##VIDEO ID:F8D0_3i8LRU## Sean are we ready to go on online perfect so calling the uh the Wednesday December 18th 2024 Planning Commission meeting to order um director kic can you do a roll call please yes Duval yeah Norwood Peterson here staying line here Goram here grula here excellent all right um all rise for the Pres of Allegiance all right we are on to an oath of office for our newest member uh James or or uh Nick Mr Bry so you going to take care of that for us yes sir thank you what a privilege I haven't done this I used to do this in the military from time to time for some young soldiers but Mr grula thanks for joining the Planning Commission I'm glad you're on your feet please raise your right hand and just repeat after me I state your name I Justin grula do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States you solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the state of Minnesota the constitution of the state of Minnesota and I will Faithfully discharge the duties of the office Office of the Planning Commission and I will Faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Planning Commission of the city of Brainard Minnesota of the city of Brainard Minnesota to the best of my judgment and ability so help me God to the best of my judgment and abilities so help me God welcome AB board pleasure to have you congratulations Justin and welcome aboard um our next uh item on the agenda is I'm looking for a motion for approval of the uh agenda please so moved is there a second all right GM second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signif by saying I I all oppos same sign we're on to approval of the minutes of the January 20 20th 2024 meeting looking for a motion so moved all we have uh stting line um will we give you the the second as I second it you may all right I'm happy now all right motion and second is there any discussion hearing none all those in favor say signify by saying I I allst same sign perfect we are on to unfinished business consider proposed building design standards ordinance James Could you um kick that off for us please yes thank you Mr chair so Planning Commission has been working on this for the last few months here um rewriting design standards ordinance uh looking at lot sizes lot widths um looking at garage setbacks and so forth um uh so everything that we've been doing has been included in the memo uh did want to note the staff has included the standing seam metal roof requirements for single family homes that was discussed at the last meeting and then also Chang the requirements for accessory structures under 200 sare ft uh also wanted to note that in the tn1 district there's a typo uh the max lot size should be 10,500 ft and not 1,500 ft² so staff will make that change before it goes to city council uh with that staff recommends to conduct the public hearing and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance thank you um any questions of Staff seeing just a uh if we received any feedback um prior to the meeting by any chance any feedback on from anybody um not direct feedback from the public I have heard um you know when when I do talk to people about potential changes um they certainly are interested in what we're doing here so somebody might come in for an accessory dwelling unit let them know what we're working on right now um people have come in for um you know potential garages and and uh where that could be potentially located we did change that the garage is no longer required um so as people come in and they're working through things I do let them know what the Planning Commission is working on and they certainly have been interested in having some of the regulations changed and and um that's kind of what I've heard terrific thank you any other questions before we uh move to public hearing chair probably be more for James is like um a few of these items uh well for example example permit duplex dwelling on the zoning or permit accessory dwelling units on rental property so anything that is already started you could actually go back and do this new yeah if anything was started um you could go back essentially and you know if it's permitted or something like that if there's a land use permit certainly have to work through that process but um anything prior to any changes if you've already submitted your building permit um you're exempt from any new things that are added into here but certainly if something's advantageous it's in the works um you could resubmit plans into the building department and and have something changed um obvious so we'll have two Council readings it still has to go through as well as publication so you're still looking for you know probably about a month before it actually goes into effect other questions all right with that we're going to open the public hearing at 605 and this is the opportunity for folks to um um be able to address the proposed ordinance and bringing comments to um the attention of of the commission um if you do wish to speak on this topic please come up to the podium state your name and your address and direct comments to the to to me as the chair is there anyone here wishing to speak on this topic and Sean anybody online it looks pretty bear out there okay I'll ask a second time anyone wish to speak on the ordinance proposed for this evening and last time and seeing none um bring this back to the um commission for discussion is there discussion on the ordinance yes M Mr Rula um so I just wanted to point out section five TR traditional neighborhood one density in lot Dimensions um the maximum square footage for a lot there are some Lots in North brainer that don't have an alley behind them so they're 150 ft deep um so I'm just wondering if that should be increased to 11,250 Ft before it requires a a conditional use permit so most um most properties are going to be in that 50 to 150 range so you're looking at you know even if it does extend into the alley you're still below that 10,000 foot number you're in that 7,500 to 8,000 foot number um so this is the number that we went to is essentially a property and a half um you know certainly could be slightly increased if if that's something that the commission would like yeah cuz most of our most of our lots are 140 ft deep with alley in the middle but there's some in North Brainard specifically that are 150 ft deep without an alley um so I that was my comment and concern on it so what what number were you proposing there um 11,250 which would be 150 ft Deep by 75 ft okay yeah that that's something that the commission could definitely discuss and I don't think it would impact it still wouldn't um still wouldn't make two properties be able to be Consolidated which is I think is what we're looking at not just being allowed by a permitted use um so I think that number would certainly just be would be fine as well and um thanks for that Justin the the implications of that are that if you happen to be one of these 11 250s um you were a legal non-conformity moving forward does that impact your ability to utilize um uh other aspects of the building code it does not it does not encumber your ability to get a permit to um make improvements it doesn't encumber your ability to do accessory buildings and those sorts of things NOP you'd still be you s to abide by all of your um setback standards okay um but we would technically be creating some number of legal non-conformities with with 10 500 Y is what the issue is here right okay thank you other discussion on the proposed ordinance he that I think it makes perfect sense that Justin brought up to be honest with you going eliminate some of those gray a or problems that don't need to arise put a bit of effort into trying to get rid of all the nonconformities when we revise the ordinance so it would be a shame to start putting them back in knitting them back into the fabric yeah exactly right brush set of eyes y exactly anything else yes James please and I think what yeah what Justin probably saw is that we do now allow 75 ft for a frontage so if the if that area is extending all the way back to the alley that way they could you full fully utilize that 75t Frontage and then and then have that so I think yeah that'd be a a good change anything else so um then I think we have heard um a proposed change to the tn1 um maximum lot size to 11250 is the number correct correct so we have that um and I would take that as a recommendation from our commissioners um are there any other changes that folks see being body language kind of saying no then I would be looking for a motion to approve the ordinance with the uh with the change to the maximum lot size for tn1 from 10500 to 11250 second and there is a second is there any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I all oppose same sign that goes forward James what's the next steps on the the and you could do it like I'm a Bill on Capitol Hill you can sing it to us or you could uh just tell us what the next steps are yeah so the next steps I'm going to pull up the calendar here um this will be heard at the January 6th and then I believe um the 21st because the 20th I believe is a holiday uh so two Council meetings and then uh it'll be published if approved by Council on the 25th and then you're looking at one more week of uh has to be published for one week before it go into effect um so you're looking at probably the very beginning of February very good thank you so uh we're moving on now to new business um new business item a is consider a variance for fence height requirement at 303 J Street northest uh Northeast James can you set that up for us please yes thank you Mr chair uh so there's been a long history with this fence uh 6-ft fences in the tn1 district must be lined up with the facade uh and Corner properties have two facades uh the property owners built a 6-ft fence in October of 2022 out um to the property line on that side corner yard so it was beyond that facade which is required by the zoning code uh staff did uh try to work with them throughout the summer of 2023 Property Owners uh did reach out to um several council members Planning Commission members I know a few of them looked at it um to see if they could get the ordinance changed um uh no council members or commission members were interested in bringing that up on their own um and uh the at that time the property owners were not interested in changing so staff did begin citing the property owners for the fence that was out of compliance uh this fall um after the property owners received their assessments on some of those fines um did end up moving the fence to its current location uh this fall uh with no permit uh the fence is about in beyond the facade which is not allowed by ordinance uh staff did um have conversations with the property owner um to make them aware that that's still out of compliance um so essentially they are applying for the variance to extend 59.5 Ines beyond the facade of the house uh so with that variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance uh one of the big ones is the location of the existing sidewalk would make it difficult to place the fence in line with the uh facade and that's that's why the applicants had placed it as they had indicated to me um due to the walkway that's pictured in the aerial map Sean can pull that up on the findings of facts an alternate Fence location would make access much more difficult to the backyard if not impossible um the location has nothing to do with economic considerations which is another requirement of variances uh this was an existing walkway that was not installed by the homeowner uh and the uh staff does when you take a look at this from an aerial perspective the fence does not abut a neighboring property owner and does not extend to the alley so there's really no impact on neighboring Properties or um public rights of ways so with that staff does recommend approval of the variance request um the applicants indicated they' not be able to attend tonight but they did send an email in um giving some of their thoughts and I can certainly answer any questions that the Planning Commission has thank you Mr kic any questions for the director yes Don um the sidewalk you referring to is this a public sidewalk or their own sidewalk from the street to the house it's their own sidewalk that leads from the house there to the garage and is there's no way that a door could be placed in the in the fence not really you can see how the the angle goes right there so if it were go to go from the facade it would just kind of oddly angle into that that fence area Okay so and then what they went straight across which way did they go with the parent so they went just outside um yep just outside of that area right there okay all right thank you and then and then straight across and then straight across and then back to the garage and returns to the garage yep okay other questions of Staff all right with that we're going to open the public hearing on the variants at 615 there's anyone that wishes to speak on this subject you may come forward um and to the Podium here speaking into the microphone give us your name and address and direct the comments and questions to the chair is anyone here to speak on this item is there anyone here to speak on this item Sean I'm going to look at you for online traffic all right one more time anyone here to speak with that I'm going to close the public hearing at 6:15 and return this back to the uh commission so discussion problem with it Mr I'm a little troubled by the fact that they knew they there was an issue with the fence and they went ahead without even trying to cooperate with the city and just went ahead and moved the fence um uh so I I just don't see a whole lot of cooperation with with the property owner right now with the city I'm I'm not uh inclined to vote in favor of this okay other comments If This Were a legal non-conformity we would have a discussion probably about minimizing the nonconformity when we're considering a variance um so in in a hypothetical example this is not a legal non-conformity this is in a a a fence that's not been Place consistent with the ordinance so just to be clear this is not a non-conformity this is a violation um but in the in this in the concept of minimizing the non-conformity um you you may um look at this and say well the approach to the gate and Sean could we have the picture please again uh thank you so uh the gate provides the access and then from that point the um sidewalk then angles towards the garage further and further away from the fence further and further away from from the um the street um so conceivably you could extend that fence line out say 10 ft is it just a random number and then say at that point it has to return to the line that's consistent with the facade so you got to bump out there so they don't have to bust up a sidewalk and do a whole bunch of work to um to be able to make make the fence work so there's a there's some room to be able to to make some recommendation here that would kind of accommodate the fact that you're trying you're trying to address their perceived hardship hardship is not the word here the what's the the term is the Practical difficulties practical difficulty that they say is is the sidewalk to help them address that sidewalk practical difficulty you could allow that fence to be 5T beyond the facade for a length of some distance and then it has to return so I I would say that there there's some options here um you know and another option would be to um to allow this to to stand as is and questions are is it does it meet the criteria criteria for a variance other comments chair yes Mr Peterson might be for James again is what is the original intent of this ordinance um by being equal with the front facade or whatever because we're talk in two different buildings here of course that they're running into so this would be this is a side corner facade um I think the biggest intent of the ordinance is not covering um not covering the house um so you know as you're driving down you want to be able to see houses you want fences to be kind of consistent with um the fronts of houses so you know say this doesn't AB an alley but you're abing a house over there you kind of want this fence line of 6 feet to be consistent with the other property owner so I'd say that's probably the biggest intent um of the ordinance is you know having to do with facades of houses cosmatic yep other questions otherwise I'm looking to hear a motion on the variance request I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance is there a second second okay we have a motion in the second any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I all oppos same sign I I so that motion does not pass so anyone care to offer a different motion hearing none then that uh recommendation from the council is that the variants not be approved um Mr chair do we need to give reasons why on this it would be yeah it would be prudent on on reasons why it it doesn't meet the the requirements for variance thank you so findings a fact that we have heard um they are in the packet quite frankly right um that it still does not fall within line with the the facade other other and a fact for me would be that again that they they went ahead and constructed the fence even though they knew they were just going to be causing trouble we we're going to have trouble here and so that to me I just I'm not that sympathetic I I I think if you work with City staff City staff will work with you and we can find Solutions I don't know that we can put that in our reason then so I think Joe might not like it um I don't see that the I don't see a practical um difficulty they just put it in the wrong place um you know they could start the the fence in a different location if they had come earlier we could have worked out a like Mike said that it's going to run maybe at an angle for a while or so that it's alongside the sidewalk I just I don't think it meets the requirements James is that enough um potentially and and uh you know I could work with the city attorney on on that as well okay um you know certainly these are recommendations by the Planning Commission city council if they choose to deny it would have to um come up with a resolution with with the findings that I would have Joel review it's always good to have them though for Council Mr Chair by me the pictures of that fence that fence is older than two years old that is up there that is not a two-year-old fence they move the fence um we were able to to see that it was you know we witnessed it being put up that's when we sent the letter in that fall of 2022 it it might be a little grayer because there's clouds it's winter time um but we're able to see um certainly when to say treated fence when when a new fence is put up so okay when we witness them putting it up and we've never had any they've never told us that it was older than we think it is right no it was and I don't believe they used old panels either when when we first witnessed it in 2022 it was it was new treated wood and it was green but hasn't been stained um certainly kind of a grayish picture so that's why why it might look a little older hard to get that in con without much all right with that we're moving on to um item 8B review proposed crypto mining ordinance James can you uh take us on that Journey please yes thank you Mr chair so city council has directed The Planning Commission and staff to work on a crypto mining ordinance um staff is looking at it as a data center which would include multiple uh uses crypto mining AI centers cloud storage and and such uh so staff has drafted a preliminary ordinance for data centers that regulate the location noise hazardous wayte screening and duration um before having the public speak uh staff did want to note uh so I included a lot of items in here these maybe aren't all things that I'm um going to recommend uh approval of but I did want to include multiple items in here for discussion tonight um upon further review I I do recommend um probably a cup rather than an iup um the one difference between the two is iups you can put time constraints on them right now I have duration of 5 years on there I don't think uh from what I've heard crypto mining isn't as big a concern for that um but if say a an AI Center or a cloud storage center um is looking to move in I think uh that might be a hindrance um from an investment standpoint uh so I'm more than likely going to be recommending a cup and with that what you can do is um a lot of these things that we have in the ordinance can be also then conditioned as part of the cup which if anything's in violation the cup could then be revoked on the on the land use permit um so with that uh staff um does recommend that we allow U Representatives I think that we have three of them um some of the neighboring property owners are here we have somebody from gist for crypto and somebody from block metrics I believe is online I think it might be good to hear kind of their thoughts and then um Planning Commission and staff can go through each one of these other line items and have discussion and then that way you've kind of heard what uh the thoughts of um the public are as well U so with that I'll turn it back to to uh um the chair and I don't know if you have any questions prior to to to uh to doing that questions for staff just a quick question yes Mr G um I I I think words matter we keep kind of calling it crypto and then data can we just just call call this as a data center issues and with the notion that crypto is part of that I know I'm just playing with semantics here but I think we really want to be addressing the larger isue yep yep we can start calling it data center that would just be my only little two cents worth perfect and to be clear this is not a public hearing um but we are interested in um Gathering as much information as we can um to be able to then take this back um and have staff craft something um that them would be more formally introduced as an ordinance proposal so just to be clear about expectations tonight um if if we um if we hear um similar if you have similar thoughts that have already been expressed in in the interest of time I would appreciate it if you would uh um only bring forward the comments that haven't already been made this evening um and so with that um if there are no further questions from the commission um or questions to staff I would uh at this point open the floor and ask folks if they're interested in commenting to please come forward uh to the podium state your name um your address and uh direct your comments to the chair is there anyone that would like to speak to us on this particular ordinance topic yeah thank you hello my name is Brett maias I work at just for crypto 1640 Kittyhawk um I I think you guys are doing a great job in protecting residents for sound um I just want to make you think about applying a in your ordinance stipulations that businesses or specifically a data center is required to on a yearly basis do sound studies and submit that into the city I think that seems to be a little bit discriminatory against other against a business itself and not holding the same standards to other businesses when it in regards to sound um I totally want you to protect the residents of sound and we do tend to abide by all mpca guidelines for sound but taking those extra steps and requiring us to do sound studies I think that might be a little discriminatory against this particular type of business so keep that into consideration thank you so Grant all all uses can under this treat them all the same is really what I'm hearing in regards to the noise standards and I would say all industry in town treat the sound standards the data center C if you have a loud Construction Company um thank you make sure that they're held to the same sound standards as a data center don't be discriminatory against one versus another great thank you is there anyone else that would care to speak to the commission on this particular um topic on on the the uh data center ordinance I'm Megan Bach I am at 11633 oakd Road um I had sent an email in that kind of stated a whole whole bunch of thoughts and requests so I'm sure you guys have read that um just want to make sure that you take into consideration those that are going to be impacted on a 247 basis that live around we've got a lot of residents that have health issues and want to make sure they're protected as well as any expansion to the city since it is close to that area as well so thank you and you had um you had introduced a um a note on the um there were some missing land uses that you were seeing in there is that as far as yeah it sounds like James maybe addressed that already and I can address that during the meeting as well we'll kind of go through some of the um questions that were brought up in the email as well thank you online do we have um um representative there that would like to add some comments or P share some perspectives or um input as we begin crafting an ordinance on data centers if so do hello everyone I don't there you go we go ahead can can you hear me okay we can thank you we can thank you excellent uh my name is RO chle with black metrics 1911 TC um uh we are in the process of of uh of starting construction um and going through the approval process for a data center at that address um just to add to some of the points that were uh uh presented already um a conditional use permit certainly makes sense and is validated but just wanted to add the the um the economic aspect of it uh from an investor perspective the ROI and these data centers tends to be longer than five years um and so a uh an interim use permit may may preclude investment into Data Centers in Brainard uh if there's a potential risk of uh of of that use being withheld um uh you know after a 5e period now that being said I certainly support um you know all all businesses should be you know help to the same standard from a noise perspective and and wanting to be a good contributor to the community um and maintaining those uh the staying within the noise standards for npca uh and that should be very a very strict uh guideline um but uh uh I'm a big proponent of of a cup versus an iup for those reasons all right thank you Ro any other perspectives you would like to deliver to us is that your extending your comments at the moment that's that extends my comments uh for now would love to you know certainly entertain additional uh comments as we go through the process here but uh thank you for your all for your time and your efforts on on this matter thank you and hang hang out as we have our discussion all right um anyone else care to testify or provide input on this topic all righty I think I'll pull it back to the commission for discussion and may we may reach out for additional clarification um from those that have provided input um so thoughts from the commission here and welcome James Commissioner James Nord NOA present thank you oh excuse me thank you um director cromi yes thank you Mr chair so what I'm kind of thinking is maybe we go through each one of these sections um I'll introduce each one of these sections um give it maybe my staff opinion on it and then turn it over to the commission and you guys can discuss or ask any questions from there sounds good thank you so um the first one is the definition uh data center a facility or portion of facility housing networked computer systems and Telecommunications equipment used for remote storage processing and distribution of data data centers include commercial crypto mining facilities AI centers cloud storage and other similar uses um the first part was pulled I think from a another part of code that I took a look at and then I did want to kind of clarify everything that was included in in it as well so I want to see if there's any thoughts or concerns from the commission on the on the uh definition feedback for St Mr chair I think we've covered everything except that technology that's going to show up in about a year that we're not even no CL about but otherwise I think it's pretty good but you know it's coming so that that is an and Etc yeah okay because we didn't see this coming when we did the comp plan not at all well he does have the other similar uses so that's a yeah there that covers a lot the parking lot for uh new opportunity Mr norward chair it the definition is Broad enough I believe to be able to Encompass an enormous amount of the marketplace and type of organization that would be utilizing this type of use uh the only problem with that is within the broad situation currently we are looking at potentially one of the more hot button issues of that type of use in my opinion um and so pigeon holing ourselves into something that is going to be where we're trying to make sure that we're in one of the more hot button things and then ending up with something that covers such a grand area of uh land use type and so definition and as uh commissioner Gorman Gorman sorry Gorman gor Goram got it one of these days um it's one of those within the last four months there has been significant technological breakthroughs that have happened that will dramatically change the subject that we're talking about within data hosting and or crypto Mining and or there is enor change that has happened within the last four months and so to say that how things are today are going to exist two years from now it it's really tough to say that that it I understand the reluctance to say that you know how things have happened within the last 5 years but there's significant potential for significant change Mr chair yes Mr gor Mr narwood are we are you you getting around to Quantum Computing is that what you're getting after or it that is what I'm slightly alluding to there is financial situations but just with introduction of what Nvidia has proposed within the last two months what Google has proposed with Willow within the last two weeks there is significant change that is coming are these changes in terms of Technology or how they're going to apply the technology yes okay okay thank you so U if I can follow up uh with you Mr Norwood um as we step through these and and so you are you are aware of some evolving technology I would appreciate you maybe flagging things where where we may be short um of being adaptable to that new technology if I if I might use it that way just to help us alert or if if everything we're looking at tonight is no good in two years we'll have to come back and address it in two years um but that's I think the advantage of a broad it definition is to maybe catch catch the growth as long as we're dealing with the concerns so maybe if you see things as we move through um if you could if you could kind of raise that point about how we may be falling short or we may be over Brad and our I would I would respect uh respect your input on that other other comments with that um James uh next topic head to the next piece so um this was taken um from another ordinance uh discussing um kind of what's allowed for ex uh uh kind of primary use versus kind of an accessory use with data centers uh so data centers are not permitted to operate in the city of brainer unless EXP ly approved by an interm use permit again staff um is recommending conditional use permit for this one um and and again to kind of reiterate uh what you can do with conditional use permits is everything that's in here that we're that we're potentially putting in the allowed use section anything could be extracted and actually put into the conditions as well so if they're exceeding npca noise standards um we could condition into there that uh they have to do sound studies rather than just being in here that way if they're in violation of that is not just a citation or potentially looking down Court action there's rules in administration for actually revoking the permit so that's how a conditional use permit could operate to still revoke it if there are violations um rather than having to put a time period on it um I'll go through kind of the other parts as well um again uh if there's they accessory to the primary use they can occupy no more than 10% of a building footprint uh are used to serve the Enterprise functions of the on-site property owner and are not used used to lease data storage or processing services to third parties and are not housed in a separate Standalone structure on the parcel so that'd be similar to obviously we've already um made outdoor storage for data centers um not permissible but is also kind of reiterates here as well uh so this would be for instance uh maybe CTC has some some storage areas within their facility um it doesn't constitute more than 10% of it it's for their own storage purposes that would maybe be an accessory use that wouldn't have to go through this conditional use permit process so that's where this language comes in here and and I'll turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and then obviously one of the big discussions is conditional use permit rather over interm use permits and what your guys' stop are on that feedback for staff Mr Norwood Mr chair I I am one of going to be one of the strong ones that would be moving towards a conditional use permit versus an iup simply because of the limitation with a time period that creates the unstability for any organization to invest that heavily into and the ability to function um it would tie a property owner hands significantly as to be able to use that property or that land uh within the mobility that they would need thank you Mr Peterson um question on the sound since that's a big issue with here so there are laws out there right now that you can't pass so many decb on anybody that's doing stuff right now would that specifically like the gentleman here said it would be fair that it's on all companies and businesses so it stands to reason it's already on every business if there's noise issues is that correct or is there is but the the ramifications on how you could potentially correct the issue aren't the same as what you could potentially do with this one um if if so chose by the Planning Commission city council so would it be placed on specific things going forward so you know I like I know ww Thompson down there they're fairly noisy or the or the U uh the metal Place both of them so they're probably kind of grandfathered in is what you're saying but going forward if another facility like that was made they would have to meet these standards there would and I'd have to look at the zoning code um there may be other allowed uses in the industrial section um don't take me on word but I believe I've seen it in there where it says it can't uh um exceed MPC Noise Pollution Control standards um we've had that for other hazardous waste as well so there may be some other ones in there I can get that information for the next meeting when we review to see you know how many other uses might have that standard built into the loud use as well for noise and we have um received testimony in the past about um the difference between industrial noise um during the work week during the day and Industrial noise 247 um and so we have to we have to be mindful of of the noise standard as you apply it to one use um as opposed to a different use and so we I think we'll want to think through that and make sure we reflect that James do you have yeah and I'll add to that certainly um you know that that is a big part of of why these are looked at and why there's ordinances looked at for this um it does detail when you are doing calculations for um the mpca noise rules um there's it's called what is called is L10 and l50 so this would be an l50 which has a higher standard because it is running all the time so has a higher standard of how many decb you can get to um it also looks at uh U noise classification areas is this an industrial area is it next to residential so those are figured in as well as well as nighttime and daytime so there's a lot of things that are figured into these calculations to to not exceed right so if we're going to if we're going to um build a noise standard here it it's going to have it's going to have to think through all of that balance as we go forward so okay good um James for the um conditional use uh so Mr norward brought up um the point of of the vehicle might change in the process of doing the use so if we've not had the for forethought to capture a particular vehicle um do the conditional use allow that because it's being it it it performs the same use you know trying to get add here so if it's a similar use that's again um you know we'll go back to it Housing Network computer systems and Telecommunications equipment used for remote storage processing distribution um even if it's something that we haven't seen yet um I think that would be looked at as similar uses that would have to then be a conditional use permit U obviously we can't think of everything uh with this uh you know before data centers were even around uh we had manufacturing that's how most cities looked at these data facilities as just as as manufacturing essentially so what we're proposing here is to extract it from that and create its own allowed to use section again if there's something that we don't see you know technologically wise two or 3 years from now that needs to be extracted from this ordinance to have its own separate use you know that could be done as well so again we're regulating the use and and how you perform the use um um we're not into the details of that unless we put something in here that that maybe is an opener if you would of a conditional use permit to say we need to re-enter that because this is delivered in a different way um it would that be a way of it so as we think about that if we're trying to be um if we're trying to guess um as best we can and leave ourselves open for the opportunity to come back and scrutinize something else that the conditional use permit if we don't address it in here in a way that allows us to reopen that you that new method can certainly go forward yeah so it can be Revisited okay if it's diff if it's different and the same use y all right and um Miss dingl um James so if we go from the inam use to the conditional use I guess I haven't seen us maybe maybe I have but I I don't know if I've seen it where we have put some ongoing requirement in so I'm wondering if instead of doing an interim use permit that needs get renewed every 5 years do we require then um some sort of um ongoing reporting or something that makes them come back to us I'd have to look in the state statute I believe you can do that with conditional use permits where it kind kind of comes back for review but it's not quite as the same as an interim use permit that has a specific expiration date uh and then I guess it let's say that they build it they pass all the inspections um and then you know two years later I'm get not I'm thinking this is not the way it's going to go but two years later whatever is going this wonderful technology is much uh much louder and we get a complaint at that point can you know how does that process work can you run us through that so um kind of gets to to section c a little a little bit about uh how we go through the steps of looking at noise and sound sound Engineers uh so the first one is prior to approval a noise study must be submitted by a third- party engineer demonstrating in the city that the operation of the data center will comply with mpca noise rules so that's the first one um that we'd look at uh in the email they did bring up and I think it is in the Arizona uh Arizona code to do a baseline so you know where the Baseline is on there and I think that might be a good thing to add on there so we know where the Baseline is how is this going to affect you know based on this new use going into there um so I think that's something that that could probably be added um and then you know in my opinion once it's fully operational uh you'd look at uh look at uh doing a sound study in that Peak year and seeing you know seeing if it did meet those same standards that we approved the conditional use permit at so you know I do think that that uh you know is something we should probably have on here um certainly data centers can have a little bit more effect on on neighboring properties and maybe some other industrial uses uh and those are you know some of these things are maybe we things we should consider on you know extremely noisy industrial uses as well um I do you know thinking that it was brought up by um Brett from just for crypto about the annual um review of it and and having to do that every single year I've been thinking through that and is there a potential way to write into a condition that uh um upon approval from city council um we we they have to then commission a sound a sound study so if we're hearing issues City Council Members maybe go out there staff takes a look at it and and taking um some deciel readings and we have concerns maybe then as a condition we say that city council can force them to do a sound study in the future if there's issues um you know certainly the one that is proposed in the industrial area is is looking at pretty low numbers because they're looking at immersion technology um a lot of what's uh uh you just for crypto is is interior so anything interior doesn't seem to be as big of an issue and that's what's going to be required going forward um the biggest issue is probably these outdoor ones and that's where you see all these news articles that uh you know these are are you know ones that are really impacting the community so I'm not sure if there should be an annual one or we figure out something that we can put into the conditions that would require them to do it upon city council um approval and then I guess kind of going in the opposite Direction in two years this technology is whisper quiet and we so if in 2 years we come back and we're like well I guess we don't need to do all those sound studies after all um and we take it out how does that affect any conditional use permits that are issued in the meantime requiring those so so that's where that's where I'm looking at maybe instead of having it in here as a requirement in the code city council approves it as a condition that says say you know you're only going to be doing a sound study if if city council says that you have to do a sound study because there's issues so it wouldn't be actually in the rules here um so if we're having issues but there's no issues um you know and we're 50 DB and and uh there's no issues to surrounding properties at all you know the annual review might be an Overkill but is required by rules here so there's really no way to get rid of that if if we keep that in there so would they have to then apply for a new conditional use permit to get that requirement lifted if we put the requirement in they get a conditional use permit technology does amazing wonderful things and they want to get rid of that particular condition do they come back for a fresh conditional they would have to come back yeah for a fresh condition so um say it wasn't in here say city council um say it wasn't in here as a rule that they had to do something annually city council could still say that you have to do it annually within the conditions city council could also you know make a uh a motion that says again if there's issues in city council wants a sound study you have 60 days to produce it um you know those are those are options to put in there that wouldn't necessarily have to be in the rules and administration because if it's in the rules and administration essentially you have to do it you have to you'd have to apply for variance not to do it and there's really no practical difficulties to not do that thank you Mr norward um to follow along with some of that line of thought is that when I'm speaking of the emerging technologies that are coming it is that it will be significantly quieter um largely based upon the ability of what is the products and the efficiencies that they're coming with um within that the utilizing a um a third party engineer as to establish what will a third party I should back up just a little bit a third party um engineer that is not committed to one side or the other that would be able to review the documents and be able to establish uh by the petitioner or the applicant that this is something that would be able to produce less than what the requirement would be be it in a conditional use or be it in a state statute um within that there's there's some references as to other data host facilities that are elsewhere um one of the key elements and why brainer specifically but U Minnesota ends up being a lucrative spot is because of the colder climate and where we exist um there's a few specific things that when data hosting ends up looking uh they're looking for Reliable power um thank thank you BPU um at a great cost again thank you BPU and then climate Workforce um water accessibility there's a number of specific elements that Minnesota plays enormously large at and where the most amount of investment that we will start to see potentially is going to be our Northern situations that have great great data lines which Brainard also that's one of the areas that we're working on currently but as we fix the latency that is ended up in Brainard but there's more and better technology that and infrastructure that's coming in to provide for that Brainard has a number of the boxes that ends up checking off and that's we're kind of sitting on top of the copper or the iron or the gold depending upon how you look at it I would hate to see that we say note that's maybe a bad example but I would hate to see that we can we completely pass and push everything off when we're using examples from climate areas that they have to use a significant amount of fan um and cooling power and energy in order to get the product that they're looking for whereas we're in a completely different climate and we'll be able to do it significantly more more efficiently and new technology coming thank you okay with that um James did you want to um jump back to B for a minute or do you have some follow-up questions I think once we're talking since we're talking about it right now um you know does does the commission want to see an annual I think that's probably the big one to look at does the commission want to see an annual report have you required to be done within the allowed use set or leave it up to potentially putting it in the conditions if if uh felt necessary can we run down the line go ahead Dave I would agree with the second one I don't think it needs to be year yearly there's an issue I think you deal with it then same yeah same there's definitely going to be opportunities within an industrial setting where it is not close enough or creating issues that it should not be a blanket requirement I agree um upon request of city council is perfectly fine with me um I I can see it as a condition on the conditional use permit I think I would like to see it maybe um like tapered off so kind of like we did with the interim use permits for short-term rentals um so maybe they do one one before they get going one when they start up and you know one year after that and then you know some sort of you so that we get at least that kind of Baseline um and then you know whether it's every three years after that I mean that that' be a condition that comes up at the time but just what I would be looking for in something like that so a proof of performance in a way and after you've established that you're competent to run this thing then frequency that we ask you to come back and prove that you're still performing does that seem reasonable is that body language maybe make sense here yes and no so and I go ahead Mr yeah and I can always put it in there this isn't going to be the end of the discussion this is a very preliminary part of the discussion so we can always take things out at the next meeting as well um BR do you want to come forward maybe offer you've got a perspective on this topic I do brought up a a good thing I just want to just rebut that a little bit um when you put in a large data center first year noise studies may not be accable because it takes could be years for them to fill up so doing one in the first year and then again at the second and then having none 10 years later might be their peak time so it might be best to consider when issues do arise to address them then thank you James did you have a question for would you consider the the potential for noise to be directly correlated to the amount of energy being consumed yes and no it depends upon the type of Technology that's in the data center would it be remiss to say that when there is more energy being used and during those Peak and utilizing um the utility track record of those Peaks and valleys as to being a determinant factor for when the tests and evaluation should occur for sound I I would say yes if you see the peaks of electricity you probably would see your peaks of sound again it does vary summer to Winter y winter time cooling technology doesn't have to run as hard fans aren't as loud so you you could see a high peak in energy use or even higher because everything's running cooler but the cooling systems aren't running as fast and is loud so it does very pun season thank you um block metrics Ro do you have uh any guidance or input on this um on this no I agree it's um yeah you know noise is certainly a a tricky thing to navigate around uh and to Mr Norwood's point the technology is evolving Lightning Fast um we're deploying immersion technology for cooling um at all of our sites um globally and um you immersion technology uses uh you know immerses the Computing equipment into fluid so it really makes things pretty quiet what uh what does uh the only parts that really generate any noise are the dry coolers outside which are similar to what what would be on top of a uh a grocery store for radiators for for uh you know coolers in a in a uh in a grocery store um so um the point was raised that during you know warmer months coolers uh are typically working harder so that's when you that that's when you Main notice some noise but then depending on what cooling technology are you're using that's what uh will drive how much uh noise there really is so our engineering is around at Peak Peak temperatures Peak ambient temperatures outside um that's really what we're modeling things after to to be within M mpca guidelines and uh and and then on top of that we're putting a building around those cooling units to to um to buffer that sound even further so what would normally be just normal conversation level sound uh will be mitigated even further so our our goal is to you know never have anybody have an issue with sound around our around our data centers but um you know technology can uh continue to improve um but um I I I do think it's interesting that you know under this you know we have an an industry that's kind of being separated out where there could be a XYZ manufacturing company right next door to us that could be generating a significant amount of sound more than 50% of the time and have a different set of rules uh than than we would as just because we're a data center um so just something to something to consider there understood thank you Rome um so James what I'm hearing is sort of a maybe a ramping kind of a a a requirement and and I'm also hearing there's probably some consideration for how far out you go um as maybe something for you to think about as you as you redraft this and but I I'm hearing that let's let's get a couple of tests um at the beginning to just kind of verify maybe some of the models and then as somewhere some dots out out ways to to say okay as this thing has come to capacity or exceeded the planned capacity how's it look now are we still within those noise guidelines is that fair okay yeah Megan you want hi Sarah TC y um just wanted to mention just kind of Cliff Notes it like our goal is not to like I get like doing repeated sound studies when you're not causing an issue like we don't want to add extra expense to somebody else our goal is we just want to protect ourselves we don't want to end up being the next city of Glenco and Glenco is in Minnesota and I've spoke to a lot of those people and we just don't want to end up there we want to know if somebody isn't com out of compliance with mpca how then what because from what I understand there there's no repercussion they've been in a 4-year battle and the residents are upset we just don't want to end up there and from what I understand the mpca is a guide unless you guys say it has to be enforced and that's what we're asking for and I get that and how do you how do you make that fair to somebody not making noise and somebody who is and the difference also when you're comparing to other industrial uses why we're not saying like data center should have different rules but they operate differently so the the difference of 24hour sound versus intermittent sounds is is two different things and when those mpca standards were written did that include 24-hour sound those were not written to include 24-hour noise cuz not many can you name another industrial that's making constant 24-hour sound I think that's the big difference that we're looking to point out great but we thank you for all this too yeah thank you sir so Mr Peterson I I have one more question more for the the data guys that are here now I'm in building and we use geothermal I don't necessarily but they're GE geothermal heating and cooling out there self-enclosed loops that are in the ground which is a constant 50 to 55 degrees are those employed at all in this industry for I'm assuming it would help more in the summer months when it's warm yeah not not with us it would be a pretty could you sorry BR you could up the microphone that'd be great thank you yeah not not in our industry because those would be pretty substantial inground heat exchange systems not like cooling or heating a facility there's a significant amount of heat that is disseminated from these technology units computer units so not that I'm aware of that they've used it in G geothermal areas um but we don't and I have not seen one so in your in in your opinion it wouldn't make much of a difference to cool to cool these well I understand it's got to cool things down sure works in the rest I would think it would make a difference I just don't the the size of that unit maybe put it out of uh well I guess my point would be put it in a constant Loop all you got is a pump you're you're just spinning around 20 ft below you or 10 ft below you underneath your building and you're just going in circles with this water that's going correct over your over your oil your oil immersion why do the grocery stores not do it and stuff it just might be just completely cost prohibitive to do that and there may be standards as well as as far as how much heat you're dumping into the groundw could I do not know I can't speak to that so but it would be it would be industry's challenge um um to meet the noise requirement if we were to develop a standard and and so I would think that they would do the full exploration of options and and come forward with some sort of a technology solution that meets the noise standard that we put in place and can monitor through periodic reporting back to the the city in effect to say that you are or are not and so there's no doubt a broad spectrum of other ways of being able to cool your stuff and and and so we would leave that I think to you to to come up with the what's most cost effective or makes the most sense for your application and and you meet that performance standard for noise correct yes okay thank you um if I if I may um Mr Peterson you you rais a great you rais a great Point um geothermal is amazing technology but this uh going straight into the ground in a loop we can't cool the fluid fast enough for that Loop because there's so many Computing devices so if there were say a neighboring uh body of water we could do a loop through the body of water we would be able to cool that fluid faster in order to keep up with the the volume of fluid going through the Computing devices so that it certainly could be a possibility but it's one of those things where you have to have the right sight and the right spot with the right body of water next to you and obviously in Minnesota you know we have uh you know freeze thaw aspects and things like that that that can be additional challenges uh where we are seeing geothermal um and and I'm working on some pilot projects right now uh in the southern part of the us where we're uh repurposing retired oil wells or or orphaned oil wells uh to generate power through geothermal means um from those Wells um it's not really used for cooling mechanisms necessarily but definitely leveraging geothermal Technologies and our hopes is that uh the research from those studies will help to further geothermal throughout throughout the data center industry you'll you've probably seen Google has invested over a billion dollars in geothermal uh Power Generation uh up West uh and uh we're we're working on that as well but there there are some ways that geothermal can be used for uh for cooling of these devices depending on what cooling technology you use it's um just hard to cool it at the same volume without using uh a body of water thank you R so James uh item C do you have the guid clear enough guidelines for that the the commission's uh perspective yep great where would you like to go next so we go back to B um location so this is one I thought of um quite uh quite extensively uh so I'll read what what is in here no data center may be located within 500 ft of any dwelling unit or property zoned GL cn1 cn2 tn1 tn2 as measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures or objects from the data center site footprint or outdoor mechanical equipment so with this one um there was another ordinance that was sent out from uh Missoula Montana uh very kind of similar to to what's in there ex except with that one uh if you're within that zone it would then require a special use permit which is similar to a conditional use permit uh what we're proposing here is a blanket conditional use permit regardless of you know how close you are um to the to the data center so that's something to consider there that we do have a blanket conditional use permit on here where we are reviewing and can put conditions on sound levels um again I'm not sure if this is too restrictive if you're you know creating a data Center that has immersion technology and really isn't maybe going to have an impact to neighboring properties um no matter what it's a conditional use permit sound studies would have to be done um it could still if there if there is a potential impact to a neighbor neighboring property it can still be um denied by city council uh so I'm not sure this is one that I'd like the Planning Commission to debate um if it is a conditional use permit do we need uh a a restriction uh I guess a restriction from dwelling units uh because certainly sound studies are going to be looked at in here and and we still have mpca guidelines and and additional other conditions so I'll open it up for discussion so James um this mentions 500 ft of any dwelling unit or or property zoned so um so we're considering one or the other so one or the other it the way it's crafted right now um I did not include uh rural living in that within the city um rural living can can be vacant properties can be Wetland um so to be 500 ft from you know a wetland seems you know seems like it's extreme um you know so that's why those were left out because they're they're large acreage lots and and can be looked at as a case-by case basis with a conditional use permit about 500 ft from a dwelling Unit on RL one or two um would be consistent with sort of the intent to this it would yeah so if if the RL had a housing unit on there um you would have to still then be 500 ft with this ordinance so again I'm not sure if that's too extreme um you know I believe there's an ordinance that did have a distance like that requirement no matter what the Missoula Montana um was different than ours I believe it would be permitted and a specially used permit would be required if if you're within that 500 ft so you know I think there's uh you some discussion that to be had on this one if if we have a blanket conditional use permit is this necessary uh because again if if somebody's proposing a data center that will have no impact or or you know not really any other additional sounds and any other um industrial property would have they would not be able to operate here no matter what um because they're they're really not meeting the requirements for a variant does that make make sense you you could put um I mean if we wanted to stay with this element um you could simply just um reiterate the you could do the 500 ft from dwelling unit or property zoned on the five zoning districts that you've listed or within 500 ft of any dwelling unit on it a R1 R2 as a way of sort of capturing without necessarily then making a 500 feet away from any you know vacant pasture land parcel or anything like that that you're you're referencing it back to a dwelling for those other two zoning districts and and I think it I think it probably is already worded that way to where you know if it's RL um if it's a County property you have to be 500 ft away from that that dwelling unit so I think I think the um the ordinance already states that you know again the question is you know we don't have the standard for other uh industrial properties you know do we apply this standard to it or do we look at it as a case byas you know basis with the conditional use permit okay other comments or feedback to staff well I think um I I I kind of like it the way it is um um Al also applying that 500 not just to our rural living but if you've got something in the I mean we've got those few random little industrial properties that are right in the middle of a neighborhood um where I wouldn't want that even though it's um it's not actually a rural living but I wouldn't want it going in there and and something being noisy um so I kind of like that idea and I like the idea of having it in here because I want to be upfront with anybody who's thinking about um putting something into Brainerd like right from the beginning don't be they'll be thinking you're going to put it in one of those there's like you know the ones I'm talking about right James for which ones the two little industrial like it's two or three lots in the middle of a neighborhood the old industrial park we ended up not including that as industrial it's it's an overlay District right okay but like you still get my idea right um so I guess that um I I think it's important for us to be up front with them and where we where we've got places where we don't want them to go thank you Tiffany I'll take a step um so as far as the 500 foot and the intent I I do fully support and believe that it is for the protection of the individuals that are residing and living near uh or engrave proximity to uh that type of use within that um the 500 ft of a zoned property versus 500 ft of a dwelling unit can be dramatically different especially when we're beginning to talk about R1 and rl1 rl2 those you know the dwelling unit could be on you know well over 1200 ft away but the property line is immediately ab buding and that can create you know a an indifference as to how and what we end up doing with that property um we do have and within manufacturing and within City development correct me if I'm wrong but we often times will end up putting housing near our in industrial areas for the feasibility of having a quality Workforce within close proximity of their employment um we see it in our neighboring City we don't have a ton of it immediately within our proper but it it does happen um and it is something that is sometimes encouraged within City development so to meed at Le say that based upon the zoning use immediately to push that the the sound is by far and away the most important subject matter of this situation as to the fact that that will be the thing that is the most hazardous within that type of use within data centers noise is the problem um some might argue the electricity but the within Glenco specifically being cited before consistent um metering of 80 to 85 DB is extremely Troublesome and extremely difficult as for anything to be permitted there are ways to end up mitigating and making sure that any investor in any uh company that is looking at coming to brainer that we make sure that that won't experienced it I don't so what I'm saying is that I don't believe that 500 ft may be the best solution as to mitigate thank you well Mr chair yes thank you James how far out from the property are these noise studies going to be done can we I mean cuz 500 ft that's two city blocks just about that does seem like quite far um so how far away from the building are these noise studies going to be done where we can know what the noise level is going to be so you have different levels within your your um every time you double your distance you have kind you kind of create a new Zone um so certainly we could kind of look through it um you know Zone by Zone and and do that study uh you could look at certainly sensitive areas which are people's properties um you know places that maybe have higher res residential areas businesses that may be complaining so You' look at sensitive areas to to conduct the noise studies so you want to take a bite of this yeah come on Dave not right up my alley it's not not your swim Lane Mr nor would has a much better handle on this I don't know about that so so I guess there's there's a split here um James as to to whether to call out the location or just have it embedded that it's a byproduct of just the noise study right I mean that's kind of I think what we're what we're saying and some of us like to call it out specifically that that brings it to the the point of why we're asking about noise and and proximity and and if you site these properly you're probably you know with consideration for dwelling units then you're less likely to probably be having future conflicts so can you can you maybe just take that feedback and package it and give us a blush maybe maybe your your technical skills on how to how to maybe maybe I can provide a couple options yeah for the code there um you know obviously we're just introducing the topic and Planning Commission can you know step back and think about it for a month and I think this is a big one um do we want to have a specific location of that 500 ft do we want it to look at it as an individual U basis where we can put conditions onto it so I think there's a lot to consider here and and I'll come up with maybe some options for this one um based on some of the feedback tonight and and uh again this was one that I spent a lot of time really trying to consider and figure out what's best and and uh you know we're just beginning discussions here so yeah just help help us you know round round this up and and and what you know or what thoughts come to you afterwards and play it back to us in in a in a in a new synthesis in January or so anything else on location folks all right um where do you want to go take us next so we head to to hazardous wayte so prior to approval the developer shall submit a hazardous wayte plan for review by the Community Development Department Public Works public utilities and fire department um so we would take uh typically all these departments would review a land use per permit of this nature but you know specifically we can ask them for a h a hazardous waste plan um I think we can maybe probably expand into requiring um to abide by mpca regulations on disposal that could probably be added to this part of it here um and again that could be then put into a condition that they have to you know abide by their um what they had submitted for their hazardous waste plan and has to meet um npca standards so that's right into a condition so if there was a violation again that that could then be revoked um if there's if there's some uh major violation there there really isn't uh a great way from a staff perspective to continually monitor something like that um you know certainly we've had a few times where people have reported things within our industrial park that uh then we have to follow up on we contact the npca on that and they'll go out to the site and take a look we'll take a look um our Fire Marshall might take a look and then we'd address it from there um again if it was in the condition then it could possibly be revoked if there was an issue um but you know you look at uh all the IND other industrial properties I don't think this you know what's used for the oil there is is any more you know probably dangerous than some of the things that are used for chrome plating um you know things that are when we took a um a tour of uh Lexington manufacturing there's multiple chemicals in that in that uh facility as well we're not you know inspecting that on a regular basis for their for their Disposal Systems um so that's how I would probably approach that one and I can answer any questions questions of stamp thoughts on this standard this sorry thank you Mr chair th this is a standard that I don't believe that needs a whole lot of adjustment from what is actually intended and written within what we see printed um the as far as requiring a petitioner applicant to provide a hazardous waste um plan it it should be uh we can't just throw our desktops into the our local home dumpster anymore they kind of get pulled back out and set along the curb and then the rest of the garbage goes away and then I don't know if anybody else has experienced that I've never anyways can't throw your TV away anymore um but that being said is that there is hazardous waste protocol that should be abided by and especially in a large format such as this type it should be adhered to so that way for the guarantee of all public thank you other comments James do you feel confident or competent in reviewing a hazardous waste plan it's coming to you right I or your staff yeah I would I would probably do an initial review on it but again our public works department our public utilities and fire department are going to be more knowledgeable than I am on that so that's why those would be included as well okay yeah so I mean if we're asking to submit something um uh but we're not skilled in interpreting it or applying that information you know do we do we simply defer to the to the regulatory agency right the mpca standards piece and just say you know show show me not the plan show me the proof that you're you've got something you've got a relationship already with Pollution Control agency y so that you're not collecting a document and going so okay other comments all right all right I think that's it for that you yeah so so the next part is is screening um this is somewhat redundant I think it's good to put in here because we do have that in in other parts of the Cod um mechanical equipment is already required to be fully screen from from rights ways I think the one thing that uh this one does add is that it has to be um not in front of the building so um I think you have to back up generators that type of thing that that have to be pulled out from you or or air coolers again couldn't be in front of the building so but uh our current code already does require mechanical screening so this is in line with it and adds just a little bit more to it any comments from the commission looks good and then the last part duration um based on our conversation um probably take this part out um maybe we add a duration to review period that might be I guess the change in there so I'll I'll work on that part but as it's crafted right now probably isn't applicable because it does seem like we're going down the route of a conditional use permit um again yeah this might be you know maybe a review period part if if we do add anything to duration to to conditional use permits any objections to that good all right all right uh where to from here yeah and we'll just go through maybe a couple items that were brought up um in the email as well for discussion um I'm going to go to that here again um there was some concern about hazard waste disposal I think if that was put in the allowed use section but then also put into the conditions um that's a way that if they are in violation of it it could potentially be revoked um so I think that's a a way to to help um ease the concerns about hazardous waste disposal uh one of the other questions that were were brought up in the email is uh potentially notifying residents within a half a mile radius of the parcel um including Affiliated homeor associations it was in the Arizona code um of it right now um our requirement is to notify within 350 ft uh certainly these would be a lot of letters generated um so this is something that have the Planning Commission discuss here to see if that is something that they would want to include in here um you know obviously we don't have the same standard for other uh potential um High use industrial uses uh one thing that we could do uh with with short-term rentals we do have it on the website where anybody can access who that that property owner is and or the property manager and can contact them at any time so it's found right on our City website and and easier to access than trying to ask staff it could be after hours um so there could be a potential that we create a spot on um on our website that would um require some notification information on there comments or Reflections on that I like that so the proposal or or the suggestion made by the comment received an email was a half mile radius um if we were to if we were to use you know just on the front end if we were to use the since we're talking about 500 ft for for a dwelling location kind of a thing if we were to use that number it's it's it's 50% larger radius than than what you're doing right now but but that could be another way of handling that as well and then the online option to be able to to to register a complaint or or those sorts of things but to give people that initial notice perhaps yeah so what I'm hearing is yeah I can maybe craft it to be 500 feet if if we go with the the distance that we're looking at potentially for the location okay yes Mr norward I'll briefly comment so account accountability for me is one of the greatest assets that we have um because we all are accountable to each other especially when we are living in village and community and those kinds of things and so notification and letting everybody know what it exactly it is that our intent is sometimes it strikes fear sometimes it strikes panic but at the same time information is the greatest way to overcome that and I strongly believe that informing us as to all the things that we are all going to do in accountability within it is the best way forward thank you yes Justin uh I like the idea of the neighborhood meetings in the Arizona um ordinance um just because that puts the honest on the applicant to allay residents concerns about noise um that's that's what I see in my opinion it's more on the applicant to say hey this is what we're doing this is the noise we're going to create this is how we're mitigating it and have someone there like this ordinance says with decision making power so they can take concerns and put that back into the plan and then come back at a second meeting and say this is what we changed because of your feedback thank you is that going to work for you to be able yeah so maybe we maybe we provide a couple options for that one right or shall we go next um so the other one see per the document from Arizona we request the following uh guideline the data center must be designed and built to incorporate sound mitigation methods sufficient to prevent the sound levels emanating from the data center as determined by a third party acoustic engineer from exceeding the ambient noise levels that were observed in the Baseline study design specifications for such sound mitigation must be approved by the city before a building uh permit approval so wondering if you know does this need to be in the allowed use section um certainly we have U npca noise standards are we going to require sound mitigation methods and what does that look like um you I'm not sure if that's just something that we review as part of part of the sound levels they EXP what they're doing with the facility or are we going to require um sound sound mitigation and and I guess what does that look like it's little bit ambiguous um but I'll I'll take some feedback from the the commission on this one Jared guidance have a comment there and and that's going to fall back to these guys I'm there are many ways to stop sound and medications just many many ways and I don't know if they're I'm assuming it's being Incorporated down into their into their things they so they should be able to control it almost down to nothing if they really wanted to cost money of course to do that but but I think that would be the biggest one for me because that's that's the complaints we're hearing from everyone is sound so I think if they get it on from the beginning shouldn't be much of an issue as time goes on if it's taken care of from day one so this would probably be the most important one in my mind thank you d other comments as yes Mr nor Mr chair so as to establishing what that um what that absolute maximum would be to be enforced um it is a very tricky subject and as to who measures and meters and quantifies that is also a very tricky subject um long-term noise exposure is definitely what we are trying to mitigate and overcome as to the investment to what's noisy to me versus what's noisy to my father is a dramatic difference um sometimes what I consider to be peaceful great music is noise to him um and so within white noise and those kinds of things um as to the decel level and those kinds of things again uh 80 DB consistently going 12 100% of the time 24/7 is extremely troublesome and I can understand that uh as being a situation um as to how to mitigate it and best conformed beyond the property those kinds of things um and who's going to be looking at that taking engineering a third party engineering firm to quantify and look at their uh look at what would be produced most of the products that are coming to Market do have some form of data sheet that is specifying what noise that they produce and then compounding that into the larger assembly to make it so that way you should be able to compute it it's possible to do um but the hard part will be measuring and making sure that it's compliant so yeah it's easy to put it in an engineering document it's harder to say what it actually is uh within I think that there needs to be some investment as to what the absolute maximum would be allowable at a specific distance 500 ft keeps on coming up it's not necessarily the one that I would appreciate but it's a metric thank you m m so I think if you Pro if you provide a sound standard performance perance standard and you run the the analysis and you're radiating out and so much distance out from it it it hits the threshold but it's off the property you're proposing it's the task of the applicant to then come back and say I must apply a mitigation strategy because I'm not meeting the performance standard right so that's that is exactly what I am saying because whether it be a cold storage facility or a data hosting facility I'm indifferent to what they're doing inside their walls right so if you're shooting straight up in the air a 80 de 247 365 do we care um if it's contained within the property um you know there's going to be some scatter so there's a height requirement so it it starts to get kind of complex when you say if I put a wall up and and that contains it at you know 10 ft above ground level do does that matter if you're in the second floor building or not so I as we think about this that to me the the the impetus is is on the applicant to to meet the stand the performance standard um so some clarity is to as to how you know height might be important in in that standard that we need to specify to be able to say that if you're going to if you're going to mitigate your Noise by putting up a wall then that has to be able to meet the standards up to a certain height or something like that or if you got some other way of achieving that Mr Norwood so for instance in Mount Pleasant Wisconsin um the data farm that was built there uh the applicant ended up building a 30t wall in order to mitigate the sound um that's really tall it's a prison isn't it uh and so I'm not saying that that is a qualitative and what I would necessarily be interested in seeing as you know my neighboring property a 30 foot wall is again pretty tall um but it is what was applied in a neighboring state in a neighboring city um there are it again coming through with a specific metric and a specific standard as to what we are looking for as to the noise question and again whether it doesn't it shouldn't matter what is happening inside the four walls it should matter what is emanating outside of them similar to what we do with breweries James yeah I guess the second part of this is um mitigation methods sufficient to prevent the sound levels emanating from the data center from exceeding the ambient noise levels that were Ober Ober observed in the Baseline study so that's essentially you know meaning that you know this ordinance says you're not going to create any additional sound whatsoever I think that might be you know for an industrial Zone too too high of a standard so basically no net no net gain in ambient noise certainly um when you're reviewing a sound engine you're looking at it um you're looking at what the npca guidelines are you're looking at how it affects neighboring properties um they're you know if they're if they are close to closer to something or there could be an effect um certainly those mitigation methods are going to have to be put in there in order to get something approved um from the conditional use permits not just a permitted use um so you know again being that it's an industrial park to not you know exceed the ambient noise levels that were observed in the Baseline study may be something that's too restrictive comments on the on the no neck gain if you would I sorry um anytime that you see development and growth there is more there's pros and cons to everything and so anytime that you see um it's hard to to say that it's I would end up putting it more back towards a percentage of the metric rather than just a a non net gain um and the reason why is because anytime that you have development and growth it it ends up impacting and changing the the noise that um I forget what crowing and recycling is on I want to say it's on Industrial Park Road it's not TC Road quite there but um on that specific Road the what we see today as far as the noise production versus what we saw 15 years ago is a dramatic difference and it happened over a period of time um due to the continued growth and expansion and development of that specific property it and that organization is an amazing personal opinion is an amazing organization as to how much and what they serve and the number of employees and families that they um provide for the that being said is that there is more noise that com from them there is more uh traffic on the road there is more um calls for service uh be they medical or any emergent traffic that ends up occurring so anytime that we have more development more growth there is going to be more things and so it's it's hard to say that no net gain would be fair comments um yeah just no net gain does seem a little hard to meet the industrial park is where we're supposed to put the noisy dirty stuff um so no net gain seems a little ridiculous to me thank you yeah it strike it strikes me that this is a this is an idea that's bigger than the ordinance piece we're nibbling here um and just overall how do you manage um you know increasing noise as you have increasing development and and it it would broadly apply I mean Mr Norwood's point of traffic and all these other things that are are directly related but indirect noise contributors and things it's bigger than the task today so I don't know if it would it would benefit us to to put that specifically in this piece but we might put it on our wish list of topics that we've been managing to say maybe we come back and visit noise more broadly if anyone Mr Norwood and so then that is part of the reason why I do prefer the conditional use type mitigation as to that is that you do have the ability to end up kind of steering and correcting um away from those protected uh things that you want to Ure and make as far as the neighboring properties it within the conditional use you can say that you must have all traffic exit this direction you must place your within the conditional use you can say that you must place all the equipment uh at this location with on the property and so it ends up highlighting and specifying within the location of wherever that might be within a conditional use it's it's very much a relationship between the city and the applicant James you get direction on that to be able to craft something for us I think we should be good um I think that's I guess the last thing that I have um if the commission wants to bring up anything else to discuss we certainly can thank you other topics to consider I'd like to introduce a um an energy based performance standard and I would call attention to the the Missoula um standard this one is specific for crypto mining in the example but I think it applies broadly to the data center um regarding U um um an offset of of renewable energy is what the standard is in the Missoula example um there they're saying that the operation Shel be required to develop or purchase sufficient new new renewable energy to offset 100% of the electricity consumed by the operation um and there and it goes on further so I'd like to see an energy um component and the performance standard here focusing on the Renewables these are um these are highly energy consumptive um uses here um and so I'd like to be able to see a way that this does not um bind the hands of of the city in meeting um renewable energy targets um and we're well on our way with our infrastructure at BPU with the hydrop plant and two solar operations and such that we we have a growing u u proportion of our current energy demand that is renewable energy and I'd like to make sure that we we protect that um when when a new use com comes in that basically is asking for 25 30% of the existing power demand of the city that our residents are are basically invested in and doesn't throw us back onto the market to try and be able to to buy high-priced renewable credits and things like that so thoughts on that if nobody else so I I would suggest potentially rather than doing solely just Renewables as to identifying um en energy purchases that are non uh hydrocarbon based produced energy um and the reason why I state that is that within Renewables it is very much of a focused um and and identifies currently where we are at versus where we are likely to end up in 10 15 years and so I would strongly advocate for still the mitigation and um alleviation of utilization of hydrocarbon based energy sources and not saying specifically renewable energy and so what I'm what I'm getting at is nuclear um it again as technology is consistently moving forward it is a very good likelihood that nuclear will end up making a significant comeback and as to the uh issues that we are looking at specifically within hydrocarbon that's one of the main areas as to why Renewables are a passion I shouldn't say a passion they are a necessity thank you other thoughts on an energy standard of some sorts I like where you're going with it but I I am concerned about the um the I'm going to call it the shelf life of that kind of a a requirement you if we are requiring that they reinvest in I noncarbon energy resources there's going to come a time where that's just where energy comes from right and how do we I mean maybe at that point we're just you know adapting and changing the ordinance again if we get to that point but um I feel like there's going to come a time soonish when that reinvestment um um is going to be counterproductive in a way because that's already going to be the standard so the the risk the risk is that you're you're putting a standard that is no longer relevant um I I think James can figure out how to work around that he has an idea can kind of kind of work with that James do you have yeah so I can work on something for the ordinance um I I'm I'm glad Mike uh brought it up at this meeting I think it you know it begins the discussion on it but we're I think you're really going to need a representative from brainer Public Utilities here at the next meeting to explain how the power is purchased who it's purchased from and to see if it's even feasible um to make this requirement obviously um they're they're purchasing energy from a a purchas it purchases the power from um so I'm not sure what their percentage of renew Renewables versus non-renewables are how much extra it would be so I think there's a a very large discussion to have here and we need some insight from brainer public utilities on this Sheriff I I I think and then to add to that list for BPU to come prepared for um I think there's a lot of room to invest in our energy infrastructure lines and polls and I I don't even know what all is involved in me being able to turn on the lights at home um but a lot of our infrastructure could use some work and if there's some way that we could allow that as an option as well I see that we are not going to run out of that to upgrade uh anytime soon so other other thoughts on energy so you've got you've got wow the echo chamber again um do I sense someone wanting to make a comment um Ro were you wanted to make a comment yes if I may yes um just a couple things just a couple things to consider uh for for the future discussion um number one um just keeping in mind that um as a consumer of the power uh it's coming from the grid so we really don't have any control over what the source of that power generation is uh and although we may you know prefer some you know some high percentage of renewable energy we just don't have control over that as the consumer of that power um number two um making it um fair and Equitable with other industries that are also consuming power for instance manufacturing facilities Etc uh singling out one specific industry for a essentially a SE charge on top of their power whether that's fair and Equitable or not just up for consideration and then um number three um renewable energy credits are uh can be uh it's kind of a variable market right in terms of the cost basis so when uh a data center company or when a technology companies looking to invest in brainer or any City for that matter uh having a a uh a more um defined you know cost basis uh is is part of that calculation when it comes to identifying whether to invest in a particular site in this particular community and if renewable energy credits are a requirement that can vary quite a bit I remember a few years ago where um renewable energy credits were you know1 0.1 cents a kilowatt hour and then they jump to almost a half a cent a kilowatt hour within about a year span that can have a pretty big swing from an economics perspective so just three points to consider in the future discussions not necessarily to dive into today or tonight as part of this discussion but something to some some points to consider to try and find a happy medium um to accomplish the the ultimate objectives thank you Ro so um BPU help us think about the the energy game um you know as as Rose saying the renewable energy Market is is variable and and that's that's the piece that's at the front of my mind um as as that you know as as we move together as a state of Minnesota and as a United States of America moving towards um this carbon free energy um future um if we're if we're Shifting the burden onto the residence of of triner to make up those renewable energy credits they're the ones that are that are consuming or absorbing the variable costs as opposed to the large energy consumers um and you know that's so so we have to understand a little bit I think about what the expectations and the targets are for Minnesota and for for the the nation um going forward you know so we've got some 2040 mandates at the state level um to hit um for for some of the power generation side of things and at what point and what are the standards for the communities that have to them also meet targets and we don't want to shift industrial charges over to residential rate payers right I mean I I think if we were to query the citizens of brainer and say would you be willing to to um to um um take on a rate increase in your power demand so that we can bring in a large energy consuming data center type of of of use I think the the answer would probably be no and and so how do we how do we protect the residents of this of this community as we entertain bringing this kind of energy consumptive use in and so so if you can bring not only BPU but can you bring in either either facts or or or um professional and Technical e you know experts that can talk to us about what some of the future Milestones are that would help us I think address the energy piece here does that make sense y that makes perfect sense okay thank you anything else that should go in to the soup here that uh that that James is going to cook up and serve back to us we'll look to see a draft uh in the future do you think that's something we'll see in January or you think more of like a February we'll be attempting for January um I'll certainly be able to write it um the energy component with brainer Public Utilities I'm not sure you know what their timeline looks like and what their schedule looks like for a turnaround um but I'll I'll certainly be able to make edits to um the land use side of things great great thank you anything else on that topic then I think uh we're going to public forum public uh forum is the time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission and time limits may be imposed so is there anyone here from the public that is uh would like to address the commission at this time and uh do we have anyone online Sean thank you I'll ask second time anyone U wish to address the commission okay seeing none we're going to move on to staff reports uh director cronic yes thank you Mr chair so just want to provide an update to Country Manor uh so Country Manor again is the uh development uh project north of Northtown Senior Living facility 110 units of senior living as well as a child care facility um they're getting very close uh to construction they have asked the Eda for well the city council the Eda is the one that first reviews it for a recommend ation uh for additional tax abatement uh on that property so originally it was 40 it was about $850,000 10 years 45% tax abatement um they've asked for 1.2 million up to 20 years at 65% the Eda has reviewed it and recommended um their most uh volatile years will be when they first open uh so the Eda has recommended 100% tax abatement for the first three years um still 1.2 is where it would max out and then kind of be a sliding scale from there uh so that'll uh most likely go to the city council on February 3D uh they are going to be having to reapply for a PUD Amendment cuz there are some small modifications that they had to make for Value engineering so that'll be at the next Planning Commission meeting um also wanted to um make it aware that uh the uh city council has approved staff to um advertise for our 24 Saha fund State affordable housing aid um there's a $4,000 available from the city for uh they do have to meet certain standards for AMI um how much you make I guess versus how much the rent is uh so there are some standards with that but uh there's $104,000 the city currently has this year uh for projects uh the deadline for those applications for apartments or last year's award to Habitat uh is January 24th it's the last thing I had and just want to uh thank Tiffany for all of her time on the Planning Commission it's uh a lot to discuss and a lot of time involved and and a lot of of of uh research that has to be done and uh she's been a wonderful uh planning uh commission liaison to the city council and and uh thank you very much for your time thank you James administrator BRS I am sorry for bypassing you do you have anything for for uh tonight's uh thank you thank you with that uh we're on to commission member reports I have none thank you thank you James uh nothing to report and thank you Tiffany for being a a person that has pushed and helped and uh made me want to be a better Community member you have made Brainard better thank you and Justin uh I'd just like to say I'm happy to be here um look forward to working with everyone excellent Tiffany uh well I want to thank all of you and James um I've learned so much on the Planning Commission I don't build houses I don't mind crypto I have relied a lot on fellow commission members to help me uh understand some of the more practical difficulties in some cases um oddly enough water goes downhill I understand uh so I I just want to say I really appreciate um all of all of you and helping me um be as successful as I like to think I have been thank you and uh I've appreciated every member of this this um this commission over the years and uh I I I hope to be uh visiting with you again in January um and I and I will point out that groundwater can flow uphill so we have learned greatly from you b line so um with that um I think uh we're at the uh the close here I hope everyone has good holidays and safe and uh and look forward to seeing everyone in January um with that I'm looking for a motion to adjourn so move is there a second I'll second all right motion second all those in favor signify by saying I I I all oppos same sign we are done at 803 thank you everybody and thank you folks for