##VIDEO ID:g9CuS9Fr4Oc## [Music] n [Music] we'll call the city council a regular meeting to order for Monday November 4th 2024 would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all call the role please mayor hoit here council member berance here council member lean here council member Wilson here council member buram here all right any changes the agenda none Leon Nick Holly Katie Steve yeah mayor and Council I would like to propose one change to our agenda um and that is to make uh I would like to make a motion to move uh all items under 12.2 to move those to a future date I think what makes sense about doing that is um we have completed the AO and uh as I learned from Deana today that that actually starts the approval time frame uh from essentially our approval date forward I think that'll allow a more I guess essentially comprehensive and open dialogue about this critical item so I think uh moving this to a future dat possibly to align with our comprehensive plan inter room update would make the most sense so your motion is to table all items under new business to a future date to be determined uh I don't know if I'm table is not I guess I would suggest removal and then consideration at a future date if tbling it and then essentially lifting it off the table at a future date I guess it would serve the same purpose okay so there's a motion on the table to remove items 121 and 122 from the agenda nope just 122 just 122 so motion on table is to remove items 122 from the agenda is there a second is there a second the motion doesn't pass any other proposed changes to the agenda ly anyone from staff all right seeing no other proposed changes I'd seek a motion to approve the agenda motion to approve motion by Katie second by Holly all in favor say I I those opposed I let the record reflect a no a nay vote our next item on the agenda is citizen comments this time is reserved for citizen comments anyone wishing to speak and come up come up at this time C citizen comments are time for anyone to address the city council on items not on the agenda those speaking should State their name and address and limit their comments to 5 minutes the council will not engage in discussion uh on the topic but those requiring a response will be responded to before the next official city council meeting go ahead my name is Ali A I live on 22232 Cambry and with Armington I mean I have bunch of houses around the neighborhood too I mean why are we going through this I mean you see all these people paying taxes and here you are sitting there let these people come and take our houses and make noises all over the place would you like something behind your house no you don't there's other people here don't like this I don't know why you don't listen to us but like my dad always said we always have the little cockroaches because money talks and the little ones just sits behind because this is all about money it's not about the people here that's what it's all come down to money greed because if there was no money this would never happen I mean we live there I live there like eight years all people live there their whole life why you have to come and destroy it because they they're paying more money I mean watch what we did for the community I mean we pay taxes I mean all of us pay taxes I mean why don't you listen to us why do we have to keep dragging it dragging it to here I mean is it fair would you like your kid to play where there's all this data center going on the noise no so why don't you for once listen to the people here I mean everybody is crying about this I mean but you don't care because it comes down to what the money that's all it comes down to nothing else because if you care about us you will vote no today that's all there is thank you sir [Applause] uh this is a non-agenda item I would like the uh city council to consider um for a future time uh updating the city code to include the term technology park um that's not something that's in the city code today so I I would highly suggest that the uh city council considers adding the term technology Park and defining what it is I'd also like to um just also opine a little bit on the bangle project the bangal project is a potential data center that's going in uh to Farmington it's not on the agenda tonight um and I'm just you know just very much concerned and and want everyone to understand that um that the bangal project is coming it is a major industrial use um the industrial use you can tell that it's an industrial project because of the amount of power the amount of water that's going to be required specifically in the bangal project um and there it's going by other industrial uses you know directly across the street uh from Pilot Knob is a very large gas uh conjunction you know station so and it's uh makes it no-brainer to put the Bango project there I just kind of wanted to come out tonight and you know say um that's a great spot for a data center it's a great spot for that for that to go um and uh and you know just recognize the fact that that is an indust industrial use so and you know simply concerning um the industrial you can tell it's industrial because again the amount of power you know hundreds of megawatts of Power are going to be required uh I am a little concerned just about the bangal project and the impact that it's going to have on power rates you know we've all heard that Excel is going to um have the cost of power going up there's a direct correlation to that and the number of coal power plants that uh state Minnesota has vowed to stop operating by 2040 and most of them by 2030 and the power required to um to power the Bengal project is uh is significant and currently there's only about three power plants in the state of Minnesota today that that could power that individually so when you start looking at that and obviously like it's very very simple economics says that the amount of power um that's something that requires you have a very large demand and you know should there be other data centers that are in the city of farming in Rosemont uh or in Apple Valley or over in uh Hampton or or anywhere else you know just that that overall consideration so that that we might just want to consider about the Bengal project specifically that we may not want to you know have so much power um that you know that we're causing a strain to our residential customers you know we were already looking at increases of 10 to 15 cents per megawatt hour that you use at your home uh and that's just you know just because of the coal power plant shutting down not to mention the draw that uh the you know the Rosemont data center is going to have or not to mention the draw that the bangle project is going to have or not to mention the new project that's going to be uh up in Apple Valley so um I really think it would be a good time in the city's very new future to Define exactly what a data center is um to truly understand about how much power um is going to be used and operated from a data from a Bang from the Bango project um how many water towers and infrastructure costs that it that it's going to be um and I would highly encourage before the city consider another data project uh data center project that we really ask ourselves is this the way that we want to grow um is this how we want to generate tax revenue um I'm for it I'm I'm for data centers I think they're they're great um in an industrial use area like the bangal project is going to be with minimum impact to Res credential minimum impact with easy access to power that big huge power line that runs along 50 makes a lot of sense to have that project there um you know makes a lot of sense to be up in uh you know up in Rosemont to have that meta that meta data center there too so but I highly recommend that the city council you know add some terms to the uh Technology Park to the city code I really think that um that that will really help us Define our future and it might be a really good time to take a pregnant pause for a lack of a better term but to take a pregnant pause and really Define these things and really decide that we want more Bango projects in the city of Farmington um without you know some of those terms being in the city in the city code and also understanding the the proper way that we would go about that is to update the city code and then update the comprehensive land use plan and then uh potentially update um the zoning uh that you know rezone some property that we may need to do as well you know another great spot would be south of the uh south of the fairgrounds you know there's another great spot that that's available for a data center but I think that we definitely need to you know to Define what those things are in 2015 when data center was first brought to Farmington they were much like the data centers that were up in far or up in um Egan you know 5 megawatt facility they're not the same and um you know the the you know going out to Iowa somewhere else and looking at these things and really recognizing that these sit on Industrial pieces of land I think is a really good thing to consider you know should we do other projects like the Bengal project uh in the city of Farmington would that be a good idea moving forward um and is it a good time to take a pregnant pause to table some uh some data center discussion and really kind of look forward to do we really want those things all over the place in Farmington um they cluster they come together we're already seeing that across Dakota County and I really think that track in particular um you know prays on small communities that don't have updated city codes that don't have updated um defined definitions for Data Center and uh it's predatory and it's wrong um but you know that's okay the the Bango project is a great place to great place to allow that so again my name is Nate Ryan I'm uh little over there on Cambry and way a little house with a beautiful wife and two kids and kind of happy that I don't live right next St of the bangle project but you know that's okay we somebody's got to Bear the burden so unfortunately those folks who do live right off leg staff will have to bear that burden of the bangle project thank you for your time thank [Applause] you uh hello again uh my name is Dave Aken I live at 22390 Bowmont Avenue Farmington Castle Rock uh I guess I can't talk about tonight so I too will talk about the Bengal project I really think we need to push this back and tap the breaks we're talking about people neighborhood and process this should be sent back to planning I appreciate the fact that you guys did your research you've been listening the last few months more so appreciate that I know you guys have a tough spot this is a vote of a lifetime that you're in the middle of tonight uh again coming to the Bengal project it'd be nice for the citizens if we could work in facts and specifics not statements and ambiguity uh I guess there's not spot zoning on the bengle project or an amendment to the comp plan so I guess that's being handled properly I think both the Bengal project and others need further study I personally in no way think that these are light industrial they're hyperscale data centers it's about as far from light industrial as you could possibly come I don't even know how we could Zone it like that with a straight face please follow your own rules and guidelines unlike the Fountain Valley Project which apparently that wasn't followed so well like to talk about setback should be a th000 ft on the residential sides maybe not so much where it's farmfield or the Egg like the Ben bengle Project is but 250t setbacks are totally unacceptable also the fact that there's not setbacks for generators that hold 300 gallons of fuel 40 feet from where a child may be playing doesn't really seem like there's any firm plans anyway you guys have a tough vote I appreciate you listening uh I guess this isn't for tonight either but I really appreciate the fact that Steve tried to step forward and tap the brakes on this which is what really needs to be done but the Silence of the other four members was deafening I sent a significant message you still have the chance to vote your conscience to do the right thing we should have tapped the brakes we didn't maybe we can tap the brakes on the Bengal project please vote for your citizens the room is packed thank you for your time thank you I got so I worked at North High School in Lakeville you guys probably all know the building heard of it in sports and everything um I ran the building it burnt a400 gallons per year to cool that building on little cooling towers I know on Cambry and way I can only water my grass every other day because we got a water band where are we going to get this magical water from they're going to go pound wells in deeper than we got so guess what you're going to be here to the taxpayers we're going to have to drill deeper wells so we can get more water you guys need to think of this where we're going to get the water where we going to get the electricity that we don't have to pay for it we can't just keep paying I got a two-bedroom Rambler and I'm paying $5,100 a year in taxes in it I can't even afford to live there to retire in four years when I want to retire I have to move it's a shame that we have to pay these kind of taxes on our houses now I'm going to have to pay for Wells and water towers and everything electrical grids I moved to Farmington because it was a small community I don't we don't need this it's crazy you guys are a people you're the ones that we elected for you to run the city of Farmington no you need to run it tonight and show us what you're going to do for us thank you [Applause] anyone else wishing to speak my name is Drew Ro and uh I'll speak on something that I didn't really want to have to bring up but I guess I will as somebody who's running for office who's talked to more voters and more constituents in Arington than anybody in this room the last 75 days I know how these people feel there are many more people that aren't here tonight that feel their exact same way I want to thank Steve for stepping up and trying to do the right thing I want to thank Holly for the other night with her for her cander and acknowledging that this if this was going to be in her backyard that she wouldn't like it I also want to bring it to the attention that I had there's a city staff member who tried to intimidate me from showing up to the Planning Commission and speaking out against this project so my question is why are we rushing this what is the rush I think Steve had a very good motion on the table tonight I would have loved to see somebody else make a second and do the right thing hopefully you guys will continue to do the right thing and vote no I know I'm not supposed to talk about that tonight but you know what that's why we're all here it's the elephant in the room do the right thing thank you anyone else last call all right we'll move on to item seven which is our consent agenda I'd seek a motion to approve the consent agenda motion to approve motion by Steve second second by Nick all in favor say I I I all right we'll move on to new business item 121 which is resolution 2024 T 97 adopting the final alternative Urban areawide review the Au AR for the Farmington Technology Park Deana thank you mayor and council tonight as the mayor mentioned what is in front of you is resolution iated with anticipated development within a geographically defined area the Minnesota rules must be followed when it comes to these environmental reviews and this is a planning tool it looks at development scenarios maximizes those scenarios and then identifies mitigation that would need to take place through all the various state agencies as well as at the city level to ensure that a development meets all of those environmental guidelines what you have on chart in front of you is the process again it's divine defined by Minnesota rules and you can see where we are today which is the adoption of the final AAR and its mitigation plan the Farmington Technology Park Au encompassed three Parcels in approximately 343 Acres you can see on this map outlined with the red dashed area um the area that was included within this again it analyzed potential impacts and identified those mitigation measures associated with two different scenarios one was a technology park and the other was mixed residential and Commercial uses Tonight We Have Allison hardwood with us she's the director of national natural resources at WSB the city had hired WSB to help us through this process and to review the document to ensure that it was adequate and accurate so with that I'll turn it over to Allison and she'll walk through the rest of the presentation thank you it's just the down button the down button okay all right good evening Council thank you Miss coonan as she mentioned my name is Allison Harwood I am director of Natural Resources with WSB a consulting firm um who helped the city staff with review of the the a that was submitted to them and um processing this through um the state process uh what's up here on the board is just some relevant um definition or terms that um you may see throughout this presentation eqb is the Environmental Quality board that's a state uh board that runs the environmental review program though the implementation implementation of the program is passed down to the local government um the responsible government unit in this case the city of Farmington there are various types of environmental review um EA W or environmental assessment worksheet is a familiar one um to many to many local governments environmental impact statement is a fairly high level of review and an AAR or alternative urban area areawide review um is a hybrid of the eaw and the Eis methods as mentioned previously the AO is a State Environmental review document um it's the hybrid of an eaw and an Eis that studies the effects that different development scenarios or land uses may have on the environment and Community infrastructure the advantage of an a is that it can be completed years in advance and can review large areas that may contain multiple individual developments but still includes a level of analysis that allows for planning and it can identify mitigation it's used as a planning tool to identify the potential for cumulative impacts of anticipated devel mment with an within an area excuse me it's used to identify mitigation measures for those potential impacts to inform future permitting Planning and Zoning decisions for both cities as well as developers it's important to note that a do not approve or deny a project they are simply a planning tool if multiple development scenarios are reviewed it's required that at least one must be in conformance with the current land use plan additional scenario are also often um included and often they're reviewed as the most dense or impactful scenario that a particular area could um could have there are several steps in the a a timeline some projects such as this one requireed an additional step on the front end called the scoping a the purpose of the scoping AO is to give reviewing agencies an opportunity to review the proposed scenarios and study area and make suggestions on perhaps other scenarios or um amended or revised study areas following that scoping process which happened in June and July for this project the rgus adopt an order to prepare the a that document called the draft a is prepared and then distributed for a 30-day public comment period to both agencies and the public once that 30-day comment period is is completed the the city and the developers um or the applicants take those comments revise that AAR as those comments May um may be needed and that final document goes back out to the agencies for an additional 10-day review and objection period if no objections are received the rgu can adopt the final AAR once an a is adopted it's valid for 5 years after which it must be um must be updated and in in order to remain valid there are many resources evaluated as part of an A or any environmental review document land use cover types potential for required permits or approvals and those can be at the federal state or local levels geology and Grading Water Resources habitat and Wildlife potential for contamination out of site potential for greenhouse gas or climate impacts Water and Sewer infrastructure the transportation Network um historic properties potential for visual air or noise impacts and then the CLE of potential impacts not only from the stady area itself but also poent other surrounding development that may be occurring all of those resources were evaluated for this project and there were several mitigation measures identified some of the mitigation measures are on this in the next slide um but it a full list is included in the final AAR some of the mitigation measures identified include rezoning um several local state or federal permit permits that may be required by the project the need for G geotechnical investigations and PDS compliance which is storm water compliance uh extensions or upgrades to water and sanitary infrastructure as well as well capacity planning and permitting potential for impacts to water resources and the need for storm water treatment and Wetland avoidance and impact minimization use of wildlife-friendly erosion control blanket tree clearing restrictions to avoid impacts to certain Wildlife species and the incorporation of native pollinator species into Landscaping also included were soil and hazardous waste management compliance visual design that would minimize impacts to insects and Wildlife dust control during construction use of construction timing to minimize noise impacts green or sustainable infrastructure design and the use of composting or recycling as needed and the need for intersection monitoring and potentially intersection improvements the draft AAR was sent out for review and there were several comments received some from from agencies and some from residents agencies who commented included Dakota County Department of Natural Resources Metropolitan Council and the Vermillion Watershed jpo the comments primarily focused on focused on the potential for implementing climate friendly design features the needs for future permitting and studies related to Water Resources including surface water groundwater and utilities these studies and permitting processes would address the potential for impacts and identify any specific mitigation measures necessary for resources such as Wetlands the Vermillion River groundwater and aquifers resulting from water appropriation and the needs for expanding utilities such as water and and sanitary sewer other comments focused on considerations to minimize impacts to Wildlife and their habitats land use changes and the potential for noise and visual impacts from lighting all of the comments were considered in the final AO which was distributed for the 10-day objection period in October and no objections were received again following adoption the AAR will remain valid for 5 years for the scenario studied all development within the study area would be covered by that re environmental review if it fit within the scenario studied developers and the city would review and Implement mitigation measures as necessary in addition to updating every 5 years the AAR would also potentially need to be updated if there was development proposed that was different or more impactful than the studied scenarios thank you for your time this evening and I'd be happy to answer any questions on the AO process that Council may have thank you uh just as a point of clarity as it as we look at a a study there are state agencies that essentially give you a pathway for a type of use that's intended so in this case there was two uses right and what they're doing is they're coming up with the mitigation strategy so they're saying if you do this these things need to be done right if there is objection to water usage fill in the blank any number of the things to where they don't feel any agency feels that this this or any project that has an a AR done on it uh was viable this is where they say it correct correct so the objection period would be where they would say that if there is not a process um currently in place through a regulatory program um to address whatever the concern is that's where the objection would come in and then ultimately it is on the rgu or the the local government unit that has to take that information work with the developer through performance standards contracts all the things to ensure that those mitigations are handled correct correct okay can local governments circumvent an environmental riew can they say I I I see the mitigation I see what we're supposed to be doing but we're going to go outside of it we're just going to go well above and beyond what mitigation strategies are there not address them what oversight is there to prevent a local governing unit from completely disregarding an environmental review study um so I guess the oversight would be in the Regulatory Agencies themselves for many of the impacts there are regulatory programs in place that would require um review by other agencies um in in addition to or um rather than the local government unit and so in those cases mitigation measures would also be implemented through those processes thank you Steve any questions I do um and I want to thank John for the nice uh chat we had earlier so we all read especially with the the DNR portion which was pretty critical but at the same time I kind of felt like they were I don't know this is kind of what I talked to John about it it almost felt like it wasn't really a comment towards Farmington it felt like it was more of a regional you know realization that oh my gosh we got activity in Rosemount and now in Farmington and you know Apple Valley and how are we're going to manage the Water Resources I mean you know you're you're just looking at this right now but do you do you feel like the the Met Council and the DNR has a real good handle on kind of what's going on within our regional communities I do and I think that's where some of those comments are coming from and a a restating of many of the requirements that they have already through their Regulatory and imp permitting processes so much of the dnr's comment was um restating of what their water Appropriations permit process is and what the city would be required um to commit to and do in order to get more water appropriation than their permit currently allows sure that's all Katie I have none Holly I don't no and just to add on to that concept right that is true regardless of the development scenario I read that as a comment of hey Farmington is growing you're running into a sort of Developmental wall with your current water Appropriations and you are need to plan regardless of what the industry is or what the use case is if you start building high-rise apartments for instance you're going to run into that wall and they're telling you to address it now rather than later right correct yep that was a a statement for both scenarios it wasn't necessarily directed at just the the one for the tech how I had understood that is so if you showed Industries on a compar scale to each other I mean it's it's an equivalent statement either way right it's not specific to saying yes a data center will induce this thing on you necessarily yes it was just a statement that if if additional water appropriation is needed which appears that it may be um that there was a process that needs to be followed to evaluate those impact potential impacts thank you actually I do have a question so obviously with an AAR we're studying a particular parcel of land right that's the whole purpose of doing this um but when we're talking about DNR in particular related to like water impact um shifting that space like moving it a half mile to the east a half a mile to the West is that likely to affect what the DNR is most concerned about which is the overall water use for this particular area in general like when we're talking about Dakota County as a as a broader scope does moving it one way or the other like from a geographical standpoint have a direct impact on their concern or is it a greater scope of concern that is just something that we need to be mindful of overall anyway sure um you know I can't answer that uh in detail but generally speaking um when they're looking at groundwater impacts it's going to be at more of a regional Scale based on the aquafer and other groundwater resources and so moving it a half mile um East or West wouldn't necessarily change the scope of their review they're reviewing it at a larger scale than that I appreciate it thank you I don't have any additional comments or questions beyond the ones I've asked if there's anything else to add if there's not then I would seek a motion uh to approve resolution 2024 Tac 97 adopting the final alternative Urban areawide review AAR for the Farmington Technology Park motion to approve second motion by Katie second by Holly call the rule please council member berance yes council member lean yes council member Wilson yes council member buram yes mayor ho yes thank you ma'am thank you all right next action item under new business is item 12 Tac 2 now 12 Tac 2 has three different items within it so we have 12 Tac 2 Tac 1 which is the comprehensive plan amendments for the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course in Angus uh 12 Tac 2 Tac 2 is resoning of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and property formerly known as the Angus property from B1 Highway business R1 low density residential R2 low medium density residential R3 medium density residential uh Park and open space and A1 agriculture to muci mixed use commercial industrial and 12 Tac 2 Tech 3 which is the preliminary PL and preliminary preliminary planned unit development for the Farmington technology Park um Min lco Farmington LLC and Min lco Farmington 2 LLC tract all three of these or all three of these items will be presented as one and then separate motions will be made correct Tony thank you mayor council members uh the requests this evening as uh mayor hoit had uh previously or just mentioned include uh three items um the first would be a comprehensive plan Amendment uh or amendments for the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties the second is the resoning of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and property formerly known as Angus property from B1 R1 R2 R3 park in open space and A1 to muci and then the final action or the request this evening is the preliminary plat preliminary plan unit development for the Farmington Technology Park and that is by track uh before we start um I think it's important that we kind of take a step back and talk about how we got to this point this evening um a little bit of History The Fountain Valley Golf Course was annexed in the city on October 18th of 2006 uh there was a resoning of the property from A1 to the mixture that is currently out there now so the B1 R1 R2 R3 in parking open space uh that happened on January 16th of 2007 and then there was also a comprehensive plan Amendment uh approved that same evening in 2007 guiding The Fountain Valley Golf Course from non-designated being that it was annexed into the city to low density residential low medium density residential medium density residential commercial and parks in open space uh then since 2007 obviously we went through the the recession uh which paused and or um stopped a number of planned or projected developments throughout the community and across the entire country uh the city has rebounded and naturally occurring development patterns have shifted uh we have seen a number of developments occur um since then including like fa Hill State at North Creek Rita Fields Sapphire Whispering Fields vaa metav view preserve REM miling Commons to name just a few um additionally cap X line was installed roughly in uh 2013 2014 time frame uh with installation of this uh line it did put Farmington on the map for large scale uh Power users due to access to the 345 kV line uh and then some of the recent things uh the city did decide in uh 2022 to update the overall comprehensive plan for the city uh to guide unguided land plan for land annexed uh through the incorporation of Empire Township and then to identify areas for additional business growth due to a number of constraints including the amounts of property uh that are in the city that are enrolled in agricultureal preserve and egg or Green Acres along with significant areas of white landland and flood plan there is limited area to accommodate commercial and Industrial inquiries uh Theus property was annexed into the city effective on on April 24th of this year at which time process started to reu rezone and to support future development uh as I had mentioned uh the 2040 Citywide midcycle comprehens a plan uh we did uh initially start that in 2022 uh it was paused for a couple months as there were some significant staff changes during that time it was reinitiated in 20 early 2023 uh again in response to accommodate for future commercial and Industrial growth and due to the annexation of approximately 570 acres of land that was part of that uh city of Empire incorporation uh the properties be being considered tonight those being Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties were part of that midcycle Amendment however due to working through some of the larger details of this larger Amendment um that Amendment was not ready to be processed at this time and because of that staff felt um that was in the city's best interest to proceed with uh the amendments to the golf course and Angus properties separately uh which brings us to the various requests today uh for uh comprehensive plan amendments again for the Fountain Valley Golf Course which would uh change the land use plan from a mixture of commercial low density residential low medium density residential medium density residential itial and park in open space to mixed use commercial and Industrial and to change the anticipated development staging from post 2040 to 2020 2030 and then the second request regards to the Angus properties uh there's three changes that would include for those uh the first one is including three Parcels in the city's 2020 Musa which is our Metropolitan urban service area to land use plan change from non-designated to mixed use commercial industrial and three including these Parcels in the 2020 2030 development staging time frame now jumping to the resoning request uh again we're looking at the Angus properties and the Fountain Valley Golf course for the Angus properties uh being that the property was annexed into the city this year uh it automatically came into the city as an A1 or agricultural zoning the request is to reone uh the two Parcels from A1 uh to muci mixed use commercial industrial and then as far as the golf course uh again currently Zone those mixtures of B1 R1 R2 R3 uh and park and open space uh this request is to reone that parel to muci as well which is mixed use commercial industrial and just to Note data centers are permitted uses in the muci zoning District as far as some of the surrounding land uses there's agricultural uses to the north low density residential and agricultural uses to the east those being in Castle Rock Township industrial and low density residential to the West uh agricultural uses to the South as far as the uh Farmington preliminary plat uh Farmington Technology Park preliminary plat uh the plat consists of three lots spread over just over over 340 acres of land lot one block one is 155 Acres it's the northern portion of the data center campus lot two block one is 2.07 Acres uh this lot is proposed to be deed to the city for various utility purposes lot one block two is 185 Acres uh this is the southern portion of the data center south of 225th Street uh with the preliminary plat there's a 75t wide draing utility and roadway Trail easement uh provided along the Eastern portion of lot one block one uh for the preservation of the future biscane Avenue Corridor for Dakota County within your packet there is what is referred to as a representative site plan uh the site plan shows how the site could potentially be developed it is subject to change based on the uh end user um if anyone that is determined uh individual site plans will have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any data center building and ancillary use on site is constructed uh this this review will ensure compliance with all aspects of improved plan unit development and plat uh there will be uh Pro proposed design standards as part of the plan unit development Alli plans again would have to be in compliance with these standards as well uh this is just a quick representation of the uh representative site plan of the one on the North shows the north campus and the one on the right uh shows the southern campus as well uh these uh site plans provide for up to 12 Data Center buildings and two administrative buildings between the North and South campuses the square footage of the data centers on the north campus site is 1.6 million square ft and 933 Square ft on the southern campus again this is the most that could fit on that site not necessarily representing what will actually be on the site sea will be substantially greater than uh generally allowed in the muci district uh the muci district allows for the following setbacks a front and side yard setback of zero feet rear yard set back of 20 ft the proposed setback would be a minimum 250 ft from properties adjacent to residential uses and 150 ft from any property line adjacent to nonresidential uses that is what is currently being proposed uh the applicant is proposing a 40ft wide natural buffer which would be around the majority of the perimeter of the site with an intent to retain as many of the existing trees that are located in that buffer as practical additional bming up to 10 ft in height uh will also be placed within the natural buffer area to provide additional screening and visual Aesthetics uh birming greater than 10 ft in height uh can be allowed with City prior City approval as well perimeter fencing uh they're proposing it up to 14 ft in height will also be provided fencing will be located outside of that natural buffer area uh as far as the transportation and parking for anticipated accesses for the campus uh the northern campus includes one access off of uh Minnesota 50 and one off of 225th Street West the southern campus includes access off of 225th Street and biscan Avenue the proposed development standards would require one parking space for each 1,000 foot of office space the parking spaces would not be required for the designated data Hall in data Hall areas just the office spaces that would be provided for uh the city will be uh requesting cash and L uh for Parks uh instead of taking land with this particular plat application uh this just shows the uh General land use plan for the overall um campus again the uh Brown area generally shows the build area that's being proposed as you can see on the southern uh portion of the campus there's about 69 to 70 Acres that is uh flood plane and or Wetland so as far as the preliminary planned unit development um in your in your packet there are 14 various items that are um up for discussion as far as what is being proposed for different uh design standards and requirements of that planned unit development everything from seacs natural buffers Landscaping easement uh General design standards Building height fence height uh electric utility lines noise parking substations uh private communication Towers maximum lock coverage and lighting um in your packet we do we have been working with the developer on a number of various items in regards to the Pud standards that are being proposed um so what we included in your packet and on your Das um is an updated version of that that reflects some uh additional enhancements that are being proposed um this is different than what was provided to the Planning Commission um the council does have the authority to change and modify those type of requirements that are brought uh from the planing Comm to the city council um what we'll do is we'll kind of go through these um the first one again is the setback it deals with um the 250 ft um the one thing that I do want to mention is that in the original there was a uh 1G uh which dealt with the generators and mechanical equipment being exempt from building setac requirements um we track has agreed to remove that um from from the language um so basically those would have to meet any setback that would be proposed so uh as far as the natural buffer this talks about the 40 ft um from the perimeter um what they're looking to accomplish with those uh natural areas uh the third is uh Landscaping um the change that was uh put in there just uh again talks about um the existing Landscaping code that we we have within the city um it does talk about uh burms uh being required to be constructed where development occurs adjacent to residential uses um it does talk about the BMS over 10 ft height uh which may be allowed again subject to administrative site plan approval by the city um then any berms approved with a site plan for a Data Center building uh not constructed prior to the first fountain cannot be um sorry any I'll read this verbatim any berms approved with a site plan for a Data Center building shall be constructed prior to the First Foundation inspection for any building uh included in the associated approved site plan Landscaping associated with the berm shall be installed during the Minnesota growing season if construction of the berms are completed outside of that growing season then all required Landscaping shall be installed by June first um of the subsequent growing season um and that we jump into number four these for the future County Road uh talks about that 75 ft um wide uh rway essentially um that would be plac adjacent to lot one and then number five is where we get into the uh design standards um specifically for principal building facades uh should meet a certain number of Standards including for the purpose of uh um principal building facade shall avoid the use of unilateral surfaces uh by including at least two of the following Design Elements those include uh changing Building height building step backs uh projections and recesses uh fenestration uh changes in building material pattern uh texture and color use of accent material Cal overhangs canopies and uh porticos arcades and variations in the roof line as well so those are all those things that we're looking to achieve as far as the design of the building itself now ultimately those will be um reviewed as part of the site plan for each individual building um they're not being designed essentially this evening so that would be something that would happen a little further down in the the process proc uh it talks about the screening of uh building mechanical equipment and critical infrastructure um the one thing I do want to mention here is that uh the rooftop uh mounted equipment uh would not uh exceed the overall of 80 fet in height which is again the maximum height that they're looking to achieve um with this um development now again the 80 ft height would be a a step back approach it would be 50 feet at the property line and then there would be a calculation that would determine where they could place the the 80ft building and typically that would be towards the center of the given lot that they're looking to to build on uh fence height talks about uh the overall height which would be increased to 14 ft um one of the areas that was added in this new um or this updated version is uh under 71 uh it is in locations where the existing fence will be relocated uh to the property line on the west side of the property boundary uh applicant shall provide adjacent Property Owners with the opportunity to collectively decide between three choices of fence material and designed to include uh but not limited two wood chain link and metal uh applicant shall also replace any damaged uh Landscaping resulting from the uh fence relocation as well um then we jump to eight electric utility lines basically outlines the you know how and when uh those type of facilities will be brought to the uh various buildings um noise uh noise generated from the site or from the site shall meet thatal applicable uh ordinance requirements as established by uh the npca um you know prior to a site plan applicant shall provide a noise study um which would have to demonstrate that the applicable noise levels will not be um exceeded um and it also states that the time of the site plan and building permit review additional noise uh attenuation measures uh to ensure those uh compliance with rules um are are met um may be required as well so there could be additional measures that would be needed um depending on um what that noise study comes back to say uh then we jump to 10 which is uh parking again it talks about the one per uh th000 Square ft of office space um sub stations it does talk about um the type of uh equipment um being outdoors and that they'll have to be sufficiently um um screened uh private communication towers are permitted um per these um design standards and are subject to the building setback requirements and then uh maximum lock coverage uh just talks about the developable area that was shown in the land use plan previously uh shown and then 14 is a newly added um section uh dealing specifically with lighting uh it states that the maximum height of pole mounted exterior lighting shall be uh 18 ft all exterior lighting fixtures including pole mounted exterior lighting and building mounted exterior lighting shall be fully shielded with uh side shields in installed uh lighting shall not exceed uh 05t candles at the uh interior edge of the natural buffer area um as applicable lighting that is exempt from these uh requirements includes temporary lighting and lighting provided for emergency and safety and security purposes as uh requested by the uh or required by the building code um the lighting of the building is uh prohibited the maximum height of any building mounted exterior lighting fixture shall be 35 ft in height uh with the um exception of motion activated security lighting um so it places some standard on where those lighting fixtures can be located height uh shielding things like that so again those were all things that were uh put in place to enhance um those design standards uh as far as the Planning Commission review the plan commission did review and recommend approval of the preliminary plat and plan unit development for the inton Technology Park along with the resoning of the parcels at the September 10th uh regular meeting uh in the recommended approval with a vote of 5 Z the plan commission did review again the uh and recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendments at their October 8th regular meeting with a vote of 40 as well that leads us to the action as requested this evening uh by separate action approve the following first adopt resolution 2024-the is commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties and authorize the submitt of the amendments to the Metropolitan Council to adopt ordinance [Music] 2024-25 d99 approving the preliminary plat in ponary plan unit development for the Farmington technology part thank you sir who um let's back up here real quick because there's a lot there there's a lot in the three items um and I want to make sure that we we address them with questions Andor statements by piece okay um so what I'm going to ask is that the first thing we do is let's let's go into uh the first item which would be 12 Tac 2 Tac 1 uh which is the comprehensive plan Amendment and we'll start with any questions or statements there then we'll move into uh the second part which would be the resoning and then we'll move into questions or statements around the preliminary plat and the uh plan unit development after we go through and and we've had our questions and our statements uh at that point we would look and address uh each action item individually okay that way we don't start asking questions about the Pud and the plat and then we go back to the zoning of the comp plan so let's gather our questions and our statements around the first item being the comprehensive plan Amendment and mayor if I may yes um we do have the track team available here as well um we also have John berer from Dakota Electric here um if there are specific questions to um electricity or anything like that as well so just wanted to make you aware of that before we start real quick I I just want to I want to make one quick uh statement SL slash question and that's timeline okay uh you did a very good job articulating you know how things have happened getting up to this point uh what is the timeline going forward so we talk about preliminary plats preliminary puds um we know that there's development contracts there's final final puds like will you just generally speaking give an outline of of what the process looks like moving forward sure sure um yeah if this does get approved this evening uh they will have to go uh and get a final plat approved through uh the Planning Commission and city council along with a development contract and final PUD um depending on what happens tonight um that could happen go to plan commission as soon as uh their regular meeting in November for a recommendation um ultimately that then comes to council for um your final review and decision um then once that is done um if that's approved plat is recorded development contract recorded um at that point they could at any time come in for a site plan review which would be ran through the Planning Commission to Ure that all of those design standards that have been established are being met um and those do get approved through just the Planning Commission those would not get that's not a recommendation to the city council that would be approval by the Planning Commission so um in theory they they would like to have um all of their entitlements so being the final plat development contract all of that um approved by the end of the year um we do still need to if the comprehensive plan amendment is approved uh run that through the Metropolitan Council for adoption um that would get submitted to them probably in within a week or two um if approved um and at that point they typically have about a 60-day window um to review those so okay thank you for that Clarity Steve yeah I mayor the way you outlined um the process sounds reasonable the question I have is um Tony based on what you present this sounds like this kind of fits into number three of our three-part discussion so if we have questions on what was just presented we would talk about that and do number three corre correct correct we won't take any we won't take any a action I'm not going to seek any motions until we've gone through all three of the items but I want to make sure that we keep them so if there's comp plan Amendment questions let's keep them there then let's go into the resoning questions then let's go into the pr plant and pey that way no you know we're not doubling up on each other or anything fair enough okay do you we'll start with you then do you have any questions or statements regarding the comprehensive plan Amendment sure I will um I I guess I was probably prepared more for the kind of take him as a one lump group but I can I can do it that way I am going to make one comment at the front end and I do not want this to go on the community pages I don't want this to go in the newspaper this is me just telling you about me right now I really don't want to be here tonight my father is dying he has anywhere between right now and maybe a week to live so if I become emotional in some way shape or form it really has probably less to do with our decision than just me being a son who is fortunate enough to be 56 and still have a dad with us um and I'm just going to say this we all have family we all have loved ones who have gone through any number of struggles I mean I am blessed that my dad made it to to 89 he certainly will not see another birth date he's dying of dementia um but I'll tell you what if you could talk to me right now he'd say well you absolutely go to that city council meeting um and I don't miss a city council meeting unless something you know uh significant comes up so I don't want that in the community Pages it's just Steve being Steve you know we all have life going on all right so the the reason I wanted the council to consider the moving of the comprehensive plan is all of you know as council is aware we had a first kind of glance at the um interim comprehensive plan which um you know huge kudos to Dean and to Tony and I think Steph was probably involved tooo a lot of input um has occurred with regard to the necessity of looking at a revised comp plan and really the key areas that that plan looked at was kind of the area long Flag Staff some of those you know current agricultural areas to say you know if they weren't agricultural what else could it be so we have that in process to me while you uh while I agree with you know the comments made ear about considering those separately I think it is relevant because we are talking about a significant change to the comprehensive plan to you know let's kind of put the everything on the table and kind of look at it at one time to see what it looks like um you know some uh I based on what I've seen there's some parts of that I find very very appealing there's other parts that are very concerning with kind of that initial look at it and if any anyone in this room hasn't seen it you know the the comp plan proposal that's kind of kind of our first look at it shows not only the area that we are talking about tonight but also shows the whole Southern quadrant of the annexed area to be of a similar use so you know if what would be the safest way to say it if you're a business owner or resident in that area theor thetically if the comp plan were to stay as it looks in this proposal you could theoretically be Boxed In by you know mixed use commercial industrial or similar in that whole area now to me that's personally concerning um so you know as I look at the comprehensive plan and look Tony did a nice job of pointing that part out um the last time the city had this level of and maybe it's just my luck but the last time the city had this much controversy over over a comprehensive plan amendment was the high school sighting um I literally had moved to Farmington about a year before voting on that and you know you can imagine the fear of oh my gosh what do I do with this but the the difference between that situation in 20056 and today is the comprehensive plan had a a institutional use already called out for it so really it was incumbent upon the Planning Commission and the city council to essentially follow through with that of course there was a lot of other stuff that happened litigation Etc uh between the city and school bad chapter in our city in our City's history but that went on so as I look at our comprehensive plan and again all of us have seen up here and as well as a Planning Commission have seen um our guiding principles what we believe as a city what we want the city to look like to be connected to have strong neighborhoods to have a strong Park system to to you know you think about it and you think about a fabric of a quilt and it's all kind of put together and it and it works and it works well when I think about this type of development in the comprehensive plan Amendment this does not work this just flat out doesn't work and I was initially you know initially I like you know you know this isn't that big of a deal but I think what really changed my mind and I tried really hard not to let it change my mind was our trip to Iowa so there's a lot of things all of us were looking to see different things you know what kind of sound is you know what kind of sound what kind of traffic what do the buildings look like the thing that stuck out to me was what I didn't see so we went to the Apple data center in walki it's along Hickman Road uh for anybody who's been down there been to living history farms run down there whatever but you know walk is blowing up this Apple data center sits literally in the middle of nowhere now it is going to have stuff around it by developer Choice which might include residential but they will choose to move to that area so what struck me was the only thing nearby that data center was Hickman Road the Westerly Road and I think a a church that probably been around for hundred years in the Northeast corner of an adjacent parcel and when I Envision a Data Center and the and the comprehensive plan with a data center it's not in the middle of a neighborhood it's in a area that is zoned away from areas which have homes and maybe smaller businesses so as I look at this comprehensive plan yes all of us might arrive at a different place and we're all going to have our opinions for arriving at a different place for me I cannot support a comprehensive plan with um this type of use so adjacent and so close to our neighborhoods and I might say this in the next section I feel like a data center needs quote unquote room to breathe you know they're big honking facilities and you know we can all be critical of how much we or our kids or the future relies on artificial intelligence I I mean the department of energy and multiple different sources I've read point to as much as 9% of our us electrical production 9% it's a really big number is going to be directed towards um data center energy consumption so energy and water are obviously big big factors um and I want a an attractive facility to be here in Farmington you know tract is doing their job you know they're doing what what what they need to do it's our job as a council to say you know we appreciate you but we we don't think this site makes sense we need you you know we can't tell them where to go either so it's not our job to say you go here you know that's that's a a landowner private property rights issue um but as it relates to um the comprehensive plan I would not be able to support that woo I have nothing k no nothing hly um actually i' I'd like to start first by asking just a question so that for those that are not familiar um with the process so that we can understand the difference between a comprehensive plan Amendment and the way that it res relates to the resoning request how are they connected and then how are they separate in in this instance generally speaking your comprehensive plan would be a higher level of um a higher level like the 40,000 foot view of uh things um whereas in rezoning you get into the things that deal with um things like bulk standards so your height set packs um uses whether it's permitted conditional things like that so um generally speaking you want the two um things to be in concert with each other um so but really that's the the difference the comprehensive plan is more of a a generalized higher level review of things and then you get into the the nitty-gritty the dirt if you will um with the zoning and if I if I may Tony um I would just add on it's important that there is that's why these items are coming together right um because the zoning needs to be supported by the comp plan and vice versa so right and and and I appreciate it because from the outside looking in it looks like you're asking to do the same thing twice right yeah um so when when you look at this as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned for those that aren't familiar with how the process unfold it looks like we are asking for a comprehensive Plan update that essentially is exactly the same as the resoning update uh or the resoning request and so I I just for me I think it was you know important to to point that out um where I believe I want to start with this is um is first of all to say that I have the utmost respect for every person that I sit next to up here regardless of whether or not we ultimately um end up feeling the same way at the end of this uh discussion um I have deep respect um for Steve and for Katie and for Mar hoit and for Nick uh in the work that I know that they have independently done um because I know that for me this is not uh a decision that comes lightly it's not uh something that I just have Hazard stumbled into here tonight um without um concern without reservation without thought without research without reading um and listening and watching and attending uh at every opportunity um as it relates to you know comprehensive plan Amendment um you know the way that I see a comprehensive plan is is as a strategic document uh the the purpose for it for me is is not that it's ever something that's set in stone um its intention is for vision but um the purpose of it is is the framework for for decision- making um and the point also is not it it's not that it can't be adjusted um so that's where I have to consider you know where my moral philosophical and ethical obligations are uh especially when there is a decision that um based on my research uh is going to be one that benefits uh a majority of residents while definitely impacting a a a small number as well um and the thing is that my responsibility is in making decision that decisions that maximize the overall well-being of the greatest number of people but that doesn't mean that um the the impact gets to be disproportionate it means that it has to be understood that it has to be um thought out that it has to be considered and so you know one of the things that comes up is is that wide breath area and and do we have it and I I'm I'm not seeing that as what's available um for Farmington I'm I'm seeing an opportunity where there's a private land owner and a uh private developer that are interested in an agreement and I have to ask the very difficult question of is this the right space um for this particular project and uh while there are several types of development scenarios um that could be discussed I I don't have the ability to travel back in time nor do I have a crystal ball um and so um I I am of the opinion that I do see this is reasonable I I look at what exists currently along Highway 3 um as far as the commercial footprint that's there I look at what is along Highway 50 um and seeing that there is industrial use there and I I realize that it's not something that is exciting it's not something that is pretty but it also doesn't step outside of the scope of what is reasonable um with proper time attention and mitigation efforts that's very well stated um I would say in a in a similar way you know I've heard this complaint numerous times that there's plenty of land in Farmington there's plenty of land in Farmington Tony made a comment here showing how there is a surprisingly limited amount of commercial land available in this town due to things like the a preserve um are people impacted by a change like this yes they are I'm not going to diminish that for anybody here um things are changing we don't have all the answers we're working through that but to say it goes here versus Flagstaff versus 50 you can always draw that Circle within Farm this is not that big of a city someone will be impacted by a change this big so is there breathing room I generally do not believe that there is and this is the best opportunity in front of us with what we have today that's it Tony I want to go back a little bit um as it pertains to the comp plan you had mentioned how the area in question Fountain Valley and and the Sur let's start with f the Fon Valley Golf Course parcel right annexed in in 2005 2006 right somewhere in there at the time and as with any elected official anyone who sits here you have to make the best decision you can with the information you have in front of you at the time it's the best you can do you have to make the decision based on what's in front of you you can speculate you can hope and I believe that roughly 20 years ago the people that sat here or I technically wasn't sitting in this building but the people at the time thought based on market demand based on the development of a few areas things were going to happen in a certain way there were outside um extending circumstances a recession things that change that and then we fast forward to the conversations we've had in the last 6 to 12 months and we've been talking about the comp plan in general I'm going to sidestep here for a second the reason I asked to go back is we started the visioning component the update to the comp plan we had a change in some staff and then there was a AAR that was um commenced on the A4 mentioned Bengal project area right correct correct me if I'm wrong but because that a started we could not at that time update the comp plan that's correct we we couldn't we could we could run through our process we could run through our process we could not submit correct Council would not review so we start working on something then an AAR commences on a different parcel stops the like we can do our work internally but it can't go to Mech Council the the official action can't be taken on it in the meantime this project in in question pops up right so now we're forced to sit back and go a little bit deeper which brings me back to the last few months we've talked a lot in work session about how this community has changed and one of the things that gets missed often is where Farmington actually exists we have a municipal boundary the address of Farmington doesn't mean the municipal boundaries of Farmington we've grown up in the community we all call it Community we all call it the greater Farmington area are it's the farm T area public schools for the longest time that's what we've referred it to there's people that live 4 miles south of Bellar in Lakeville that live with a Farmington address so often the the the thought is I see all this stuff that's in Farmington and realistically it's not when you look at the municipal boundary of Farmington it is significantly smaller than what we think it is when you start to Overlay what's in EG preserve what's in Green Acres the size of the par Parcels 80 100 120 plus acres per parcel it's not as easy as just chopping things up and saying it should go here here here and here it makes it very difficult to master plan or put together an effective comprehensive plan because you're talking about significant size of parcels we're working with the information that we have today and here months ago this project lands in front of us right is it ideal no it's not ideal but it doesn't need 100% to make it permissible we as elected officials have to make decisions for all of the residents of Farmington all of them every single one of them because our police our fire our Public Works our city services go to all of the residents of Farmington we don't have to like it we don't have to agree with it but that's the reality of what we have in front of us we talked about it's mentioned often about process right when our city administrator was hired two plus years ago the first action item she had was to commence on a development review process we had to figure out why was the city of Farmington always the second tier or third option why were we not being considered for larger developments other residential opportunities and you know what we heard from the the people who are actually writing the checks wanting to do the development you're difficult to deal with why because arbitrary decision-making was happening we didn't we the elected bodies at the time overtime were making arbitrary decisions about what was or was not in the best interest of this community we can't do that whether we like a project or not we have to allow it to go through the process to circumvent that process or to think that early on without allowing it to go through the proper process we are making arbitrary decisions and that's not what any elected body in any Community should do for us to stand up and say no six months ago devoids any development opport of the opportunity to go through and see if the project is even viable with that are there any additional comments as it pertains to the comprehensive Plan update seeing none we'll move on to the second item which is the rezoning of the golf course in the property formerly known as the Angus property Katie any questions or comments No Holly no Nick I do want to read a couple notes on this one you know I've I've heard comments to the effect of the spot zoning claim uh I do just want to go on kind of a public record as saying that I I do not find grounds for this um you can make a fairly reasonable argument that as you drive out of out of town from three on 50 the entire south side of 50 is already commercial today it cannot be considered unreasonable to think that continuing along a commercial strip in that regard is any sort of arbitrary decision it is's hang on okay we're gonna non forgive me we're going to maintain theorum you know like you said I'm going to leave like you said before we don't like it we can move out of Haring you already made up your mind anyway that's WR you already made up your mind all go ahead Nick that was actually all I wanted to say on that particular spot zoning topic was just as a part to rezoning I don't have any questions or comments as it pertains to the rezoning Steve Steve yeah actually I just had one one comment in this item so um and I just I I I think it's a you know again could this have been talked about in the previous it I'm sure um you know the rezoning you know there there's a couple parts to this because you could say well you know private property rights which we value in this country in uh uh very much uh similar to free speech similar to owning a gun and all that um private property rights is tremendously important the distinction here though is um and I do want to point this out that the the landowner um has went into an agreement uh with the developer contingent upon all these approvals um and so obviously that's why the resoning needs to occur is to enable this to you know for this to indeed happen um if the you know if the zoning let's say that this was going to be housing for example R1 R2 R3 there would really not need to be a rezoning it would just be a sale that would have already occurred so um I just wanted to Simply point out that um you know the city uh or that um that the private property right component is obviously very important but it needs to occur to effectuate this change so all right we will move on to the third item uh which is the preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development Nick no comment nothing okay H good this is where I have lots of comments um I so one of the things that I I want to talk about a bit with regard to this is um really where the conversation about um my appreciation for what it is to be a resident that has committed to um coming to our meetings um for the last several months uh and and and what I I can only view as as being um what it's like to be on that side i' I've been on that side actually once before and I remember standing uh there myself and thinking that I was talking you know for several minutes at a time usually longer than what was probably supposed to be allowed um and it was a bunch of blank stairs up here uh and there was no opportunity um in in that moment for conversation there was no opportunity uh for connection and I can only um All Too Well understand how unnerving that can be to feel as though the things that you're saying are not being heard and in in this situation this is where I want to be very clear that I have again I have listened to every comment that has been made I have read every article that been submitted I have watched every video I have um spoken with people across the country um both those that I've sought out myself and both and those that have been recommended by residents here and I am so deeply grateful uh to every single person for doing that because there were a lot of really good points that were brought up and they were brought up in in a mess of emotion but they were brought up and it led to what I really feel were some positive things that have come out um particularly for me with the Pud and this is something that I spent uh a good amount of time digging into and I'm sure Kristen was a little bit um annoyed or not annoyed um maybe uh surprised would be the better word um by how um much I dug into this one and so I know Tony went over this but one of the things that was really important to me was uh was scratching G which for those that hadn't seen it was the idea that the generators are mechanical equip equipment um were exempt from the building setback requirements uh as I said before when when there's a process like this in front of us and and the mayor mentioned it too I I'm not sitting here loving this somebody asked me would you want it in your backyard and I said I wouldn't be thrilled at the idea and that's not a lie I wouldn't be thrilled at the idea and I also said that I don't have the luxury of making a decision in a way that is equal to what I may or may not be thrilled about I have to make a decision outside of my own emotion I have to make a decision um that is for all of uh the city of Farmington and with that in mind one of the things that I was very specifically uh intent on was making sure that I understood that the Pud as it was proposed could very well be the end and if I wasn't willing to accept that as a possibility then I wouldn't be able to put anything behind it and so seeing that the setbacks and and line G U being scratched that was incredibly important to me because it means that generators and mechanical equipment are not exempt from the setback requirements um one of the other things that we discussed uh was um just some ambiguity around what would be sufficient coverage for screening or um where rooftop equipment fell into the scope of of height requirements and uh I'm I'm also pleased to to see that there have been some updates in there um regarding that terminology uh one question I do want to ask uh actually has to do with um buffers and I think Kristen we had talked about this so you might be able to speak a little bit more on this one uh when we discussed burms um I know that we had talked about some information related to um particularly my feeling that if we were going to put this in in this particular space that burms next to residential were incredibly important um and I appreciate that language um I'm wondering about the security fencing that was a conversation that we had a little bit more recently and uh if there is the possibility of another adjustment where um security fening would fall to the inside rather than to the outside of uh the perimeter so that for our residents as as they're experiencing this change what they're not seeing is a security fence and then a whole bunch of natural buffer behind it but in fact the reverse of that um can you okay thank you I'm Kristen Dean with tracked Holly you did bring up a very good point in the distinction between essentially perimeter fencing and security fencing and so we have a situation where along the east and west property lines there are um the there would be the fencing that would separate the the property from the adjacent properties and in that situation we have added in um additional uh PUD standards that commits the developer to work with the property owners where the existing fences along the um the Western property line it's interior to the site and when that fence is relocated to the property line that the developers committed to working with those Property Owners to establish a style of fence that works for them so um it would ideally be a collective decision between those residents so that there's a a uniform fence design there but that's more of a residential style fence security fencing is intended to be closer into the site so truly it is around the building it's around the parking areas and so you would have security fencing interior to the site and then the natural buffer and then and then uh the adjacent properties and so um we can add language in and we can and we can codify that with um the final um PUD that distinguishes between the security and the perimeter fencing but something along the lines of um this the security fencing may not be installed within the natural buffer so that puts it on the interior of of the site and then fencing along the property line something to the effect of shall not exceed 7 ft unless otherwise approved by the city and we can talk through what that standard might look like so that it's more of a residential style fence because I believe that's the objective that you're trying to meet is that at that at the property line and 40 ft in it is has more of a natural feel and then security fencing which can be up to 14 ft would be on the inside of that um natural buffer interior to the site okay uh yeah and I don't I don't know what that looks like from uh a process for tonight uh Leah can you speak maybe a little bit more to that yes um we can do kind of as directed if um if other members of the council if there's some consensus there or with the motion to approve the resolution you can say with language um in separating security fence from a residential fence okay I don't know if that's something that's worth discussing now or if we come back to that footballall get it Leah correct me if I'm wrong but if we so Holly has brought up the the point about the fence if any of my peers want to comment about the fence then basically we're directing staff to work with the developer to say this is the direction that we want to see it go and then that way they it's on the record they've got it and then um depending on how the vote goes um they're using that as the language to um they're using that as the direction to ultimately make the necessary amendments to take back to the Planning Commission for further discussion to update is that fair if I'm comfortable with that Tony do you have any problems with that no that would be fine and if any of those changes that the council want to see that those would be added to that final PUD um at that time be reviewed by the Planning Commission and ultimately the the council okay as long as we have a running list of things that we're talking about okay I'm good with that it's deorum I apologize but maybe the same thing could apply to the bu setal sides let us work through because we knew that the I had the assumption that the preliminary plat the PE the the standards were going to be an extensive conversation point and there are multiple things that are going to get talked about and I want to make sure that we can we can all drop our points on it get some feedback from the developer City staff and legal and then ultimately come up with we'll call it a a a hot list or whatever it may be right um keep going one one of the other things that I was looking at underneath General design standards and I I appreciate the uh desire to include at least two um Design Elements I would like to add um as an addition to that the possibility of uh fa Windows this was actually something that I was discussing um uh for for quite a bit of time um with uh with different people in in different areas and uh um uh m Mr Turner out in Lowden County had brought that up as uh an addition um that might be worth um considering just from a visual aesthetic standpoint um so underneath principal building facades when it talks about the two of the following Design Elements um visually uh from an aesthetic standpoint we're talking about change in Building height step backs it's uh 5 a and and II um to add in their um like faux Windows as one of the other opportunities um for a more visually appealing um and aesthetic um presentation to the buildings could you clarify your intent behind full windows faux faux Windows as in visually appealing from the outside not necessarily usable from the inside I got it thank you uh can I can I just ask a point of information here are we designing standards on the fly or are we talking about and I and I appreciate your comments but I just want to make sure that I just want to make sure that I know if we're talking about our thoughts on this particular item or for Designing standards here at the Das Le and I'm not trying to sound critical but that's how I feel like we the direction we're going here yeah I guess in short both uh now to discuss design according to kind of what we've talked about where we're talking about it all first um now would be the time to discuss those conditions that um council's looking for as a part of the Pud approval does that answer your question council member Wilson yeah we're not not it it does but what concerns me is we've got a a body of experts called the Planning Commission that are very um Adept at design and development standards and I would be very uncomfortable from my seat saying you know and Holly brought up some great some great points but there could be other points that the Planning Commission may want to bring up and this is the concern I have about approving the preliminary plat because once you get the process in motion then they come back and say well ah we missed that one or we missed this one or the Height's not quite high enough or the BMS not quite right or the setback it's just all that minutia that more time gives you and and that's my broadest concern so we would treat this uh imagine it was a residential Development coming up right we have a a preliminary plat and a PUD we're not going to get into a 4-Hour conversation about the development contract and start defining all of the the fine-tune details but we do have to take the feedback that we've heard from our residents the things that we've heard from the developer there are some bullet points that we as a council should address and provide guidance to our team in the event of approval so no we don't want to get into the weeds however if setbacks is a thing high level if individually there are concerns we provide direction to our team they'll go back work with the Planning Commission the developer ultimately comprise of a final PUD and bring It Forward for approval after it's gone through all the other steps sure all right I won't I I won't get further into the Weeds on that for me and and and to your point Steve I appreciate where where you're at with this I just wanted I wanted to clarify that there were some very Baseline things that I thought were important to have at this point so that I at least had that much put into it before it it went to a uh another step if if that's the direction that it ends up going um I appreciate the language around um fully screening rather than the more subjective version of sub U sufficient coverage um and and also just clearing um some of the language around How High um different elements and structures uh on the site can be I know that that's uh been a concern that I've I've heard repeatedly is the the size and scale and so ensuring that there's no aspect of the structure that can go above what is already you know set higher than uh other standards um so I I definitely appreciate that one of the things I wanted to clear clear up and I don't know if this is a question that you can answer Kristen um and and I know we've discussed it but I think it's important for for residents when we're talking about noise mitigation one of the conversations that I've had and and points of feedback that I've received is even with the centers that I've visited um they're not they're not the size and they're not the same size like visually in scale um in in what they're using for power and all of that um that we are not having an Apples to Apples comparison and and I understand that that's that's true like in in our area here we don't have that particular thing to have but when it comes to noise um my understanding and this is where I need you to correct me if I'm wrong is that the limitations set up by the Environmental Protection Agency the 60 to 65 decip daytime the 50 to 55 deci nighttime that is regardless of size and scale so if we were to build this out and if it were to be three buildings it is still at the lot line 60 to 65 deci 50 to 55 at night if I have 12 buildings the way that this is potentially presented the 12 buildings don't change that number so while visually the scale is very different audibly the scale cannot go above those those standards that are set is that right is that not right yes it applies yes all noise generated from this site from any uses on this site cannot exceed the noise standards at the property line for that adjacent use and so the noise standards that you listed are for the residential uh noise levels that cannot be exceeded um and so yes regardless of use and scale that is the ceiling okay all right I I appreciate that um if there's anyone else that can talk a little bit um and I'm not sure uh um for me this would have to do with um some of the concerns that had come up regarding uh electrical use um and and the grid buildout so I don't know that that's necessarily you but I know that we do have a representative from uh Dakota Electric here yes yes good evening U mayor Hy council members uh John berer vice president of energy and member services for Dakota Electric um lots of things that have been said about the Electrical uh facilities going in um I can address uh some of them first I want to talk about reliability uh I've watched all the videos of the previous meetings I've heard concerns about rolling blackouts etc etc anytime you build any project doesn't matter this size a new subdivision we have to study the grid and make sure the grid can handle the project that's proposed and so for this particular project the studies that have been done we've already done completed a system impact study system impact study looks at the transmission Grid in this particular case the 345 line that runs along the southern edge of the project to determine if the transmission system can handle the project uh that was completed uh late spring early summer from there you go into the facility study facility study is kind of your next phase it's a list of directly of the identifies the assets that are specifically needed to serve the project this has just been completed we're working with the project applicants on finalizing this um so far we've reached no roadblocks where do we go from here from here next we go to myo which is the Midcontinent independent system operator this is the regional transmission operator for 15 US states and Manitoba they will be looking at this project this will become part of their 2025 planning year they will also like the regulatory bodies of Minnesota they will weigh in on this can the grid from a regional standpoint from Louisiana to minoa Manitoba will this project negatively affect the grid will it cause reliability issues we will get a decision out of them uh probably April May of of 2025 so far the grid is stable we can handle this there is 17 to 18,000 megawatts in the state of Minnesota this is a very small uh percentage of that and so the grid can handle the project um other things to talk about that have been mentioned it was mentioned on my way up here certainly the vision or the perception that there's a windfall for the utility that's involved Dakota Electric we are not for profit member owned what does that mean is that any profits we make off of this project any load we serve is return to the member owners that own us uh checks will be going out in December called Capital credit checks those are from profits we made in 2005 2006 there is not a windfall for the utility in fact I I'd like to address what it means for the rate payers the rate payers this can be a good thing for the rate payers and and why is that I we certainly understand the visual aspects I'm not here to talk on the land use I understand that's very difficult but what can this mean for the rate payers the utility is not going to be spending these are round numbers $50 million on the infrastructure to serve this load you the members of Dakota Electric will not be spending $50 million to serve this load the developer will pay their own way and so what's that mean for you and why does that benefit you so the the developer pays all the infrastructure costs but yet they're going to be paying the same rates that you pay and so we will not have the outlay of the infrastructure needed to serve this they'll pay their own way but we'll be collecting more what you would refer to as profits we call them margins and so the margins will increase which will help us have stable rates somebody brought up Excel earlier Dakota Electric we're about 20% less than Excel for those that read the Press Excel just went in for another rate increase on November 1st that differentiates between Dakota Electric and a cell will continue to be there Dakota Electric has had a general rate increase since 2019 we cannot go much further we will we will probably have a rate increase in 2025 but we will still maintain that separation between us and Excel and so I just wanted to address that from a rate payer standpoint that this can be a a good thing from a rate payer standpoint on for those that are members of Dakota Electric um certainly we we like I said we're not here to weigh in on the land use but we have an obligation to serve while maintaining our promise of service to each of you that have come before this project what's our promise to Serve Safe reliable affordable we're not going to hook up a project that's going to jeopardize any three of those we've been around since 1937 we want to be around another 100 150 years to serve the residence of Farmington for the four Founders that founded Us in 1937 member owned member operated and so um thank you for taking a few minutes on a soap box there but I wanted to clarify a few things that I heard on the videos I watched be happy to take any other questions and thank you for your time thank you sir um um I I wasn't specifically um uh connected to to any uh part of 14 though I definitely appreciate uh that information being added uh with regard to lighting I know that that was another uh concern that was expressed by resid um and was something that uh individuals in Eagle Mountain had discussed as well um that as a dark sky Community uh lighting that was um not intrusive was incredibly important and they were able to to keep that so I appreciate that being uh added in there I'm going to pause for now that doesn't mean I might not have more but um I feel good about uh where I'm at In This Moment will allow this to move forward I had no comment ear there I do appreciate the uh time you took that that lighting thing I think was a result of our discussion I appreciate the language you added to it um it is very important to me to not have at least attempt to not have lights going into people's houses when you're uh at final buildout ktie I I would say my ability to sit here tonight and and be silent and listen to everybody and ask their questions is because of the faith that I've put in our city staff and our Planning Commission who have done a lot of the leg work to get us here to this point it doesn't matter what I ask tonight or what suggestions I make for those of you who are sitting in this room all you want to see is us vote against this and so I will reserve my comments out of respect for all of you because I also have a lot of respect for this Council who's done an extreme amount of leg work as many of you have as well to cast their votes tonight so um don't think of me being silent up here as not listening to you and not having done the work behind the scenes but it I think you would all agree it it doesn't matter the questions that we ask individuals that come up here um if we if we don't vote against this it's not going to win any of you over in this room Lear something Steve thank you thank you Katie for saying that and and Holly thank you and my apologies for kind of barging it in your your time space there I you know I do think um I I do want to comment on that because I did want to address Tony andiana um we have um and and actually I don't think uh there may be a full appreciation of this but Tony has a long history with the city and Tony you do an a one job um if I was starting my own company tomorrow you'd be one of the first people I'd hire you're just you're a good person you're honest and you do a good job and quite frankly you've been beaten up so often during this process um and you know I told Len it was about two or three months ago I I actually left the meeting angry that I didn't defend you in the sense of I don't want to see our staff being beaten up um and to you it you know an amazing job that you do for the city too I'm probably not going to agree with your recommendation but it doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all of you as my peers and and you too as well I do so obviously the other parts I'm concerned about it I I don't want to be Mr wordy my wife actually told me to make notes and stick to them um so sorry honey I didn't do that um but the the preliminary plot is actually one of the are I'm I'm a little bit more concerned about um and of course we've got you know a number of items that came up today and this particular item I it's probably all going to be voted the same way but I would really like to see us consider delaying this portion because I really think it's imperative that we allow the Planning Commission to weigh in in this and quite frankly you know we're all familiar with design standards but there's designed standards for you know businesses we're familiar with or housing developments that we're generally familiar with this is brand new territory so if this gets approved tonight we are talking about development and design standards that really we I would argue are not well articulated in our code unless I'm mistaken I mean they're not articulated to the same way that they might for other types of development we're going to have standards in there for mixed use you know commercial industrial but how well does it apply to a technology park you know I'm not sure that it does and I know that we are planning to have a discussion with the Planning Commission coming up here and I really think that even if the rest of us even if I'm the only one that doesn't agree with the big picture of this I really think we'd be wise to at least hold on to take a little bit more careful analysis of the preliminary plat because as we know when we set the project in motion you know it's in motion and there's going to be a lot of twists and turns and changes we know that um and the other component of this is we know that this is a representative sample or representative look at what it might look like so I mean we've got 11 to 12 buildings that are situated in certain ways what if they're situated differently what if um you know what if there's a determination about land use in a certain area that wasn't maybe uncover I mean we think we've covered that part of it but I get very uncomfortable and I think I I would hope that most cities would have some level of uncomfort uncomfort uncomfortability with how is this development I'm about ready to get give a preliminary approval to going to be situated on land nearby our home nearby a number of homes um in other parts of town so I think with that part in mind I just you know I can't comment on all these standards I've been aware of them for you know just a few hours today um but I really really think it would be wise of council to at least on this portion um pause for a little bit more review and Analysis Kristen will you come up here for a second I got I got a handful of a few let's start here setbacks um how did how did we arise it 250 and and the reason I asked this is I've looked at counties in other states where there's a high concentration of data centers and the from what I can see generally accepted setback that these counties and municipalities have approved has been anywhere from 100 to 200 feet holy how Fairfax County Virginia being one they adopted it in April of 24 didn't make it up how did you how did you come up with 250 ft so we first look at the Farmington code for the the setbacks that are required for um under this code for muci and quickly realized that that wasn't um adequate and um we have looked at how data center growth has occurred in these other areas especially in Virginia and how close they've been to other types of uses and it is um our intent to um create more buffers because we really feel that the the natural vegetation um is an important way to preserve um and and mitigate the impact so if we can Preserve the natural vegetation we have more room to add in the taller burms um you know BMS in general add in more Landscaping so that additional distance just allows more ability to create this wider buffer that's more you know creates that bigger buffer between those different uses so in in terms of 250 ft I'll will tell you that you know you guys have all done this for a long time it it can be the the setback game and we could have come in and said oh 50 ft but we really wanted to put our bu foot forward first so that this wasn't a negotiating point because we felt like 250 really helped raise the bar and what is an appropriate setback in this situation now extending on the setback and I'm I'm standing point one kind of going into point two here though so if I'm standing there and I want to visualize this right I have a property line so I have a curb I have some grass there's an existing fence that's there that's the property line from the property line you go in 250 ft okay but within that 200 ft or 250 ft is the natural buffer a burm and then there's a secondary fence that's inside of that so the big ugly fence that has the razor wire and all the things that nobody wants to see right is the one that's in as far as possible as to not see it yes right the existing perimeter fence does that stay in place or does that get removed to allow for the natural buffer to look more integrated with the topography in that area the existing perimeter fence that's on the golf course now is not actually on the property line right it's further into the golf course property and so that will be relocated to the property line and that's the fence that we added in the commitment that we would work with those residents to come up with a design that they prefer because that's essentially their fence so then we'll have their say residential fence then the 40 foot natural buffer and then inside that 40ft natural buffer somewhere in there then would be the taller security fencing would it be unreasonable to ask that the perimeter fence be on the inside of the natural buffer burm and then Security Fence there's and and where I'm going with this is one of the pieces of um one of the pieces that's stated in here regards the trees and it says to the greatest extent possible Right who determines greatest extent we say we want a bunch of them up you say we can't do that so more of them are going to come down is there a way to integrate um more we'll just call it green space with the natural buffer so that for families in the area that want to utilize now we're I know understand that we're going on the line of like trespassing and going on another property but a open space area where there is not a perimeter fence on the property line is that feasible are there security measures that you have to have where a secondary fence is required I'm looking through the plausibility of where we can go with that um it's my understanding that the residents especially on the western side would like to have their rear they still want their yards to be fenced in so their their Back Fence is now it's the golf course fence so it's my understanding that they still want to have their yards fully fenced in and so that's why we've said that whenever that fence line moves it will just be become their residential backyard fence okay that's based off of what we've heard from several residents there so what I would ask then is um subject to an approval this ends up going back to the Planning Commission anyway to re-engage involve the community to address that because if if we're talking about a fence has to be up for one area but not another and we're talking about three different types of fence or screening that could be used right there's cost incurred to that and if there's another way to achieve a similar net outcome and get through the Aesthetics of it right so they're not so you're not standing there and because they're used to a fence being there for depending on how long they've lived there 15 years 20 years right it's been there now all of a sudden it moves closer right does it have to be there is what I'm getting at is is can we if if the security fence is in and we're trying to get it out of sight we're trying to get it behind the BM does that perimeter fence even need to be there I want you guys to go back and figure that out okay I I just I think there's I don't think that what what we''ve seen and been told is the best possible outcome for all parties and I think there's greater resolve that we can achieve by going back and figuring that piece out okay I will we are definitely happy to re-engage on that topic um and come up you know we we want to it was like I said that was my understanding that that was what those residents wanted but I certainly haven't talked to all of the residents there and so we will work to engage with them okay thank you um another question I had is um it's it's uh let's come back to that later fence is good there um the trees again to me that's a big thing to me the trees are a part of the natural buffer they're a part of the mitigation they're a part they're the trees play a huge Factor not only that but you can't pick them up and move them and they are decades and decades and decades old right to preserve as much as possible in the area surrounding um is going to go a long way to helping it help lessen uh the Aesthetics of what the project is going to be yes we agree and recognize that too okay as it pertains to building Heights this is an area where I'm confused okay because one of the things that's mentioned in here is the the height of the principal structure now I understand because there's some people that look at fit plans and initial site plans and that's what they visualize and they think that's what's being built okay but to take a a 2D rendering and put it into 3D the average person can't do that and put it in a context that um 80 ft doesn't look like this it might look like this at certain distances I don't understand principal structure at a maximum height of 80 feet when what we've seen is the is the fit Plan and there's no interior buildings now I know that there's setback right you're going to go 10 ft for every 1 foot in height correct but the building not going to be built like this okay so this is where um this is where we have to make a decision based on what we have in front of us because we don't have a final plat we don't have a a total rendering right we know that things are subject to change we cannot have 80 foot buildings at the minimum setback like I understand that that the way that we're the way that this is proposed is that an 80ft building you know technically starts at 550 feet from the property line right 3 310 310 sorry can you pull up the the plan I I think I know where you're going but what where I'm going with this is what we're looking at is a few buildings that essentially make up a perimeter there's like two buildings on there that would actually be an interior building understand this is a site plan and a fit plan right but as I look at this and I read this two B buildings could be 80 ft based on this cuz the perimeter because again you're not going to build a building with a roof like this correct okay correct help me understand how 50 to 80 gives you discretion to where at the same time we can allow it to be built for and to be determined and user right you guys are going to figure that out but we've got to be able to make a decision based on what we are potentially going to be looking at years down the road okay is there a point are here or should I just walk over there uh I can talk that's fine so actually I'm sorry can you stay on the mics yes sorry about that the pointer that's right okay I don't think this one works so in this plan if you look on the um west side of the property those buildings that are all um horizontal laid out those would all be 50ft tall buildings because the edge of the building is the 250 ft setback and you're right these buildings don't step up they're one level and so then all of those buildings because they start at that 250t set back would have to be 50 ft in height the only one on that Northern plan that could be 80 ft is the most interior building the one on the east side is shown at the 250t setback so that would be a 50 foot tall building under this scenario um if all of the buildings were 80 ft they'd all have to be within they'd all have to be in that box of 310 ft and I think that's where I'm going with this is because one of the concerns has been about the time frame to get to this point right we understand that the Pu is involved and there's a lot of other entities that this whole thing is subject to approval what we cannot have happen is to be shown this to talk about PUD standards to talk about Building height and then come back in a month or two months or three months or when an end user is identified and this gets completely changed to a bunch of buildings that are sitting on 310 feet and they're all 80 feet tall that can't happen under no circumstances can that happen can do that under the current guidelines right which is what I'm which is where I'm trying to go with this is somehow you guys have to get a rendering to the Planning Commission to be looked at that is more than just a fit plan like we've got to we've got to have I mean you guys are not you guys are very smart you you've you've done this you know what you're doing you know who potential targeted end users are right you're not going to you can't show us this and then come back in a few months and show us this that doesn't work for anybody it doesn't matter who's sitting here it doesn't work what I'm asking for is is this has always we we try to do everything in good faith right we're going to go through and we're going to talk about more standards but when you go back and start to iron it out the next thing that comes forward has to be very clean we've it it like it just has to like like we can't we can't be running blind with this project we can't so I I hear you and we want to respond to that and want to respond to that with graphics and the detail that you are requesting so um for clarity I think what I'm trying what I want to understand or I what I want to also just frame up is that this is building a framework this isn't the safe plan which you all understand and so um there are a myriad of different layouts that could occur here you know with taller building you would you would have greater setbacks if the building height is limited then the site is would have to you know still everything has to fit within the 250 ft so there's tradeoffs there and that's why we showed this plan because it shows the 50ft buildings with a limited 80ft building um there are like I said there are a a number of different layouts that could occur here with various Heights in buildings so I guess I'm asking for more clarity around what what kind of layouts would you like to see if this is if this fit plan and I'm going to use the north south buildings on the East property line as this pey is written with the setback to an 80 foot building the inner building north south as we look we move from east to west that inner building could be 80 feet MH okay proposed how wide is the building to the right of it so the one that's 50 ft is that 100t Wide building I believe it's about 100 foot yes so using the fit plan we're saying that an 80ft building could start at 350 ft not 310 the way that the Pud is written that's what I'm asking for is is if we've if this has been built and presented to say 80 ft on the interior is good and I know it's only 40t but 40t is enough because it's it's our natural buffer every Foot Matters when it comes to height and elevation and grade so that's what I'm getting at is if if we've develop if you have developed this and said that inner building is 80 ft and we're looking at a fit plan and we're we say yeah that's okay at 350 but this is written to get you to 310 again I don't want to get too far in the weeds here but we have to we have to preserve the line of site as much as we reasonably can while still maintaining the viability of the product for you guys okay I think you can accomplish both you see where I'm going yes I do that's yes we can thank you okay I don't have any other questions as it pertains to the design standards is there anything any other questions or comments um and we can go to all three whether it pertains to comp plan uh rezoning or the preliminary PL preliminary PUD well mayor I I really appreciated your last set of questions and I think that gets to the point of why I think it's I I really I just feel very passionately about the fact that I'm worried that if we approve it that line of sight that you're talking about is going to be lost and if somebody can convince me why it would be detrimental to pause on the preliminary approval please let me know because if we're causing undue harm I mean you know again I'm not trying to defend you know a per se it looks like the vote's going to go a little bit differently than maybe I'd like it to but you know keep in mind that tracked actually to their credit put in a 250 foot setback we had a setback of zero they I mean really by the standards we have in place they would have not you they could have just went right up to that edge so I mean that is so I mean your your points about this are very well taken from my end so I mean I do think let's just make sure that we're doing this right and I I you know and Tony correct me if I'm mistaken I mean do we have design standards that are set up for this type of project I mean obviously we do for a for a business or an industrial but we really don't have designed standards established for a technology park of this type correct that's correct so that's microphone please that's and I sorry I'm losing my voice that's my concern here so if we're going to do it let's make sure that we do it right let's make sure the standards are appropriate let's make sure that um you know it meets what we are looking for as a council um and that that's really my ask so at the at the end of the day and this is this is the uncomfortable part and this is the part that has to be said out loud for decades this community has been screaming Economic Development to the gentleman's Point earlier who said I pay I pay I pay right the difference is this time it's in your backyard but we can't make the decision based on Whose backyard it's in because no you no you can't I'm not going to get into a back and forth you can't make a decision based on where the project is you have to go through and establish performance guidelines and development standards in a situation where something new comes that we haven't dealt with before yes there is a time to take pause and make sure that you go through and and put as much information on the table as you can this process has been months in the making there I don't see any reason staff has recommended we have to take action on it whether approves or not we still have to take action on it so if if Council doesn't feel as if there's enough within the preliminary plat and the Pud then it'll be denied and then the process will go through if it's approved it's still going to go back to the Planning Commission they're still going to work on refining and working through the p and the plat to bring forward a final peum plat which could look uh much more in depth than what we have in front of us that's resing this you're not you're not bringing this back to you're resoning this that Mak commercial industrial that's what they want they can do anything approv there are there any other Council comments or questions as it pertains no you're not approving data oh I seek a motion for approval to adopt resolution 2024 Tac 98 adopting the comprehensive plan amendments for the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties and authorize the submitt of the amendments to the Metropolitan Council motion to approve motion by Katie second second by Nick call the role please council member lean yes council member Wilson no council member buram yes mayor hoit yes council member berance yes the second item presented I would seek a motion to adopt ordinance 2024 tech11 resoning the properties commonly known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus properties motion to approve second motion by Holly second by Nick call the role council member Wilson no council member council member buram yes mayor hoit yes council member berance yes council member lean yes the third action item if I may mayor real quick um I would recommend a motion based on the conversation uh and let me know if anyone disagrees a motion to adopt resolution for final approval right all right then action item number three I'd seek motion to approve or i' seek motion to adopt resolution 2024 Tac 99 approving the preliminary plat and preliminary plan unit development for the technology Farmington Technology Park directing staff to further address the items of fencing fall Windows buffer and height and as a condition of the final as a condition of the final plaid in PUD yeah motion to approve motion by Katie second I go second by Holly call the rooll please council member buram yes mayor Hoy yes council member Bern ant yes council member lean yes council member Wilson no anything for Round Table no mayor does anybody have anything for Round Table all right seeing none then I'd seek a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn motion by Kati second by ni you come pack my daughter up and you show her the next 5 I don't give a if I call the you come do it to my house call you why don't we get to vote on this you made in the paring unel it's unbelievable that we don't want we want to vote on this do you get make all choices hey Lyn we have a mo we have a motion toour all in favor I want to ask I'm not sure ask we're jured at 922 [Music] [Music] for [Music]