On the agenda: Portage meeting — Data Center (Feb 19)

CITY OF PORTAGE PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, February 19, 2026
7:00 PM
Portage City Hall Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1.

January 22, 2026 Meeting minutes

PUBLIC HEARINGS
*

1.

A request for a taller and larger residential accessory building containing a basketball,
volleyball courts at 300 Marylynn Court.

*

2.

Ordinance Amendment No. 25/26-2 to amend Ch 42, Art 4. Div 3. to establish a temporary
moratorium for Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems.

SITE/FINAL PLANS:
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
STATEMENT OF CITIZENS:
ADJOURNMENT:

Star (*) indicates printed material within the agenda packet.

(1)

CITY OF PORTAGE PLANNING COMMISSION
Thursday, January 22, 2026
7:00 PM
Portage City Hall Council Chambers
The City of Portage Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 2026, was called to order by Chair
Corradini at 7:00 p.m.
IN ATTENDANCE
• Peter Dame, Chief Development Officer
• Biqi Zhao, Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning
• Eric Feldt, Senior City Planner
ROLL CALL
Mr. Feldt called the roll: Chairman Corradini (yes); Vice Chair Baldwin (yes); Secretary Freiman (yes),
Adams (yes); Copp (yes); Orwig (yes); Fries (yes); Ladd (yes); and Crowell (yes).
9-Present; 0-Absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Minutes dated November 11, 2025
Motion by Commissioner Fries seconded by Vice Chair Baldwin to approve November 11, 2025, minutes
as submitted. Upon a voice vote, motion carried 9-0.
STATEMENT OF CITIZENS
Motion by Chair Corradini to modify the agenda to move Statement of Citizens before the Site Plan item,
seconded by Vice Chair Baldwin. Hearing no opposition, motion passed.
The following statements were received:
1. Dave and Cathy Irwin, 2205 W. Osterhout Ave. Stated various concerns about the Site Plan project
on the agenda consisting of access, refuse design, accuracy of their house drawn, garbage truck access
and noise, fencing, density, zoning districts in neighborhood, fire truck access, sidewalks, and
timeliness of construction.
2. Julius Troth, 10406 Dewberry St. Stated concerns about maintenance of city property, and concerns
about the Site Plan project on the agenda consisting of fencing and children safety.
3. Lisa Betts, 2202 Osterhout Ave. Stated various concerns about the Site Plan project on the agenda
consisting of access, headlight glare, and density.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None.
SITE/FINAL PLANS
1. An application seeking Site Plan approval for Oakland Apartments at 10506 Oakland Drive.
Mr. Feldt provided a presentation outlining the Site Plan proposal, site information, maps of the area, site
pictures, review standards, analysis, and recommended action. He concluded the presentation by
recommending the Planning Commission approve the Site Plan for the Oakland Apartment development
at 10506 Oakland Drive.
(2)

Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2026
Page 2

Applicant, Chad Scott, 6425 E V Ave. Vicksburg, MI, clarified several site items including overall
vehicular access, garbage design and management, number of allowed housing units, apartment rental
price, and size of apartment units.
The Commission discussed and asked various site items to the applicant including fencing, ADA parking
and unit design, site plan drawing accuracy, garbage management and noise, sidewalks, access location,
waterline adequacy, and emergency access.
Mr. Scott agreed to a taller fence height with a preference for using a berm design.
Mr. Feldt clarified when a fence height would require Building permit.
Motion by Commission Fries, supported by Commissioner Copp, to approve a Site Plan for Oakland
Apartments at 10506 Oakland Drive as submitted with the following condition: The top of the fence height
along the western and southern property lines shall be a minimum of 8 feet in elevation via a potential
combination of construction methods. Roll call vote, motion carried 9-0.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS/ STAFF
Mr. Feldt stated that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 5.
Chair Corradini thanked the public for attendance and comments, and indicated he will be absent for the
next scheduled meeting.
Vice Chair requested having the Statement of Citizens placed earlier in future agendas.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Corradini adjourned the meeting at 8:35p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Eric Feldt
Senior City Planner

(3)

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Peter Dame, Chief Development Officer

DATE: February 19, 2026

SUBJECT:
I.

INTRODUCTION:

The applicant (Chad Scott) seeks Planning Commission approval for a larger and taller proposed
detached pole barn pursuant to Zoning code Sec. 42-121(B) at 300 Marylynn Court. The pole barn is
designed at 2,960 square feet in size (74’L x 40’W) with a mid-roof height of 19.5’. Therefore, the
applicant seeks Commission approvals for 1) 789 square feet of additional accessory building space per
Sec 42-121(B)(1)(b)(3), and 2) an additional 3.5 feet of building height per Sec 42-121(B)(1)(a). The
larger size and height will accommodate a basketball court and overlaid volleyball court for the property
owner’s use. The exterior will match the existing house colors with white siding and a black roof. The
building will have a heater, no air conditioning or insulation. Electrical will be provided for lighting.
Project details and analysis are provided in this memo.
The applicant has filed a Building permit for this project but is awaiting Commission approval of the
above requests. If Commission approval is gained, the permit is expected to be issued and construction
may commence.
II.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Site and Neighborhood Features
The 4-acre property is located in the southcentral portion of Portage at the end of Marylynn Court near
Gourdneck Lake. The owners, Emily and Russell Mahoney, developed the site in 2023 with a 1-story
home with walk-out basement (approx. 6,000 square feet in size (approx. 4,900 sq ft of finished area))
and an attached 3-car garage (936 square feet). The property is accessible only from Marylynn Court, a
private street. The property and neighboring parcels are zoned R-1C ‘One Family Residential’.
The subject site was partially cleared of natural vegetation in the middle and eastern sections for the
construction of the single family house and general lawn area. The remainder of the site consists of a
variety of deciduous trees and a mix of shrubs.
The neighborhood consist of a mix of lot sizes and characteristics, but largely developed with singlefamily homes. Properties to the east along Marylynn Court and adjacent James Way (both private
streets) are large in size (4-6 acres) and consist of preserved trees and other natural vegetation. However,
properties to the west along S. Westnedge Avenue are much smaller and located within a subdivision
plat (Matteson’s Estates Plat). Properties to the south along Gourdneck lake are narrow and deep.
III.

ANALYSIS:

(4)

Page 2

Applicable Zoning Regulations
The zoning code establishes regulations for accessory buildings in residential districts under Sec 42-121,
such as yard setbacks, maximum size and height to ensure that accessory buildings remain ‘accessory’ to
the main house. This ensures that residential districts have a residential appearance and function.
1) Maximum Accessory Building Size - Sec 42-121(B)(1)(b)(3)
The total floor area of all accessory buildings (attached or detached) shall not exceed 100% of the
ground floor area of a 1-story house or plus 50% of the second-floor of a 2-story house. However, that
size may be exceeded subject to Planning Commission approval if a property consists of two or more
acres in size. See code section below.
Sec 42-121(B)(1)(b)(3): The floor area of accessory buildings may exceed the ground floor area of the
main building plus 50 percent of the second story when the residential lot or parcel has an area of
two acres or more. However, when the floor area of the accessory building exceeds the ground
floor area of the main building plus 50 percent of the second story, the accessory building and use
shall be subject to the approval of the planning commission after a public hearing. To ensure
harmonious relationships and to minimize conflicts between adjacent uses, the commission shall
consider the proposed characteristics and uses of the building in relation to existing land uses and
to the future land uses as shown in the comprehensive plan. The commission may attach
requirements to such accessory building and use when it deems necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse
impacts on surrounding properties.
With a property size of four acres, the applicant seeks Planning Commission approval for additional 789
square feet of accessory building size – see Table 1. Staff notes that only above grade living area is used
when calculated the maximum allowed accessory building area, not basements.
Table 1: Existing, Proposed
Building Sizes
Size (sq ft)
300 Marylynn Court - Existing, Proposed Buildings
Existing House size (main level)

3,107

Max. Allowed Accessory Bld Size

3,107

Existing Attached Garage (accessory building)

936

Remaining allowed accessory building size

2,171

Proposed Pole Barn

2,960

Requested additional size area (exceeded area)

789

Proposed New Total Accessory Bld Size

3,896

2) Maximum Accessory Building Height - Sec 42-121(B)(1)(a)
Detached accessory buildings such as sheds, garages, pole barns, etc. shall not exceed 16’ in height as

(5)

Page 3

measured from grade up to the roof mid-point unless approved by the Planning Commission. See code
section below.
Sec 42-121(B)(1)(a): No detached accessory building shall exceed 16 feet in height except, after a public
hearing, the height of the building may be increased if the planning commission determines that the
topography, natural features or other land use characteristics, including the distance of the
proposed building from adjacent residential structures, adequately mitigate adverse impacts upon
any adjacent single-family residential use.
The proposed pole barn is designed at 19.5' in height to mid-point of roof, with a 14’ tall wall height.
Therefore, the applicant seeks the Planning Commission for 3.5 feet additional building height. See
Figure 1 and attached plans showing building height. The taller height is to accommodate the use of a
basketball and volleyball court.

Figure 1 (above). Showing the 19.5' building height and 14' wall height of the proposed pole barn.
Adjacent Neighbors; Impacts
Per Sec. 42-121(B)(1)(b)(1), accessory buildings may be located as close as five feet to a side or rear
property line. The proposed pole barn is designed near the NW property corner, located 75’ away from
the west lot line, 20’ away from the north lot line, and much farther from the southern and eastern lot
lines. Further, it will be located 184’ to the nearest residence (10823 and 10833 S. Westnedge Ave directly west). It will also be 377’ away from the house to the north (10713 S. Westnedge Ave).
The pole barn will be approx. 1,000 sq ft smaller than the main floor of the house plus garage. Its height
will be 0.5’ lower than the height of the house. The design will generally be similar to the existing house
on the property. Although no exterior lights will be on the western or northern walls of the pole barn,

(6)

Page 4

there will be small windows on those elevations that are expected to let some interior light out toward
the west and north. Activity and noise associated with the use of the pole barn will be primarily inside
the building.
The majority of trees along the west and north of the proposed building are expected to be preserved,
except those close to the pole barn, which will be removed during construction. Since the preserved trees
are deciduous, the pole barn will be largely screened during the summer and early fall months, but
visible during other times of the year. Pictures of the trees (taken in late Fall) in this area are provided in
an attachment.
Staff finds there to be little to no impact on the adjacent neighbors because of the preserved trees and
indoor use of the pole barn. Although the pole barn is expected to be visible from the neighbors during
the winter and spring periods, it will not necessarily have a negative impact on the area. Many homes in
the area are visible to each other during that same period.
City of Portage Zoning/ Master Plan
Staff finds the proposal consistent with the City’s Master Plan and intent of zoning, as explained below.
The Master Plan Future Land Use Map classifies the subject neighborhood as ‘Single Family
Residential’ intended for single-family detached homes with a possibility of duplex and attached homes
in select areas. The neighborhood is zoned R-1C One Family Residential zoning district, which is
intended for low-density single-family dwellings with accessory uses as typical of residential
neighborhoods. This zoning district is consistent with the Master Plan Future Land Use Map
classification. Staff finds that the subject property and others in the neighborhood have been developed
consistent with the zoning district and land use classification as having single family detached homes.
Public Noticing Requirement
Pursuant to Sec 42-121(B)(1)(A) and Sec 42-121(B)(1)(b)(3), the applicant’s requests require a public
hearing in front of the Planning Commission and provided public notices to adjacent residents, local
newspaper. As of February 3rd, public notices were mailed to all adjacent residents/property owners
within 300 feet of this property and notice was provided in the Kalamazoo Gazette.
Pursuant to the City’s Public Participation Plan, the applicant has contacted neighboring properties to
inform them of the project and gather any comments they may have about the pole barn. As of February
11, the applicant has not received any opposition/ comments.
As of February 11, staff has not received any public comments.
IV.

RECOMMENDATION:

If no additional public comment is requested by and the Commission is supportive of the taller and
larger proposed accessory building, staff recommends the additional 789 square feet of space and the
additional 3.5 feet of height for a pole barn at 300 Marylynn Court be approved.
Attachments:

(7)

Page 5

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Application
Project Narrative
Site Drawing
Building Drawings
Staff Site Pictures
2.16.26 Moyer Email; 10745 S. Westnedge Ave

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

​ 020 Lovers Lane​
6
​Portage, MI 49002​
​Phone: 269-720-7729​
​www.tcscottconstruction.com​

​ 00 Marylynn Ct, Portage, MI 49002​
3
​Accessory Building Narrative​
​●​ ​Zoning Code Sec 42-121(B)(1)(a) – For exceeding maximum building height.​
​○​ ​The accessory building height is based on required dimensions for​
​practicing/playing basketball and volleyball.​
​■​ ​Height: 19’ 6” measured from grade to mid-point of roof​
​■​ ​Zoning code Sec 42-121(B)(1)(a) allows an accessory building to exceed​
​16’ in height with Planning Commission approval in determining any​
​unique site characteristics (topography, natural features, etc.) and any​
​impacts to the neighborhood.​
​○​ ​The accessory building will be between 184’ and 338’ away from any of the​
​nearest neighboring houses.​
​●​ ​Zoning Code Sec 42-121(B)(1)(b)(3) – For exceeding maximum building size when the​
​property is 2 acres or more. Subject site size = 4 acres.​
​○​ ​Square footage of accessory building: 2,960​
​○​ ​The use and placement of the accessory building on the property will minimize​
​any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The intended use is for the​
​property owners and their family members.​
​●​ ​Only removing trees within footprint of proposed new building.​
​○​ ​Vegetation being preserved to the north, west, and south of the proposed​
​building (areas that face neighboring homes) will consist of 3-4 mature trees​
​right on the property line to the north, over a dozen mature and junior trees with​
​natural woods to the west, and over 300 feet of undisturbed trees and natural​
​woods to the south.​
​●​ ​Need for taller and larger building is to accommodate the required heights for playing​
​basketball and volleyball.​
​●​ ​Aesthetically, the exterior colors will match the existing residence on the property :black​
​roof, white siding. (No bold or bright colors).​
​○​ ​Shingles will be 30 year black dimensional shingles on 60% of roof.​
​○​ ​Black metal roofing will be on the other 40% of roof.​
​○​ ​Siding will be 65% white metal and 35% white LP.​
​●​ ​Exterior lighting will be minimal.​

(12)

​○​ ​Only exterior lighting will be can lighting on the southeast side of the building​
​that is facing the existing home. This should not impact any of the neighbors.​
​●​ ​Pulling barn off the property line significantly more than the allowed minimum of 5’​
​○​ ​20’ and 75’ (see site plan)​
​●​ ​Noise levels will be minimal since there will not be any teams or large groups of people​
​playing in the building.​
​●​ ​Main uses: for property owners’ young children to play and practice basketball and​
​volleyball inside.​
​○​ ​It will not be used for any team practices or playing.​
​○​ ​Frequency of use: potentially daily​

(13)

N
PLOT PLAN

111.24'

20'

SCALE: 1” = 40’-0”

309.27'

171.89'

87.50'

49.88'

DATE:

DATE:

DATE:

76.33'

377.93'

328.62'

REVISIONS

75'

140.1

.80'

281

N
111.24'

20'

184.09'

309.27'

PLOT PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 50’-0”

184.48'

PROPOSED
BARN
171.89'

200

87.50'

76.33'

75'

PREPARED FOR T.C. SCOTT CONSTRUCTION
PLOT PLAN 12/15/2025

.77
'

MAHONEY SPORTS BARN

3'

202

49.88'

'
.01

328.62'

EXISTING HOUSE
SHEET

1 of 1

(14)

74'-0"

5'-0"

8'-0"

8'-0"

8'-0"

8'-0"

8'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

8'-0"

8'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

5'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

8'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

8'-0"

6'-8"

4'-4"

16’ x 8’ OGD

16’ x 8’ OGD

16'-0"

16'-0"
1'-4"

16'-0"

1'-4"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

4'-4"

6'-8"

8'-0"

1'-4"

COVERED PATIO

11'-0"

8'-0"

18'-0"

18'-0"

58'-0"

11'-0"

PREPARED FOR T.C. SCOTT CONSTRUCTION
BID DRAWINGS 02/08/2026

3’ x 6’-8”
SERVICE DOOR

MAHONEY SPORTS BARN

8'-0"

8'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

3'-9"

56'-0"

SEE CONSTRUCTION NOTES ON SHEET 3

DATE:

SCISSOR TRUSSES ABOVE — 14’ SIDEWALLS

DATE:

REVISIONS

8'-0"

VAULTED CEILING

DATE:

HEADER FOR FUTURE
16’ x 8’ OGD

16'-6"

40'-0"

8'-0"

3'-9"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

8'-0"

8'-0"

3’ x 5”
WINDOW

8'-0"

8'-0"

FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”

SHEET

1 of 3

(15)

14'-0"

1'-0"

FRONT ELEVATION

3

3

6

1'-0"

LEFT ELEVATION

RIGHT ELEVATION

SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”

SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”

MAHONEY SPORTS BARN

HEADER FOR FUTURE
16’ x 8’ OGD

14'-0"

14'-0"

1'-0"

PREPARED FOR T.C. SCOTT CONSTRUCTION
BID DRAWINGS 02/08/2026

6

12

DATE:

12

DATE:

12

REVISIONS

12

DATE:

SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”

14'-0"

1'-0"

REAR ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16” = 1’-0”

SHEET

2 of 3

(16)

SHEET

3 of 3

(17)

PREPARED FOR T.C. SCOTT CONSTRUCTION
BID DRAWINGS 02/08/2026

MAHONEY SPORTS BARN

DATE:

DATE:

DATE:

REVISIONS

14’-0”

14’-0”

Staff’s Site Pictures
November 4th & 17th, 2025
300 Marylynn Court
Proposed
Pole Barn

Figure 1. Aerial photograph showing proposed pole barn location (approx.).

Figure 2. Looking north at subject house along Marylynn Court.

(18)

Figure 3. Looking north toward the west area of subject site. Subject house
shown on right. Arrow points to approx. location of proposed pole barn.

Figure 4. Looking north toward proposed pole barn – denoted by arrow. Homes
in left background are along S. Westnedge Ave.

(19)

Figure 5. Looking at approx. area of the proposed pole barn – denoted by arrow.
House in background in right is 10713 S. Westnedge Ave.

(20)

Eric Feldt
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

kris Moyer <[email protected]>
Friday, February 13, 2026 1:20 PM
Eric Feldt
Building application for Chad Scott

Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:

Follow up
Flagged

CAUTION: THIS EMAIL IS FROM AN EXTERNAL SENDER
Do not click on links or open attachments unless this is from a sender you know and trust.
City of Portage:
This email is to express my opinion regarding the request for taller and larger residential building to be
constructed within 300 feet of my property line. A building housing a volleyball and basketball court is
not a necessity.
I absolutely oppose the proposal for this building. It will be an eyesore for me to view daily,
add possible noise pollution, and will deflate the value of my property.
Sincerely,
Kristine Hill-Moyer
10745 South Westnedge
Portage MI
,

1

(21)

TO:

Planning Commission

FROM:

Peter Dame, Chief Development Officer

DATE: February 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment No. 25/26-2 to amend Ch 42, Art 4. Div 3. to establish a
temporary moratorium for Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems.
I.

INTRODUCTION:

The City seeks an ordinance amendment to create a Temporary Moratorium section 42-140 within
Chapter 42 Article 4 Division 3 General Provisions. The ordinance would also establish a temporary
moratorium for new Data Centers and Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to allow the City of
Portage time to determine how best to address these types of land uses within the zoning code going
forward. The moratorium is expected to end December 21, 2026 or the effective date of any amended or
new City ordinances or regulations addressing Data Centers or BESS, whichever date occurs first. See
attached ordinance.
The proposed amendment is being filed in conjunction with a similar action led by the City Council to
establish a 1-year long moratorium on accepting applications for future Data Centers and BESS under
Chapter 42 Article 13 Moratorium. Council’s vote on that moratorium ordinance is on February 24,
2026. Although, Articles 4 and 13 are under the same chapter, Article 4 pertains to zoning regulations
while Article 13 pertains to the general ordinance of the City. Both are recommended to be amended to
effectively implement land use-related moratoriums.
The City is pursuing these moratoriums at this time to better understand Data Centers and BESS, their
complexities, gain community input, and best regulate them for Portage. Many Michigan communities
are passing similar moratoriums to be better prepared, including City of Saline, Northville, Howell
Township, Sterling Heights, City of Saginaw, and others.
II.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The following provides a brief summary of information about Data Centers and BESS, as the purpose of
this memo only addresses a proposed memorandum affecting these development types. A detailed
zoning analysis of these uses is expected in a future zoning amendment and report.
Data Centers
In general, a Data Center is simply a place housing computer systems and associated parts to provide an
overall service and function; provide IT support infrastructure such as data storage drives; and network
equipment, among others. They generally require significant power needs and, in turn, cooling needs.
Many modern Data Centers proposed in Michigan have shown a need for large acreage for overall
operational needs. Generally, they do not rely on manual labor for operations, so they generally have
low staffing needs. In the past several years, major technology companies such as Apple, Amazon,
Meta, Google, and a variety of AI companies have begun heavily investing in Data Centers to support

(22)

Ordinance Amendment No. 25/26-2 to amend Ch 42, Art 4. Div 3. to establish a temporary moratorium for Data Centers and
Battery Energy Storage Systems.
Page 2

their overall companies’ needs. Demand for the Centers have accelerated in Michigan with the recent
passing of new State development incentives (Sales and Use Tax exemptions).
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)
In general, a BESS is a facility that stores and provides electricity to a building or grid network through
the use of a variety of equipment and infrastructure such as battery cells, overall electrical system
components, towers and poles, wires and cables, circuit breakers and transformers, and more. Similar to
Data Centers, BESS is growing nationally but is accelerating in Michigan in response to the 2023 State
Clean Energy and Jobs Act which established a variety of renewable energy goals, streamlined
renewable energy projects, mandating greater renewable energy sources by utility companies, among
others. To achieve these goals, it shifted to streamline permitting approvals of large wind and solar
energy facilities, and BESS to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) if local communities
do not have an ordinance in place. Since BESS is new and fast-growing, most communities do not yet
have an ordinance to effectively regulate BESS developments (nor large wind and solar energy
facilities). Similar to Data Centers, BESS does not rely on manual operations. They generally require
low staffing needs.
As communities react to Data Centers and BESS, many are trying to quickly understand their large
operations, external impacts, and other project complexities. Communities and their local leaders are
also receiving vocal opposition due to alleged negative public impacts and questioning whether to allow
these new uses. Despite these concerns, local laws cannot entirely prohibit them within the community
(called exclusionary zoning). Therefore, many communities are now passing moratoriums to temporarily
block new Data Centers and BESS while gaining local input and establishing new local regulations to
best regulate these new developments in the future.
III.

ANALYSIS:

Ordinance Amendment Process
The ordinance amendment process is provided under zoning code Section 42-651 and requires a public
hearing during Planning Commission and City Council meetings. The Commission will consider the
proposed amendment, evaluate it for consistency with adopted city plans, affect neighborhood
conditions, and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Public Notices / Comment
Since the proposed ordinance results in a citywide change, this proposed ordinance amendment, as
required, was published in the Kalamazoo Gazette on February 3, 2026. As of the date of this report,
February 11, 2026, staff has not received any public comment.
IV.

RECOMMENDATION:

If no additional public comment is requested by and the Commission is supportive of the proposed
ordinance amendment, staff advises the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that
Ordinance Amendment No. 25/26-2, to amend Article 4 Zoning, Division 3 General Provisions by
creating Section 42-140 Temporary Moratorium, be approved.

(23)

Ordinance Amendment No. 25/26-2 to amend Ch 42, Art 4. Div 3. to establish a temporary moratorium for Data Centers and
Battery Energy Storage Systems.
Page 3

Attachments:
1.
Draft Moratorium Ord

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)