This is all the industrial they're all subject to all these limitations. Call to order for the city of Canon Falls joint city council and planning commission work session Monday July 21st. Uh if I could get an approval from tonight's agenda. So moved.
Uh I'll give the motion to Lisa, second to Chris. All those in favor? I opposed. Carries. So today we're going to be talking about our data center text amendment discussion and John I'll let you introduce the topic. It's on the memo but it's a lot of stuff
that I've been working on. Excuse me. I'll turn my mic on. All right. So before us tonight um and in the subsequent planning commission meeting uh there is a public hearing to discuss the text amendment um that staff
received council approval for to draft at the July 1st uh council meeting um to to incorporate data centers as a conditional use within uh zoning within our city. So what you have before you
tonight is a draft of that ordinance. Um it is something that we have worked with tracked actually in conversations about um you know data center data centers how they function what sort of components are included in that so that we would
better understand and be able to establish something that you know if we didn't know better we didn't put something in that just explicitly denies them. like we wanted to incorporate that as their their information, their expertise as as part of of this as well
as the you know review and and comparisons with other communities and other u ways that they've drafted this and incorporated them um allowances of data centers within their their zoning code. Um I would say as a couple of the
examples that we did follow, ours is a little bit different where we are incorporating it through the conditional use the CUP process uh versus there others where it is just a a standard permitted use within specific uh zoning
areas. So um granted like again we are we are moving pretty quickly on certain elements of this. So it it is a it is our draft. as our best efforts. If there are something in there that um you've identified or you have questions on or
concerns or you want us to engage with incorporation, that's the purpose of today's meeting, this joint work session between the council and planning commission to to be able to do that. So, we do have representatives here to ask some questions if they are are concerned of that. What it is, you know, what is
not necessarily the intent specifically at this time with this ordinance amendment is getting into the nitty-gritty and the specifics of, you know, how is it going to operate, how much water are you going to use, how much uh electricity are you going to use, what are the building heights going
to be. We are we are our intent in this draft was to create a broad enough scope of data centers that this and/or any other project that came to the city would give us the opportunity to evaluate it through a very you know
specific process which gives the city a lot more control over that versus just a permitted use where hey if you can meet all of these basic standards and guidelines as a permitted use you you essentially find a area within that district that fits your needs and and
you you start your applications, you can do it and the city doesn't have a whole lot of authority after that to to say yes or no. So, that was our intent. That's the expectation. Um those other finer details, it's not that they're not going to be discussed. They're not going
it's not that they're not going to be uh determined. They're not It's not that they're not going to be approved by the planning commission and council at later dates. Those are all coming. This just happens to be part of the process in which we need to have completed first and established it that it's going to
get done in order to fully evaluate, vet, and make those decisions about those other finer details at later times. And then I'll just add one more piece just uh because I anticipate it being a question. Um, additionally, we are working with the Randolph Township
on the annexation process. We had a la another meeting with them last week um to you know go over our process for that uh joint resolution uh for an orderly annexation between them. So that is coming and working as well which is
another critical component for us to actually be and evaluating uh this project because of where it's located that currently it's in that township. So on once it's able to be annexed or we agree upon that annexation, then that
gives this the city that that final authority to um to determine it's uh you know the appropriate land use that we're going to approve. All right, discussion, questions, comments, council, planning commission
board. Thank you. Uh we do have guests here from tract who will be able to help us if you guys have anything. But just to reiterate, I think what John uh what led us here is just to make sure that our city charter has the right language because the last time it was touched a data center was something
none of us had probably ever even heard of. So this is just to make sure that we are following the right legal procedure. Y So we Yeah. in order for the way their application is drafted, the the conversations that we've had about what how they want to
develop within this area. Um we do need to establish a conditional use for a data center that allows us then to go into the planned unit development um overlay of zoning um to you know get into those finer details at a later
time. So great. So, in terms of, you know, conversations here, if the, you know, there's questions, hopefully, um, I know I sent it to the council. I don't know if I've shared that with with others, but it is available on our city website. The final drafts of the AUR
have been completed. Um, there are, you know, a number of comments that were made in there in responses to those comments that certainly provide some, um, additional context to, um, uh, that the review of that. So uh in
looking at the AU um it definitely evaluates a data center and its use and what other impacts and uh mitigation strategies would be needed for this um project. Uh at this time we reviewed it from staff perspective. bills here as
well. Certainly reviewed it um with his team. Um find we had our comments that we shared back and for the most part those things that we we know the AU was intended to be a review for we feel um
that were those are acceptable for us. So there's still right now an agency review period that was actually um sent out as a notice to them today. So, um there's a time frame in which they get a chance to object or appeal or add more
comments, but when those are when that's completed, then it will go to the city for a final approval. I I got a couple of things, I guess. Um, so first off, so if we adopt this language as is, does this does this get adopted under I1 or I2, wherever the
data centers, whatever that's going to be. Um, did data centers get adopted under I1 or I2 or both? Or how's that go? Did was that included in this draft? I2, I believe. It's an I2. Yeah. So this draft has it as I2.
Okay. So, have we explored putting because one of the things that makes me comfortable about this process is I the the property identified makes sense to me. Have we have we explored the the ability to maybe just have a data data center zone perhaps? Is that something
that we can do or do you feel that we're protected through a conditional use permit? I I feel that through this process we are protected through a conditional use permit especially with the possibility to overlay that the PUD elements that do
give us the opportunity to make things more restrictive um in terms of setbacks and other other facets like that and then that also then and with this we're we talk about you know making sure that the infrastructure needs are evaluated and that can be can
be delivered before we could you know necessarily approve that. So do you feel that protects us in the future as well? I guess too I I feel it does. Okay. is as as our my concern from my perspective of this is a um a project to
this scope needs that additional measure of um evaluation on the forefront just to say that can we can we do this very much like we have like that's been the I I would say the positive thing of working with tract and and their team have been the things we're asking for
and the things that we need to do to prepare to be able to to fully evaluate this and make it's in the best interest of our community and that we have the resources to deliver certain things that they're asking for and know what we can't deliver like that that's been we've been able to do that. We've been
able to do that through the through the studies that we did on the water and wastewater. We've been able to do that in the early stage of the conversations that we've had in terms of higher level elements. Now, in order to fairly make a decision on this through an application,
this this process needs to be there. So, you know, it I I believe like if this were approved um that we still have the ability then to say to the next if there is another application say this then hypothetically
this goes gets approved we work through and complete our our conversations with track and we come to a conclusion that they can develop. If there's a another one we're going to go through a very similar process. We're going to evaluate what are your demands, what are your
needs, because conditionally, are we going to be able to supply that, provide that for you without either major investments in our infrastructure or even uh a site that that fits within the characteristics that we're we're we're looking for. So, I guess kind of along
those lines, I did notice there's language in here under M1 and two about the city engineer kind of approving or being comfortable with it, which I completely respect, but at the same time, does that allow the council any action or any ability to interject on those things? You know what I mean? Like
I think that yes, we should have a study and it should make sense for them to be here, but at the same time, if it doesn't align with our city goals or our, you know, citywide plan or whatever that comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan, um, does that still give us an out to say, you know, we're not comfortable.
You know what I mean? From my perspective, it does because as we evaluate things on a staff perspective, it it still always has the opportunity to come to you with our recommendations and it's the council's planning commission and land use elements but and infrastructure elements council's
decision to say yes or no to our recommendations. And if you're, you know, the the situation in this, like as we go back to, you know, I I point to the attorneys for these these quasi judicial decisions when you're talking about land use things like conditional
use permits, you have you have a you have something to fall back to to say yes or no on that decision to back up your standing. Not just this, oh, there's nothing in the code that specifies this or not, and I just have
this gut feeling, so I don't like it. and I'm going to say no. Well, if you're ever met with the challenge to that, the gut feelings aren't necessarily a finding a fact. So, you have to justify it for for some levels of reasons. And in that instance,
hey, the you get the application, the city engineer says, "Oh, hey, this doesn't quite meet our our definition. So, I'm not recommending this or I'm recommending this with conditions." and it's the council's decision to say, well, we can't meet those conditions at this time without further evaluation or
changes in our infrastructure, then we're going to say no. And that's based on a kind of, you know, finding fact. Um, the last thing I have, I think, let me see. Um M10 provisions acceptable to the city
are made to control and mitigate noise, light, air, and water pollution so as not to unreasonably disturb or interfere interfere with surrounding property owners use and enjoyment of their property. To me, that seems like a little little vague like how's that determined specifically? Is that just something that we're left to interpret?
Like in this case, I think last time tract was here, we talked about, hey, I would like to have the generators interior of the property and that was kind of verbally yes, we can do that. I mean, can we put more specifics in here for something like that or is that something that with this language we can
interpret and move forward with? I guess. Does that make sense? just I I know you guys can respond but my interpretation is again this is just the coding for or this is the language for
our coding for data center that seems like that's getting more in the weeds like we talked about the details for later get the application is that okay you're both yeah you're both correct so these conditions are set up to account for any data center so when you amend
the code you're allowing any applicant that can meet these standards to apply and potentially receive the conditional use permit. You won't know today what those future uses are going to be or those types of data centers. And that was one of our struggles. Not with respect to track. They they've been
great in terms of giving us their information. But what this may be outdated within days, weeks after because data centers are evolving so quickly. So we just want you to have the flexibility. What's an annoyance today? we haven't even thought
of later. So, it'll be up to you guys as a council or your your subsequent members of council to determine at the time. Um, so the framework for the conditions is here to give you the flexibility depending on what the
particulars are in the future. Makes sense. Yeah. And I get that's a really good question, but hypothetically, let's say we annex in a bunch of space and there's another similar data center and if we say, oh, the generators have to be on the inside of the building and but there's no neighbors and they're in the middle of space and if we're putting
restrictions that's not in this language that will be in the finer tune in the PUD, right? No, I get it. Yep. Thank you. So, I I think that would open us to say evaluating that application. Well, we have some we don't believe these provisions would be acceptable. So these
you know either going to get denied on those grounds. So therefore yeah you need to make changes or you need to then you know going down the line go through the the PUD process of number 11 to get your you know formal approval so then that you could apply you could comply
with our you know position provisions. Makes sense. That's all I had. Any other questions, comments? Diane did um couple uh under definition of a data center the last thing says
electrical generators uh did we specifically want to make sure that diesels would have to be uh a variance then diesel generators I mean I like eliminating two electrical
generators but I'm not sure that. But I mean, if there diesel aren't in there, then they would have to get a variance on that. No, I Nope. Are we talking about differentiating the type of gener instead of generator of
electricity? You're talking electric versus diesel because Oh, so you're talking about a diesel generating electric. Well, yeah. Any any any sort of generator that creates electricity as a backup power supply. Yeah, that's what I interpreted it as. So, not not
specifying diesel, natural gas, solar powered, battery, backup, powered. Okay. Um that that wasn't that wasn't specific in that definition. I I believe that was the intent. Okay, that that clears it up. Thank you. Uh second thing is um being this is
under section 152 whatever. Uh do the building requirements of 152.692 692 apply to this then which has the building height limitations minimum floor
correct so if Yep. So in terms of I2 all if they have to meet all these previous conditions and then if if it's going to get approved without any other sort of permissions or like the PUD plan then they would need to comply with all the
existing I2 regulations or ask for variances or whatever. Yes. Or they would need to get some sort of, you know, alternatives to those approvals. So, this does open as we've, you know, as we're anticipating what would happen. Um, this does allow for a
planned unit development to apply where we've talked about PUDS being there are regulations within a certain district that you know for the most part the district complies but there's multiple facets where we are going to be more restrictive like you know in this
instance we're talking about establishing further setbacks or we're going to be more permissive and allowing for um, you know, a higher building height or higher fence height or something like that. So the PUD, you know, opens that up to creating multiple
variances to for lack of a better phrase um within what will ultimately be the final development. So it's not uncommon. I mean, we have that in some of our housing areas where um we've established setbacks, wanted to be a little farther
in some regards. In some instances, we wanted to make sure that there's um additional um you know, vegetative or landscaping designs or something like that into incorporated into the into the project. So, that's that's kind of the the role
of the PUD, but we can't get to the PUD until we get established a CUP for this type of use. Correct. But the this the regular general requirements for an I2 apply to this as well as everything else that
would be allowed as a so say we yeah so say we get away from my hypothetical of tract and we go back to just the hypothetical of any data center they meet all of the conditional use we give them that authorization they could essentially with their you know
plan and application if they meet all the other conformities of our zoning district and I2 then they could build within those those zoning conformities. Correct. Now, could we have once make up a new zone just for data centers then for
future use too? Then they can it would help create issues in the future for confusion on some. So creating a new zone and I and I understand we are in a unique circumstance here where that is actually
actively being done right now specific to the fair. We are going you know that's the intent that was what we were authorized to do. That's what we're working towards and we're getting a lot closer to that being completed. So I don't want to ignore that from the reality and go back into and now say
this because I can see being called a hypocrite for this of now we create a specific zone just for data centers. Are we you know spot zoning island zoning being you know carving out something for
for one thing um that's not the best practice. Could it be done? I think so. Um, however, this right now is what we're we're we've presented um because this was what we asked for and were
authorized from the council to to do. So, if it is the direction of the council andor planning commission at a later date uh and we want to explore a data center specific zone um and that's the direction from from you all to do
that. Staff will accommodate Any other questions, comments, concerns? Jesse, I got a couple. Um, under the first section, what exactly is enclosed energy
storage? So like, you know, large, you know, probably the large battery potential storage. So, if you have a battery backup, um I know they're they're becoming much more prevalent in terms of largecale battery to operate facilities.
Uh fuel storage would likely be whatever fuel would be operating a generator um if that is as is needed on site. So something to the importance of what we've gathered or understood is backup
accessible immediate backup sources of power are critical infrastructure components to a data center. They right I I understand what batteries and fuel storage facilities are and I understand emergency backups all that kind of stuff. I'm just I don't
understand what energy was that uh is it just interior If I can, Mr. Mayor. Absolutely. Uh, so I I think it's as opposed to open storage, so energy, battery, and fuel
storage facilities, but in an enclosed building. Okay. Yeah. Again, these are the generic definition terms. If we wanted to get into drafting very specifics of of that, that would
probably be discussed in and the conditions later on. So, the definitions try to be much more broad. Granted, you know, we're still trying to keep it somewhat broad. And then the back
the electrical generators, you're talking like a diesel, right? that that could be a diesel, natural gas, uh most likely would be the outcome or the the options, but also again could be battery, solar, other
types of uh other types of energy. You've already covered that up top. Mhm. Right. I I mean, it's arguably redundant with respect to that. So, but you know, again, this is intended to address all future potential means. So, you know, if we're lucky, maybe uh cold fusion in the
future. So, hydrogen, are you good, Jesse? Um, I mean, this may be a little sidetracked. Um several years a well when I came in a year and a half ago or whatever
uh the council and planning commission were just sort of finishing up a yearong I think it was a yearong maybe I'm wrong a moratorium on treatment centers
um now and I think I think what But there was a a long process there to go through and discuss the definitions
how how requirements and all that sort of thing. Was was that a yearong time frame to Yes. Yep. We're not doing that tonight and then subsequent
that that would be the difference between changing the text in our code versus a moratorum. Correct. Is that uh Mr. Mayor? A moratorum is a process a council can use to hit pause to do as Mr. Fox. Um, Commissioner Fox is
mentioning to study, to plan, to determine what the appropriate regulations would be. It's an optional procedure available whenever there is a need again to study and explore. I'm just I'm just wondering exactly why, right? Sort because this feels sort of
like the same type of deal, right? We're doing a whole a whole thing on a new thing, right? We don't have a code for it, so on and so forth. So, we're we're going that process. And then the
previous process was seemed to be sort of similar and we we did a real long after that or are we wouldn't that be the eyeire that we're doing because it that's the study that's kind of yeah like that kind of does what
a morator would go on during a mormatorium right well it it more I I don't know I I don't necessarily see these as I get the change in ordinance and amending the ordinance to something
new feels similar in that regard the the difference I is that there has been a lot of conversation going back to publicly announce October and you know staff have been involved in a lot of
conversations to evaluate the project. If we would have determined long ago that hey we're way up way far apart and we're going to need a lot of time to get there we probably have brought something like a moratorum or at least slowed the
process down more. But as we've, you know, evaluated and con and and had conversations and moved forward with this process, we we keep concluding that more and more what we're looking at and ultimately we see as an application
that's coming is something that as staff we feel fair that is for consideration. So, we haven't had a situation where we felt like this thing is is so imminent and we can't get to
um get to a point of recommendation yet that we're going to ask for a deposit or I haven't had the sense from any of the council members, I guess, as I haven't maybe directly asked the planning commission members. So, I don't want to
um you know, I don't want to speak out of turn for that, but I haven't had the sense from the council members that pressing pause is absolutely necessary on this and we have to, you know, stall this for a specific period of time to give us the chance to to evaluate it.
Now, we have a lot more to to handle in terms of upcoming meetings and and discussions and conversations. And that's why, you know, we're trying to ensure that there's opportunities for these questions to be asked. That's why we had two previous work sessions, joint work sessions between the council and
the planning commission to potentially, you know, ask questions of the app, you know, the applicant and related to this project. All right, Isaac, you're good. I I guess based on what was
just asked, it kind of and I don't know if this is relevant or not, right? But in when it talks about enclosed energy, I get that, right? And I get keeping it vague to give them options as technology moves forward and utilize different things versus just traditional fuels and whatnot. I guess my only question would be we're going to keep it open and
vague, right? And to your point, not that you're going to go, you know, fusion or anything like that, but I guess would we consult our local fire team to figure out if an incident were to happen, can they actually respond or are we going to be relying on different resources to take care of, you know,
a god forbid scenario? Yes. Yes. as as a project like this as it gets more to reality I mean it will have I mean in this instance for sure in others you know that's why the code is drafted to you know contain things to
things that we believe at that moment within that code we can respond to um you know if things are going above and beyond that that's where we absolutely want to review that more in depth um you know we will and then as it gets to the final building permit and application
stage. Those things are are part of that review. You know, a large commercial project like this is going to have, you know, fire prevention or fire, you know, suppression plans incorporated into that. That has actually been a part of the conversation when we were that was a a big justification for studying the
water distribution side was not just on delivering water for them to use for cooling purposes but also making sure that we had the water capacity within that area of our community to serve for fire suppression needs. So those those will definitely be elements those are
incorporated into the platting plans. Um that's that's conversations that we have with you know at some level with any sort of development and once you get to c certain large scrolls there's automatic thresholds that kick in in terms of internal fire suppression
systems and and other things like like that. So yeah when we're that that will absolutely be a a component of it. Brian, how are you? So basically what I'm hearing is that what we're looking at here is we is this little meeting
we're having this is put it all in one little box. We got to follow this to get started to get all these other things that we're bringing up. As long as we have this in place we have some place to go if we need to in the future. If we didn't have this we'd be dead in the water basically. We couldn't we couldn't
just say we want a data center. Correct. Have something like this in place to do it. If if Yep. If we didn't have this and somebody comes to us with a proposal that looks like a data center or it has nothing that fits within our existing
authorized permitted uses, then we would tell them no. Like no matter how great their their plan is, no matter how great their mitigation strategies were, like on its face, we would have to say no. We do not have a permitted path through our
our ordinances to allow for that use within that district. Basically, this opens the door for us to actually evaluate what we know is any future things that come up and yep this and any future future ones are correct. Got to get this going.
Okay. that yeah that it that's not to I I don't want to I appreciate your your your question because that is exactly the that is act exactly at its core the purpose for doing this. I don't want to
dismiss that we just do this to say oh let's open you know let's do this so that we can open the door and evaluate it further. We do want to get this right like I don't want to I don't want to ignore that. I also don't want to in us to be clouded by hey we know what's kind
of coming because we've seen an application we we've been talking to a developer so we know some of the nitpicky things that we could do but we also want to make sure that hey as as these come there could be future ones and back to the question of um if they
fit within the existing zoning requirements they could just do it and then we're not and we're not given the luxury of of putting further other regulatory pieces on that. So if you have No, I just haven't. Okay. So, well, and again from what I remember, I
mean, this was built off of you guys reviewing other communities, you know, structures of how they they put that together, right? That, you know, maybe we're larger in population than Canon Falls, but essentially this was built out of various other ones that we felt were going to be most applicable
for kind of what we would want to look at, you know, right now and moving into the future. Yep. And and there were some that had data centers on the books from and I know it was new. It's newish in terms of the scale that we're talking about. I've been in that data centers
have been a part of a conversation now for 10 15 years. So it's it's but they were never to this scope. It was really much more of like maybe a 20,000 square foot building with a lot you housed a lot of servers that was just a background storage cloud-based kind of
kind of thing. We're not talking about the the hypers scaling of of data that we're seeing today. I mean it the the advancements in that and the need for that have changed dramatically in that time. So if you were one of those that oh yeah I want to get one of these quick
little data centers in into my community um and you just said you know you had no other provisions around an application for data center and now all of a sudden a hyperscaler comes knocking on your door because oh they permit data centers in their community and they don't even
have any conditional uses or they aren't going to have any additional requirements to us and oh we can fit everything within their existing code. they could come and apply and you wouldn't have a whole lot of basis to tell them no. And um that's that's why
we're bringing this up is we we do want to create some levels in terms of we give that overview application consideration to ensure is this available? Is this going to, you know, work within the the this community as it
stands today or, you know, are there elements of this that just are beyond what we can we want, we can control, we can manage? Um, we want to be at the wheel. We don't want to be
um I don't have a good analogy for that. I I didn't want to say run over. That was a little morbid. But yeah, we don't want to be the ones run over or pulled uh from behind. Um and proactive and reactive, right? Yes. Yeah.
So that means basically when this was first proposed back in October, we should have just said, "Oh, we don't allow we have nothing to allow data centers in town." And then we could have maybe started the process back then to allow there's certain yeah there's certain at
certain regards there that could have been part of the consideration. I would say at that time there was still a lot of conversation that was being had and evaluation about the demands the ability to to bring those needs in that it never
it wasn't necessarily a higher probability of outcome that we're going to get to the point where we're going to have to evaluate a development application um up until you know one came in in May when you know we had anticipation that
it was coming relatively quickly, but we were just initiating the AU process. There was the evaluation of that was going to take place. Um, you know, there was the wastewater and water studies. Those went through through April. I mean, if it would have came back and we
would had no capacity for for water distribution uh abilities without major infrastructure improvements, it probably would have changed the dynamic in terms of the conversation. And you know, if our infrastructure demand or in
improvement costs were too high, we may not have fit their their needs. So, this might not have been necessary. Um, yes, in hindsight, should we have done this a long time ago? Absolutely. Absolutely. Then, as Jesse said, we probably could
have taken more time. But uh just a question John, when you said hypers scale, is that referring to like the AI or the crypto mining? I I I'll admit I don't have a fine definition of what hypers scale is. It's
a it's a buzz term and I did just say that because I just wondered if in our definitions we wanted to say I mean I am I'm willing to consider regular data centers that store information um maybe even AI. I don't know exactly
how much energy, but from what I've heard of crypto mining, they're incredible users of energy and and resources. And I wondered if this is the time when we say those are expressly prohibited in our definition of what we allow in even as a conditional use.
And that and that's certainly something that has been on my mind too. And I struggle to understand specifically that. Yeah. Um I'm gonna caution this again. We are we're talking about regulating a
use. We're creating a conditional use. So we're saying in broad terms a data center is a use of a facility within a certain zoning district that we're going to allow. specifically what goes on in that data center use whether it's crypto
mining AI generation just cloud-based data storage that is a level of I I don't have a firm answer to whether or not we can say no or yes to any of those um to use maybe a bad analogy you
can allow for a restaurant I can't tell them what to put on the menu no but I think because of the difference in um energy usage in that that I would and this is maybe goes back to Jesse saying have some time to think things through
is to say I would think that there might be a way where we can you know expressly say this is not a prohibited or this is not a permitted use whatsoever even under a conditional use and to to have that kind of a a limit put in now and
you know if five years from now we want to redo it that's fine But, you know, at this point, I would think that would be something that I would be more comfortable with that limitation. Do Do they have to define what type of data they're storing in their application? Like, is that is that kind
of what you're struggling with, too? Like, that isn't something that I've gone to the point of of yeah, believing we could do that. there there there comes a level of things that we can regulate and then we can go too far and say that that's not constitutional
and I don't I don't know it off the top of my head it doesn't jump out as 100% prohibited from regulating the type of data if you can tie that to a rational reason for doing
so. This is not housing where you're saying where you're regulating the occupant. Yeah. You know that that's a clear violation. Maybe to Dian's point, maybe if if data or if power usage is a concern and you
think crypto is using too much power. Maybe we put a limitation on on power amount. you know, like that's not within the city's scope to be and that is beyond our is not and Bill Bill talked about this in one of our first meetings. The the information that we've gained so far, at
least think of utilities that are our concern. Water. Yes. And the information that we've given when when Bill brought that forward. Yep. Storm sewer, how we gather the water, those things, the the system itself, the reservoir, the water tower, those types of things. Power is not our
concern. And it's also, if I'm correct, that's not information that can be shared at this point in time. We don't Yeah, we are the the information. Yeah, the feedback that we've received is we don't have we aren't we aren't able to be told how much power is being discussed. That is
between the power provider for the area, Dakota Electric. They have a very they have a very in defined process in terms of how did they evaluate applicants in terms of their power needs or potential power needs and and whether or not they have the resources to be able to deliver
that. They have the public utilities commission and other regulators that they have to go through in terms of if just like us if we had to increase our water say we were at the we were at the right at the capacity for water and we had to go ask for more we'd have to go
ask get permission to do that. We'd have to go through a very specific process in order to do that. If the, you know, electric provider is at their capacity of their limits of what they have within their system to provide and they have to go get more power generation or generated power from somewhere else and
buy it and bring it into this this region, then they would probably have to follow a permitted process as well. I worked in a city that had electric utility and we were we had a limit in terms of how much power we had available for us to sell as a wholesaler. And once
we expanded past once we crossed that threshold, then we were buying it from our our partner market up to a certain point. And once we're past that, then we'd have to go and figure some other stuff out or either we're buying it on the wholesale market. So there's
electricity is a different animal. Um we don't have that regulatory authority because we do not have the municipal electric utility to control that. Uh, moving on. Tonight is a work session, but I know that uh there's going to be a public hearing and then a
uh planning and zoning meeting after this work session. Is there a vote or action needed in this or is this just work session discussion? Work session, discussion, questions and and answers. Okay. And if there were something of a recommendation to maybe
prepare us for conversations in the next meeting to make things more efficient, I would be open to hearing them saying, "Hey, there's a piece of there's a word missing here or there's we do want to talk about diesel." Like that's good to know. We will be ready for it. But
um you know, we're not making a vote. We're not finalizing anything in this part of the meeting. Yes. The planning commission next. Correct. first evaluation of this ordinance. The public hearing is a requirement of that. So if there's input from the community members or input from
from the applicants potentially, they can speak to the public hearing like you can take those things into consideration in evaluating the proposal. You want to make changes at that time certainly are more than welcome to make changes. This is not a this is not an ironclad. This is these
words cannot be adjusted. You know, vote this up and down. We're logging on the the technology park website when someone has a concern and stuff like that. There there's the log of questions and commonly asked questions and so if the community has input or anything like
that they can email any of us. It gets on there. So yeah there have been all the public comment periods specifically with the AU all of those questions came into me were forwarded on to the consultants for evaluation and response all those were incorporated into the AUR. I haven't
received any comments outside of those specific time frames that um I haven't otherwise been able to answer questions to or address that, you know, we haven't already talked about. So, there's nothing specifically potentially that's brand new that I've
heard from the community partners that I would three people this week. I just referred to the the website because I don't know if uh slow moving, but we put it out there a while ago and I don't know if it was on the Facebook page or not, but I think people are they're hearing about it and so a lot of those
questions could be answered on there or put on there and we'll get back to them. Yeah. And I know the the track themselves have been very good to, you know, if if there are questions specifically, they they've been open to having conversations. I
know they had that with the our April um community meeting that that the presentation that they had. They had another lunch and learn with the chamber. Um you know, so there's there's been more engagement from them specifically about their project. Um so
I I that's another reason just I I want to emphasize working with them has been a good process like we have as asked we have been given you know the information that we can be given. We've been told what you know specifically on the electric side those things aren't we're
not able to to know that we've had some high level things that were talked about. Um I think it was mentioned in newspaper articles 500 megawws potentially of of of use. Um you know so those are out there but that's not our again not our jurisdiction to say yes or
no that's um the power provider for this territory uh they they are going to make that determination. Yes, Diane. You asked also if they're like typos or something. So, just under M uh data
center probably that number one on the second line there's a little parenthesy sitting there that I couldn't find a matching one too or is that Yeah, it looked like a smiley face but be there or after capacity. Thank you. Those are
it. It shouldn't be there, right? Okay, good. Otherwise, I couldn't make any sense of it. Also, under section M, go down to uh it should be a 12 and it's a two. Yeah, perfect. See, now grammar police, we can all be on the same page, right? Okay,
excellent job. Anything else? Typos that we like to in N3. Could there be a little be more specific on um who would be determining that? Excellent question, Council Member
Zimmerman. Um, I I did want to follow up on that. We're going to add uh Minnesota Police uh MPU onto that public utility commission on to that as well. Though the city does not have the authority to regulate the rules and laws
applicable to electrical and some of those other utilities, what we want you to have, and I I don't we can't get more specific. What I what I want you to have is the ability to look at a conditional use permit and a particular user and
say, "We don't like that you've had eight violations that haven't been cured to the city's satisfaction. Maybe they've been cured and they still have their permit issued by the state agency, but you guys are nervous. You don't like the conduct and what's
happening. So you're not regulating or enforcing those regulations, but you have CUP authority to control your permit, which is squarely within your authority. So we don't want to say that you're going to regulate this provision
of PUC or that. We just want to say that whatever those state agencies are doing, if you don't like it, you can pull the permit or initiate enforcement proceedings. Uh the last one I have is for compliance for penalties and violations.
Oh, just compliance in general on a cup. Y there is a process for that both under state statute and our code. Um there is a COP is a protected property interest. So once it's issued, it runs with the land. It's enforcable. It's it's theirs.
um until and unless they violate the terms of the the permit the conditions in which case there would be investigation and enforcement proceedings at that stage where the use succeeds for a period of time extended period of time so I believe that's
well a use I mean yeah a nonconformity but you know if so if they violate a condition that's your enforcement piece um if they cease the youth move out that's the non-conforming angle that you'd have other enforcement for again
as opposed to a permitted use which you would not have any enforcement ability at all. Is is that something that's spelled out elsewhere in our ordinances? Because I I do know we seem to have had a wee bit of trouble enforcing
the cups. Are you talking about violations? Yeah. The punishment. Yeah. I mean, we can we can send all kinds of little violation notices, but if if things are not corrected, you know, I keep I've always wondered what are the next steps to get that
compliance that one and then this is not this specific issue. which just in general are and based on past experience you have 1099 and and I in some and in some instances I would say there are elements of that
come down to our capacity and resources available to enforce them you know so it it is the poss you know it is a possibility you can set and establish standards and we could go and create our own pollution control standards or like the other state agencies and and try to
develop those But what sort of resources would we have to to monitor comp enforce compliance and and execute that that enforcement? I was looking more like if if they didn't have the proper height of the fence or something. I mean something simple. Um
which we've had in other cases where Yeah. So either we have a illegal fence or we don't have correct. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Right now seems to get enforced. Yeah. So right now those those are in place and they're evaluated through the permitting process and we do you know
review those and and monitor that um in conjunction with the with good county and their their building department for the building code specific issues um and know and that's you know part of Izzy's Izzy's job and that's why that position was important to for us to be filled
because we do have a lot of zoning compliant issues that we want to make sure are addressed. So certainly are doing that as well as we can on new uh things that and things that are changing with within what we know. Um you know if we don't know some somebody hasn't
applied to us and then they go start work on that until we've identified it or have it reported to us and are able to address it. If that took place we we didn't know that. So up until the time that we know and become aware of it then we respond.
So, and we are doing our best to make those responses and take action to enforce those zoning uh compliance issues. Yes, just to add to that for the the enforcement piece and how the sections
dovetail together, there is actually preamble language to your in each one of your zoning districts as it divides permitted and accessory and conditional use permits or conditional uses. There's preaml language that requires a
conditional use to to meet all of the other requirements of city code. It's not in this because that's just not how we draft the a the amendment language itself. You actually have a conditional use permit section entirely separate to this that's remaining unchanged
and then you have the the general language on a conditional use and then this specific stuff. So you're fully incorporated and around with enforcement. All right. Is how we've got uh planning and zoning having their own meeting here starting in about five or six minutes.
Uh I would seek a motion to adjourn from this work session unless there's anything. We got about a minute left if people want something else to say. Hearing none, I'd take a motion to adjurnn. So move. Motion from Diane. Second. Second from Lisa. All those in favor?
Opposed. We're adjourned. Thank you everybody.