground-mounted solar guard for example be an interim use permit public hearing reviewed and conditioned set and determination at that point is this something we want to allow or not the one where it doesn't come in would be if you had a property over five acres and you've got a ground-mounted solar system you could theoretically put those in with the building permit I guess the question would come up from the parks aspect is usually the five acre Park areas are pretty highly programmed and if you're putting in solar panels does it detract from the use of that for a recreational facility so I I don't know how common that would be I live across the street from one that's pretty much a big open grassland with a couple Trails through it so nothing else happens on that besides me walking my dog through the grass yeah and a bunch of ducks and coyotes and other stuff [29:38] **Commissioner Tykan:** yeah I so I'm just like could the city put in a big soil Garden there sure do we want the city to do that or so that's why I threw out there kind of selfish on my my part and I'm not saying I'm for or against it I'm just I was curious yeah sure that's good food for thought [29:51] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** yeah it's absolutely commissioner Hallberg did you have your light on or nope [29:55] **Melanie Peters:** um I just don't see the city putting it up in the Parks there's no room where to power nothing to really power exactly I'm thinking of myself but there's literally nothing in that park I got lights and maybe that's about it but they're all sometimes we look to the government to kind of pay them yeah I'm doing things and I'm trying to figure out too and I'm stretching out this one Commissioners because probably speaking stuff I don't know a lot about but when you look at the public dedication of a Parkland May preclude that from occurring anyway because it's being dedicated for a specific purpose which is for open space or Recreation if you're if you're using that for an income related thing I don't know if that'd be consistent with with the use of Parkland so it it may be a moot point but I'm not certain of that [30:50] **Melanie Peters:** okay again I'm not looking for changes I just threw it out there if you would support the activity would it I mean if it could support the activity that's going on there I guess my thought went right away to like up at vets where there's a lot of electricity that's used up there to power all the lights and the buildings and stuff um you know if there were solar panels up there to help power some of those things and it's not a profit being these permits to showing like oh this is how it could be used I I could see something working there but or that could be a situation where it could come up but but then what I'm hearing you say is that that could come before even how this is defined that could still come before us as an interim use or a special use permit or something if it's a larger solar garden [31:45] **John Hinzman:** if there's a if there's a third party out well I'll go back on that one because the primary use is still going to be a park on that one is supposed to be an accessory use that would happen on this I think it'd really be a decision that would come before the the Parks Commission and the and the city council more than anybody else at this point because really when you look at the solar Gardens that's a primary use of property primary use of the property is still going to remain a park so it wouldn't probably it wouldn't fall under a solar garden interim use permit because it's it's not the primary use so they could really be a if they were to do that and say hey we want a leasy portion of a park for solar panels on that one it would be under zoning a building permit if it's over five acres and anything that happens in a Parkland would be reviewed by The Parks and Recreation Commission and ultimately approved by the city council that's what I think that one would run you know over the transportation shops they do have solar we have soil well actually we have solar right in our parking lot at work we have a huge solar structure and then the transportation shops have a huge solar structure on the south side and they take up a lot of room I mean there's a lot of infrastructure that goes into building one of those and so it would definitely change the look of the park completely I mean it would totally change everything about it you can't just put them in there and you know it's it's a it's interesting to watch that go in it's not a small feed that's for sure no so good good discussion they could just put one in right now if they wanted to because we don't even have an ordinance on the book you don't have anything right now so right now actually if anything we're working right now we're restricting actually um you know we're actually restricting the city from really going forward with any kind of solar Farms because right now there's nothing to prevent them from doing it so this is actually you know a good thing for everybody [33:46] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** I'm sure there's any other questions comments if not I'll take a motion if we're ready at that point Mr Hubbard [33:53] **Commissioner Tykan:** Mr chair I'll make the motion to uh prove the amending of city code chapter 155 solar energy systems and do you want to incorporate those with the incorporation of the changes as discussed [34:10] **Bryan Braun:** okay I'll second it [34:11] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** commissioner tykan second yeah any new discussion all right if none all in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed and that motion carries okay thank you thanks John and with this recommendation it'll move forward to the city council April 3rd would be first reading on the consent agenda and then the second reading and action would take place on April 17th April 17th yep thank you okay thanks John um next is another public hearing for amending city code chapter 155 for escrows and fees and again John hansman [34:41] **John Hinzman:** yeah and thank you Mr chairman planning Commissioners so today we've it's a little a little confusing on this one I know there's was a revised document sent out as well but we are looking to establish better rules on escrows and fees as they relate to chapter 154 which is the subdivision code in chapter 155 which is the zoning code with officially tonight with the public hearing the public hearing noticed that when Alpha Planning Commission only referenced the change to chapter 155. so officially we're holding the public hearing for that but since both changes are identical to both both codes and the Planning Commission has purview over review of both of those we'll look at both of those tonight in discussing that with the city attorney we're able to hold the public hearing from the subdivision code with the second reading there so the bottom line is there'll be two public hearings two bytes of the Apple from Planning Commission and city council relating to these two codes so really what are we looking to do here one of the things is within both the zoning code and the subdivision code we have specified fees within there those fees that we have within there are frankly on a date we haven't we haven't kept up with those all the fees that we have within the city are kept under one place which is chapter 3403 so we would just eliminate the fees there we'd make reference to say hey if you're looking for the fees the fees are within the fee schedule which is 3403 that way we're only updating one piece so that that's the easiest thing that we're doing out of this the other is to establish more specific requirements for escrows now in discussion with the City attorney our escrows right now are listed within the city code and uh it doesn't give any clear direction as to our ability as a city to collect more money if it if an escrow account becomes deficient the escrows are established in addition to the plan application fee in order to defray some of the cost we have so with larger projects like site plans and subdivisions we may have outside engineering look at that we may have attorneys look at that for agreement we want to be able to have the developer pay the direct costs associated with the review and and to do this we establish an escrow because each of these developments is difficult to gauge how much they're going to ultimately cost we established that s girl and draw from it any escrow funds that remain at the end of the project would be remitted back to the applicant that remains on there so what we're doing with this one is we are establishing a few Provisions one where it were more clearly identifying what these expenses would be paid for Consultants attorneys planning engineering fees other expenses due to the application we're also stating that the balance of the cash escrow if it's depleted less than 10 percent they shall deposit additional funds so there's a key that that this is not a set fee but when the escrow funds becomes depleted the developer is obligated to replenish them we've had some some legal issues in other cities in which these were not clearly defined and the cities were unable to collect additional escrows because it was a singular fee that was established we want to prevent that from occurring uh we're obligation by the city to to pay those to pay back those escrows upon the end of the uh the period itself when the project is over so that's what we're doing the other actions that are within both these and I should say that chapter 154 155 the regulations are identical in it are taking into consideration are also putting the existing language that's in there generally within the code that that does not change what we are changing is that escrow payment provision so a little bit confusing but that that's what we're doing here tonight on that one so again asking the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing to amend chapter 155 tonight and then I can stand for any questions thank you [39:03] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** okay thanks John um I'll ask one more time anybody on Zoom nope no I'm putting away Zoom okay so we'll open the public hearing and we'll close the public hearing since we have nobody on zoom and nobody present here to speak and we'll go open it up for Commissioners with questions [39:10] **Melanie Peters:** um just if I read this correct if I think about a mortgage and you know when you escrow your taxes when you you agree that the mortgage company can adjust your escrows every year if your taxes go up they pull more money they increase your payment it's essentially what you're doing here is saying if the if the fees if the costs go up the developer has the obligation of paying more into that escrow account to make up the difference correct is basically what we're doing is putting an automatic component into this [39:46] **John Hinzman:** yeah what we're doing is the way that the escrow fees are established in code right now it could be it could be defined as a singular payment if it's a two thousand dollar rescue you pay 2 000 and that's all the developer has to pay even if the fees are three thousand dollars so we're we're trying to put language in there to say hey this is something that is the purpose of it if it becomes depleted the developer is obligated to replenish it [40:02] **Melanie Peters:** okay thank you [40:05] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** commissioners any questions comments [40:10] **Bryan Braun:** commissioner LeBron one comment I just really like the use of Nexus and uh in 154.11 a okay [40:16] **John Hinzman:** I gotta put two words in thanks oh [40:34] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** Commissioners any other questions if now take a motion if we're ready to make one commissioner Titan [40:42] **Commissioner Tykan:** just a point of clarification we're just voting on 155 correct [40:48] **John Hinzman:** correct we are just voting at 155 and then both of them will be handled yeah eight down the road what Planning Commission has an option we've got two actions one for chapter 154 one for chapter 155. commission may combine those into a singular motion or they may vote of those individually as a recommendation [41:09] **Commissioner Tykan:** I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of 155 and 154 as noted in our packets [41:14] **Bryan Braun:** okay commissioner taken second second commissioner LeBron [41:16] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** any new discussion if none all in favor say aye aye aye opposed that motion carries okay Commissioners same schedule on that one uh April 3rd first reading April 17th there'll be a public hearing on the subdivision code as well as the chapter 155 final action as well on that so thank you all right thanks John another under actions we actually just took care of that or is that separate [41:26] **John Hinzman:** yes we yeah we took care took care of that uh number number five so five okay we took care of four and five yeah all right we'll move on to other business another business here the uh city council at the last meeting did approve the ordinance for annexation for the walded at Hastings development now I really should say the Walden and Hastings development it's the piece of property there's no obligations granted for any development at this point uh but it is a good first step towards what might occur there in the future for development so that is being recorded at the uh the state so that'll officially be brought into the city zoned agriculture at this point next steps on that would be for the developer to go through an environmental assessment worksheet which is going to contemplate environmental impact for various items of the subdivision probably what a point that a lot of people are interested in is the traffic impact study which would be part of that so in communication with the developer to start that in there once that environmental assessment worksheet is complete there'll be actions I Believe by the Planning Commission as well as the city council to review that worksheet to to see questions that are in the and to declare whether this is a sufficient enough for whether more environmental work needs to be done so there's there's environmental work that comes into it and then the particular land use applications that would forward as far as a time frame on that am I unclear at this at this point of posed that question back to the developer at this point so when I know more information I'll share it with the group here so we've got that one going other projects go on out there's a lot of cranes a lot of apartment builds under construction so that's fun to see here with the Confluence itself they're they're getting close to establishing an opening date there have not done that yet but we've been in conversations with them in the last couple of weeks on Final closeout materials related to environmental uh environmental obligations liquor licenses all the operational items they need to really start within there so I would expect that that should be happening here shortly that there will be an announcement pertaining to when that will be opening but in my review of the project and in touring it they're making very good progress on there and things are looking more like a restaurant and a convention center and a hotel which is great to see after after all this time so that project continues as far as Planning Commission meetings our next meeting is scheduled for April 10th don't have any public hearing scheduled at this point so stay tuned to see what will happen for that meeting so that's all I have [44:18] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** okay thanks John um I did have one I did have a couple questions sent to me after the city council and I know how to answer them so I just answered generically speaking for the annexation you know how they were tied together the annexation wasn't going to happen unless we had a development come forward yes we had a development come forward then the annexation was approved so as the first developer backed out right so if that were to happen again for some reason the annexation stays though that's permanent correct [44:40] **John Hinzman:** yeah the annexation stays it doesn't matter what happens going forward that stays city property right right somebody had asked me that question or I had a couple people email me and I said I'd ask and I wasn't quite sure how that worked yeah so what happened with the project right now it's an it will be officially annexed in the coming weeks once we get the director from the state and it becomes in his AG property so if the developer goes if the this development goes away it remains as is it's an agricultural piece of property if uh if this developer follows through we review that as it is if this developer goes away and a new developer comes in here we do the same thing on that one make that separate review but it's it's kind of a chicken and egg situation when you deal with annexation development I mean the council wants to be in the position to have a fairly good understanding of what could come in there and that there's something that seems fairly certain prior to annexation and the owner of the property will want to know that too just because there's certain negative implications if you're develop if you're annexing property into the city from a property tax standpoint it remains agriculture [45:15] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** thank you perfect thanks Commissioners any other business anything else if not I'll accept a motion to adjourn [45:53] **Bryan Braun:** so moved Mr LeBron [46:00] **Missy McGrath:** second commission progress second [46:03] **John Moes (Acting Chair):** any true discussion all right all in favor say aye aye aye opposed