[music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] Woah. Woah. [music] Oh. Oh. Oh. [music] See? [music] [music] [music] Oh. >> [music] >> Wow. Wow. [music] Wow. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] [music] [music] [music] >> I feel I feel you. I feel you. [music] >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. >> [music] [music] >> Heat. Heat. Yes, Katie. Uh, we're going to call the meeting to order um at 3001. Can you please call the role? >> Mayor Kaufman. >> Council member Andrews here. >> Council member Bergen here. >> Mayor Prom Kums >> present. >> Council member Gardner >> here. Council member Hancock. >> Council member Horton >> here. >> Council member Jackson >> here. >> Council member Lawson >> here. >> Council member Medina >> here. >> Council member WS >> here. >> All right. So we do have a quorum. >> All right. Um so no mayor's update. Um any issue updates? All right. See, oh, >> sorry. >> Yes. Uh, Council Member Bergen, >> and I don't know if it's at the right time, but I am pulling 5A from the agenda for study session. >> All right. Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and pull that item. That was annotated on the agenda and I didn't notice it. So, thank you. Um, so we'll move on to the consent calendar. Um, any objection to approving the consent calendar? All right. Seeing none, uh, item 3A, consideration for a text amendment to the food truck standards and definition ordinance. Council member Lawson. >> Um, thank you, Mayor Prom. I'm just going to set the stage for this of why I'm bringing the ordinance forward and then I'll let Trevor and I think Eric is here as well to go through all of the provisions. Um, I first I want to thank um, Council Member um, Wilds for allowing me to bring this to the policy committee multiple times. So I appreciate that um to kind of go over this. The reason why I'm bringing this uh food truck ordinance uh forward is first I want to be very clear. I think it's very important to food trucks give um um individuals entrepreneurs an opportunity when they especially can't afford motor more to be in a building to give them an opportunity to um to be you know to to not only bring things to the community but also to just be able to have their vision of what they if this was their dream. Um I do feel like there has been some compliance issues in the year and a half that I have um seen the food trucks not all over the city but specifically at Hampton and Chambers. Um there been some business license issues. I know currently there was 16 to more food trucks within a certain section and if you know that particular area it's owned by different owners. So in that particular section, the owner of that area could approve that many could approve the food trucks because we didn't have any kind of compliance in in um in place for the food trucks. Um there was some additional questions about operation um just kind of having some collaboration and and just making sure that everybody within the neighborhood can enjoy the food trucks, but also to um be neighborly um with the time um that they're there and then with the noise. um seeing some of the waste and disposal that I saw, access to safety. Um I have been into that area and I'm talking particularly the Hampton and Chambers one um in different hours, Saturdays, I've been there in there evenings and just kind of getting in and out of the area can be very complicated at times because as you know there are stores there, there's Dollar Tree, there's all kinds of other businesses there. So ensuring that everybody can assess those buildings on and those businesses on top of just ensuring that they can go to the food trucks I think is very important. I'm not trying to say eliminate it within um a retail center but I do think that the accommodation of maybe having five within the square foot especially in areas that have multi-owners and that area does particularly have multi-owners. This isn't like a corner star or a Rapjo Crossing. This is multi-owners so they can have someone the owner can decide what how many can go there and I just think that we need to look at the spacing in there just due to that. So just for me, the licensing, the seating, the using the surrounding um property, waste and disposal hours, access and safety, and consistent enforcement just to make sure they have their permits up, they're following the rules of what the city is mandated for them to do um to be in these particular retail centers. So that is why I'm bringing it forward. Um, I'm just speaking. I think it has been an issue all over the city, but specifically I have been um it has been an issue for me in Ward 5. And I know that they're needed, especially in Council Member Wilds's area, but >> [clears throat] >> um in condensed and dense areas, I think we do need to make some type of um some type of allotment that can only put so many in there. And with accommodating and making sure that the businesses strive as well. So that is my overall thing. I'll set it up for Eric to go through the proposal and to address any questions from my end, but also from the city staff's position as well. Great. Thank you, Council Member Lawson. Uh, let me just pull this up here. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, thank you again. That was a great intro. Um, and we will try to keep this brief so we can get to the discussion as quickly as possible. Um, but yeah, as Lawson said, this is to go over some of the issues we've seen with food truck operations um and to present you with the proposed code um that we have to try and address these immediate issues. Um, so this presentation was put together uh with myself in planning, uh Trevor Bon with licensing, uh Josh King with code enforcement, and then Cindy Perry with business development. Um so these first few slides, um just really go over the existing standards we have in the UDO. Um for the sake of time, I'll just skip through these, but they are in there. or I can always go back if you have any questions on what we currently um say and permit. Um so to start off, I did want to briefly just go over some of the benefits we have with food trucks, but I want to be clear. Um you know, these ordinances are not intended to discourage food truck operations as a whole. Um and we do recognize that there are benefits here. Uh they do create placemaking and good foot traffic. Um they activate commercial areas. Um they do provide us good tax revenue. Um they are uh entrepreneurial support. Um they're good starter businesses for um prospective restaurant owners. Um and they do generally attract positive activity um in the places where they're operating as long as they're operating reasonably um and uh ideally within these new standards we're proposing. So getting into some of the issues and difficulties we've had. Um, so in planning with reviewing food trucks, generally our code only speaks to the operation of food trucks. Um, as a result, there's not a clear delineation between a temporary food truck and a truck that is um operating within our required time frames but aren't leaving uh the the location which they operated overnight. Um, effectively creating a permanent use. Um, code also doesn't specify where the food trucks can be stored. There's some supporting code that determines, you know, where um commercial trucks can be stored and that sort of thing, but nothing specific to food trucks. Um and then the definition itself is also fairly loose. Um doesn't make it clear what is considered designed and equipped to serve food and beverages. Um and then finally, we've seen increasing uh interest in um the development of of food truck plazas. Um those would be kind of a permanent use where trucks could come in um and have a kitchen, have a bathroom area, have outdoor seating. Um food truck plazas were discussed in the early peed meeting. It was decided to move that to a second ordinance later down the line. That's going to require a little more research, a little more outreach. Um we're proposing the current uh adjustments to the existing code um as a way to address the immediate problems that we see like uh Lawson brought up with overcrowding. Um, so yeah, that is from planning. I'll hand it over to Trevor next for licensing. >> Thank you. And as far as um what we deal with and we share enforcement with code enforcement uh kind of who gets there first, but we do have a person on our licensing staff uh that uh kind of is the subject matter expert in food trucks and goes around town and can quickly identify often from memory which trucks have licenses or not. Um what we've seen is we just have seen these locations where we end up with large congregations of food trucks like Chambers and Hampton. Uh kind of some of the concerns around those is just you know the how it looks on site. Um using up the parking lot, taking available parking, kind of closing off access here in the lanes and and you know some complaints from community members um in regards to the appearance of the lots. Um a lot of also what we tend to see is uh food trucks remaining on site. Uh so evidence that they're not returning regularly to the commissary. Unfortunately, the food code just says regularly. It doesn't specify what that means. Uh but we know in some cases food trucks will remain on site for months at a time without leaving. And what that kind of translates to and what we've heard from the health department, what we've seen is some of those things that are already violations, but um more likely to occur in those situations where the food truck isn't leaving, so it's not properly dumping its waste water, not going to the commissary to uh ensure compliance with the food codes and and clean um you know, clean clean materials and fresh food and and everything's working there. Uh, you know, here's a picture I took of where you can see the food truck was dumping their waste water um towards, you know, and flowing directly into the storm drain. Sorry, Marshall. Um, and um, you know, and then we start seeing con structures being uh, built um, around these these food trucks when they're sitting in place. So, where they start to bring in permanent tables. We're seeing that chambers in Hampton um and have seen some really interesting things kind of develop around them but not necessarily uh particularly appealing in appearance and not necessarily legal either. But um just another example of some of this where you know you've got the frame that's just left there because they're they're not leaving at night. They start to build these structures. you get the tables out there, [snorts] uh the tents, and in one case here, they actually brought in a a bus to use as a dining room, um which is, uh raises a a number of concerns, and it's not really a food truck at that point. Um and so that I'll hand it over to code enforcement. [snorts] Oh, just some more examples there. I'll just pass it on. Sorry. There we go. Again, Joshua King, manager of Nport, includes code enforcement. Uh, some of the issues I just want to talk about with code enforcement is seeing along with what Trevor is saying is the storage in residential areas. Um, when they do remove those food trucks, they tend to store them in a residential zoned area with the um, they're over 6,000 lb. They have the signage on them. We get complaints about them. Neighbors just don't want to see it. So, we're we're kind of asking for that commissary storage area to be in the code. So, it can kind of address some of that that we're seeing. Um we're we're also seeing stuff that's blocking traffic while operating. You see that um in the previous photo where the the tables start coming out, the um canopies start coming out. People start queuing in the lines. That becomes a safety issue as traffic's trying to get through to that store. We don't want anybody to get hit. So we're looking at some guidance on that also. Um and then again, just speaking on lack of clarity on the policy for outdoor seating options. that that is one of our big concerns with code is is ensuring everyone is safe um while enjoying these food trucks business development. >> Good evening. Cindy Perry, uh business development manager with um planning and business development. So from a business development perspective, some of the issues might be, you know, a lack of awareness of of the code requirements and that could be either the operator or the property owners. Um, and I will say most operators are really great partners. Um, but when they're not, it can really impact the other brick and mortar that's within a center or nearby. It can also impact the aesthetics of the city, which we have seen. Uh, regulations help with that and better equip staff to ensure that, you know, everybody's playing by the rules. And in terms of sales tax opportunity, we are collecting sales tax, but um I I think that, you know, if we have some stronger regulations around this, it will make it easier for us to track that. Um and you know, of course, there's there's some concern with competition with brick and mortar. Um I think the the restriction on the number of trucks within a center will um support support the existing brick and mortar. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy. All right, so getting into the meat of this uh discussion into the actual proposed uh language. Um so the next few slides will go over that language. All of that was uh provided to you in the draft ordinance as well. So the first section uh that we proposed some changes to is the food truck definition. Um we would add uh so you know a food truck is a motorized wheeled vehicle or trailer that is licensed for use on public roadways designed and equipped to serve food and beverages and then the added part but not to provide invehicle dining seating. Uh and then also this definition does not include uh the selling of food or beverage products transported by way of and sold directly from passenger vehicles. Um, so this would address uh, you know, selling food or drunk food or drinks out of the trunk of a car, the trunk operations that were mentioned, um, as well as, you know, that that mobile dining bus um, that was shown. Um, it's a bit problematic from a fire life safety standpoint. Next, uh, these are pretty small changes. One to the hours of operation, uh, saying food trucks must be attended at all times. Um, this addresses any issues that we've occasionally had where uh, code enforcement is not really able to rectify the situation as there's no one managing the food truck at the time that they show up while the food truck is operating. Um, and then the section on noise. We've uh added an updated code section. Um, the current existing code references a piece of code that has since been repealed. Uh we're just adjusting it so that it now references the existing city code uh about an unnecessary noise and disturbing the piece. Uh so a bit of code cleanup there. Uh one of the bigger changes we have is adding a storage section. Um basically requires that all food trucks uh must move to a storage location after their operations have ceased. Uh that storage location needs to be on an improved parking surface like uh all of our storage required operations or all of our storage uses. Um needs to screen signage also requirement of of storage lots. Um and then cannot be located on the same lot as a residential primary use. Um this these codes are intended to uh address you know food trucks acting as a an effectively permanent use that accumulation of waste and waste water that we see also from food trucks not moving. um encouraging a return to a commissary um and then addressing storage and residential areas which um over a year period from April to April um we looked at all the code enforcement complaints we got about a little less than half of them were from um residential uses. All right. And then the last big piece of code um adding number and density limits to food trucks. Um, so basically what this section of code would do was it it would allow um any property to have a food truck per 15,000 square ft of lot area um up to a maximum of five trucks per lot. Um we would also allow one truck for every property um even if they're below that 15,000 ft². It is worth noting most commercial and industrial properties in Aurora, at least outside of original Aurora, are over that 15,000 ft². um looking at examples, uh we don't think that's too ownorous. Um and this would help address that mass gathering of food trucks, um you know, that has been brought up a couple times now. Um and all the impacts associated with that being excessive noise, uh waste generation, and then fire and drive lane obstructions as well. Okay. And then finally, the last bit for discussion. Um, at the last peed meeting, um, council members brought up a desire to potentially move some food truck operations to be allowed to operate at 6:00 a.m. Currently, the code only allows 7:00 a.m. um, start times. Um, the 6 a.m. number was mostly brought up in relation to construction sites, uh, but there was a mention of having them operate at 6 a.m. for food deserts as well. Um the peed uh committee asked us to bring up a couple different um draft languages that are not in the current ordinance for discussion here. We can add them into the ordinance, either of these um if council would like. So those regulations, um these are two separate options. Uh food trucks may operate starting at 6:00 a.m. on active construction sites or while legally parked in streets immediately adjacent to active construction sites. That option is very direct on addressing this um earlier start time just for construction uses. The second option is food trucks may operate starting at 6:00 a.m. provided that in no circumstance may any food truck operate before 7 a.m. within 50 ft of any residential structure uh with a certificate of occupancy. That is all intended to be uh a more broad provision for the 6 a.m. um addressing some of those uh other um issues where we might want a 6 a.m. start time like food deserts which can change and aren't as um readily tracked um while also creating a buffer from residential that is you know actively um being occupied uh so that we're not creating too early of a disturbance for our residents. So um getting into the end here we have two questions for council. One, does council wish to incorporate text amendment options A or B as pres presented on that previous slide into the ordinance to amend the text for food truck uh use specific standards and the definition? Um and then secondly, does council wish to forward the ordinance to amend the text for uh the food truck use specific standards and definition adjusted as needed based on today's discussion to the next city council regular meeting? >> Thank you. Um, Council Lawson, do you want to comment before we start discussion? >> Um, I think I think I think just by the presentation and just the reasons why I brought it forth, I think um I'm hoping that the council would at least look at um implementing these particular um amendments and adoption into uh the or into the ordinance so we can get it implemented. Um, I understand again and I want to say that I understand food trucks bring value and I hope we're going to get the food truck park. I think that's going to be significant. But I do think that some [clears throat] of the things that I have seen especially in the past year and a half to two years. Um, especially at the location I'm speaking of and some other locations that we do need to have some compliance. And I think the things that were put in set forth into this ordinance, I would hope that the council would approve those moving forward. If I could ask staff a question. So it what's the distance again between food trucks no more than was it is 15,000 ft² I can't remember what the number or 1500 ft. What was it? >> 15,000 square ft. Um and that's not distance between trucks. That's just if if you're looking at a lot pick a random lot the number of food trucks that that lot is allowed to have under this new ordinance would be based on um 15,000 square foot intervals. >> Uhhuh. So you have a 15,000t lot, you can have one food truck. You have a 30,000t lot, you could put two food trucks out on there up to a maximum five food trucks. >> Wouldn't the city be in violation of its own policy then? Because uh when we have the Global Fest or Aurora Fest, uh when I look at the concentration of food trucks there, I I think that that is in excess of what we're what we're stating here. >> Yeah. So, and I apologize, I should have brought this up a while ago. None of this would override any provisions in a temporary use permit. Um so a temporary use permit like for for those events would still allow those trucks to go over that number. Okay. >> Um based on the provisions of the temporary use permit. >> Okay. Further questions or comments? Council member WS. >> Oh, sorry. Council member WS. I guess I forgot. It seems like we got to choose between option A and option B. So >> or neither. >> Or neither. >> Okay. Council W. >> Okay. So, a few things. Um, we have talked about this a lot in peed and I have a lot of reservations about this. Um, my whole ward, most of it is a food desert. They do rely on food trucks. We have food truck Friday in my neighborhood. So, does that mean that anytime we have a food truck Friday, the HOA or metro district would have to apply for a special use permit? that could become financially um challenging for homeowners areas where they're trying to bring in food trucks to fill the food deserts that we do have. Um I believe there's one coffee shop in my entire ward. So we have a lot of coffee trucks that are out on corners to service people on their way to and from work. So that concerns me. Um also I know that we got a list in our packet of all the different commissaries that are available in the city. One of them is on Buckley Air Force Base. They do not let people come into that one. Um like you can't just show up and try to use that commissary. The others had very limited um availability for new clients. And so I just worry um that we're putting a lot of regulations on these small businesses that are mostly um minority owned. They're really trying to get their foot in the door and support their families and hopefully eventually be able to fill some of well if if we had open you know storefronts in W to like eventually fill some of those. I just I I absolutely respect uh Council Member Lawson's concerns for that particular corner and I understand she's getting a lot of feedback from her area. I'm getting the exact opposite from W 2 which is we need these food trucks. Don't try to take them away. don't make it so that they can't operate and function because they serve a very real need for the ward. And so I I I worry about that. Um this the 7 a.m. is concerning as well. I see them out as early as 5:30 either on construction or again serving coffee as we're driving into the city. Um it can take for me to get into the city from where I live. If I get stuck behind Buckley traffic, it could take me 45 minutes to go three miles. And so I I really need that coffee from the food truck that parks on the corner. Otherwise, I'll be very >> angry. So, I just have a lot of concerns that we're maybe making it really difficult for small businesses to operate within the city and and I struggle with that. >> Okay. Uh I see I have Council Member Jackson, Council Member Bergen, Council Member Gardner to speak. Uh um and mayor promp council member Jackson. >> Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. Um four points starting with the storage with having the uh trucks have to leave and go find somewhere to be legally parked. I'm just curious if the city has done an assessment of that to see how much space we have if if now our, you know, residential streets or public streets are going to become crowded with food trucks that are parked there and how that might lead to even more complaints. Um the one truck for 15 um,000 square ft I 15,000 square ft is pretty big. think it's equivalent to 3.5 basketball courts or six average sized American homes. I just think that's way too big when we look at how food trucks operate. Um they're they're they're clustered together. And I I'm curious if we even looked at, you know, where the big lots used to be on Chambers and um Hampton, I believe that's at Cross Street, how big that actual thing is, cuz there's I think like 12 or 15 trucks in there. I just think 15,000 square feet is is a bit much. Um and then um were food truck operators contacted or outreach to in creating this um this ordinance cuz I think that having their feedback on it would be really valuable. And then last thing, I do agree uh if we move forward with the 6 a.m. um I would like to just see a 6 a.m. allowed as allowed overall. I don't think it should be tied to a construction site because I do see coffee food trucks popping up all over the place. They're great. Um, but if they just want to be in a in a parking lot or on the street and open up at 6:00 a.m., I don't think it should have to be connected to a construction site. So, couple questions and just feedback there. >> Council member Bergen. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. um on the options. Um option B that that 50 ft. I mean I that's really small. So I I would not be in favor of option B just because it seems at 6:00 a.m. in the morning that could be right right by someone's home. So that was my only comment. >> Council Gardner. >> Thanks, Mayor. Uh yeah, I um I'm [clears throat] glad Council Member Wilds brought up uh the Friday night food trucks in Wu. I've been before several times and um I would have a concern that they're going to have to apply for a temporary use permit every time. I'm not sure what that costs. Um but I that to me seems excessive to make them have to do that. Um, I I also agree with Council Member Jackson on limiting to five within 15,000 square ft. Um, I you know, I believe in property rights and if a if a if a somebody owns a parking lot and they want to allow more than five in there, I think they should be allowed to. Um, so I'm certainly open to um some of the concerns Council Member Lawson is trying to address because I think there are some things we could address, but um I think this goes too far um and overregulates and so I'm glad to hear that all of a sudden this council's concerned about overregulating business because um I try to be consistent on that. >> Thank you. Uh Mayor Pro Tim, >> was it me next? I just want to make sure we're not skipping anybody. Okay. Um, so just a couple of questions that I had. One is around the street parking. So, Council Member Jackson mentioned a worry that if they have to leave, then they're all going to be parked on the residential streets. My concern is um that I've definitely received complaints over the years from people who seem to be pretty transparently trying to harass their neighbor who happens to park their own food truck in their own driveway. And so I worry that if we say, "Yep, you can't park in any neighborhood." That we're opening up like we're creating a situation where um we're saying, "Yeah, you shouldn't be able to be a business owner that has your food truck on your own property." and we're kind of validating that behavior that I've seen that has been really troubling when I've received those complaints and those council requests. Um, so I think there has to be some kind of ability to at least park in your own driveway without having to build screening and other things in place. Um, and then to the point that was made by Council Member Gardner and Council Member Wilds, perhaps there can be some kind of a special event exemption, right? We on this city count city grounds have more food trucks than are permitted um when we have Global Fest, when we have any of these other community events that we host. Um, and I have heard concerns from businesses about the having to leave every day. Um, so I wonder if we can find a middle ground between you don't really need to leave and you're dumping water illegally and those kind of things and having to leave every single day. Maybe it's once a week, maybe it's, you know, once every three days, but trying to find something that serves as more of a middle ground versus um the that frequency of daily. >> Let me uh ask a question then go to Council Member Hancock. And that is uh uh isn't there a requirement from county public health uh entities that require the food trucks to uh drop their gray water off site? >> That that is correct. They are required in the food code to uh dispose of their gray water at the commissary. Uh it is a requirement currently that food trucks have a commissary already. Um I don't you know we know we've got a fair amount of non-compliance uh with that where we don't see the food trucks returning to the commissary regularly. >> So the require they're required under current law to leave. >> Correct. Under current law to return to the commissary and including dumping the gray water. >> Very well mayor and then I've got to get to council member Hancock. Okay. I'm okay. >> Okay. Mayor PM and then council member Lawson. >> That requirement Trevor right now is not daily. It's regularly which is vague and I understand wanting to take out the vagueness but daily might be a little overkill in that process. >> Okay. >> Okay. Council member Hancock. >> Council member Hancock. >> Uh so Mayor, thank you. Um Trevor, back to the point of cleanliness and disposing of gray water. Um I am concerned and I'm all for business. I'm all for food trucks. I think they're great, but my concern is particularly with the one that I pass um on Havana, the trucks aren't moving. They're not I'm not convinced that they're disposing of their gray water and until we don't want anyone to get sick as a result of eating contaminated food in an uncleanly environment in a food truck. So, how are we going to monitor? And I just this thing it we're we're really we're really on a fine line here. I don't want to be over regulatory in nature with how these food trucks operate, but we want to have the public feel safe that when they eat and purchase things from a food truck that the environment is clean, that the water is clean, and that um the preparation methods are clean. How are we going to regulate or ensure that? not necessarily regulate, but ensure that. >> Yeah, council member. I think that was uh part of our intent with the code change was to make that um maybe more easier to enforce because if they're required to leave each night, then we can see that where they've gone. Um if we look at I think that'll be a challenge if we look at say it's not every night, but it's periodically um you know some more difficulty following up on when they've left or not. Um, I do know that some of those trucks at Chambers and Hampton do leave periodically and then they'll come back because they're just stored there. Um, sometimes they'll they'll leave there, but we don't, you know, it's kind of hard to to track them all. >> Council member Lawson. >> Yeah, Mayor. I just want to >> I'm sorry. Uh, Council Member Lawson, then Council Member Bergen. >> Oh, I'm I'm sorry. Council May Hancock, did you have anything more? No, no, mayor. It was me. I could go after Council Member Lawson. >> Okay. Okay. >> Mayor, I just want to um kind of go back to the argument. I understand that Council Member Wilds, she has a food desert. Um, but I'm in the middle of an area where I'm looking at just the density and there's multiple owners and I understand it's about owners rights like council member Gardner and council member Jackson and all of them said, but when you have 16 within a certain property, which the big lots, that's the individual or owner who is allowing the 16 in a specific area. That's a lot of food trucks within that area. Even though the the fire department had to go out there and do the spacing and they're spaced out, but there has even been even more when you go up in there. There are certain situations. So, I understand you want to have that and that's council member wilds and that's great, but it's very dense in that area. And I'm not saying get rid of the food trucks. What I'm saying is that maybe limit the amount of food trucks within a certain area, specifically in retail centers that are owner occupied by multiple owners. Um, so I'm not trying to when people are saying here, oh, it's anti- business. No, I'm not. But we have a denser area. That area is very specific to different ownership and those owners can decide how many food trucks. If we have every owner saying, "Hey, we can have 16 16." I mean, there's nothing going to it's just going to be cap, you know, just full of food trucks without even people even able to go up to even to some of the other stores that are up in in there like the Dollar Tree and like all the the bank. Um, so that's what my concern is specifically. >> Council member Hort and then council uh member Bergen. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um, I appreciate the the question around making exceptions for construction sites and and um other areas considering I have family who work in construction. They start very early, especially in summer where it's the high construction season um and they're trying to get a lot of labor intensive work done before the heat really rises during the day. Um, and so for that particular question, one, I I support including that as a provision, and two, um, I would ask that that we we move that start time to 5:00 a.m. Um, because of, uh, the the working dynamics that exist within the within that particular industry. Um, and then the second piece, uh, is I, and and maybe this was was my misreading of the documents earlier today when I was reviewing the packet. Um, to your point, Council Member Lawson, around the the parameters for uh, uh, businesses that have multi-ownership. Um, I don't remember seeing that and maybe that was just an oversight on my part. Uh but I think that like that makes sense um of having some regulations in an area where there's multiple owners um and and having some parameters around that. So that's my two cents. >> Council member Bergen. >> Uh yes. Thank you, Mayor. Um so I just want clarification. Trevor, you said that the um disposal of the gray water and the return to the commissary is is a requirement that they do that nightly. Correct. >> Uh not nightly. It's regularly under the food code. Yeah. Unspecified. Just says regularly. >> And what is So this new code doesn't make that a change in that to clarify it. >> Uh no, that's the state food code. State food regulations. Um this this proposed code change says they shall leave the site nightly. So it would encourage them to go to the commissary, >> right? >> Which I actually agree with. I think um just from a um you know health perspective, I think that's actually the right way to do it. So I have question on um and I'm for option A because I do think the construction sites that makes sense. Um, is there any way that we can do this and maybe suns I don't know, sunset it so that we can see what the effects are? Because I I certainly, you know, hear Council Member Lawson's concerns from her residents, from business owners, and I think it is a problem specifically in in her area. Um, so I don't know. Is that a possibility to to have a sunset on it and then re-evaluate if it's working or if there's problems with it? >> Well, um, Council Member Bergen, that's that's an option that's always there to have a sunset on any piece of legislation. >> Okay. Well, I'm in favor of it. I think I think [clears throat] again I'm I prefer option A with the construction sites. Oh, I know. I had one more question. Sorry, I wrote it down. What time do construction sites What time are they allowed to even start construction? I thought it was 7:00 a.m. in the city. >> So, construction work can actually be any time of the day as long as they conform to the noise standard within that district or the adjoining district. Um, the requirement from 7 to 9, they're allowed to operate at an industrial level noise level. So that extends the amount of noise they can make, but theoretically they can do 24-hour operation as long as they stay under that noise threshold. >> Okay. All right. So then the 5 a.m. would would be fine in terms of not impacting that. >> I It's hard to tell. Um if they're using hand tools, they may. It just depends on who the affected party would be and and what the noise they're producing. So [clears throat] >> Right. Okay, thank you. >> Further uh questions or comments? >> Um I'm sorry, uh Mayor Pat. >> Um yeah, so I was just looking as well for the kind of multi-owner property question in the ordinance. I do wonder if rather than having the blanket 15,000 square ft, which feels pretty significant, if we could have a smaller density requirement and then have a specific application to multi-owner properties so that you can't have the situation that you're talking about because I we've seen a number of different issues arise over time [clears throat] when there's multiple owners. ers um in an area that rent adjacent parcels. So I think I wonder if there's some kind of an amendment we could look at for that. And then as well in terms of density around the egress issues like just making sure that the access and egress is maintained versus again a fixed density requirement. like if there's some ways that you could have still a density requirement. I think some kind of density requirement makes sense, but instead of having it be such a large area, instead you specify the multi-owner issues and specify not impeding egress and access to other businesses. And I um Trevor, can I ask you a question on that? So um I'm speak I'm not I'm in agreeance to that. I would accept that as a something that we could work through. Um, is there am I kind of going out of turn to say that and I might I'm looking at specifically at Ward Five. Um, but other throughout the city. Are there other retail centers that have multi-owners? I'm just saying throughout the city. >> Outside. >> Besides Yeah. Outside of W five. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm getting >> Yes. They're they're multi the entire city. Okay. from north down south and have multi-commercial property owners within a um >> okay I would be willing to because to me I I think that's a if that's kind of a friendly amendment to work through I know that there's other concerns but really I'm looking at the centers that I'm looking at in W five because there's a lot of older ones they're multi-owned it's not like the corner star it's not a rapo crossing it's not you know pioneer hills um so these are ones like that so is there I would be willing to accept that one. Is that something that we could do to maybe put into this or would that complicate things? >> We can look into it. It's hard to say if it'll be more or less complicated. We have a lot [snorts] of those shopping centers, they have different ways that the lot is split. Some of them it's just one lot with a bunch of different owners. Other ones like I believe Chambers in Hampton actually each parking lot is actually split for the >> That's what I'm saying. And that's what I'm saying. the density could become enormous. If each owner decided to say, "Hey, I want to have this many food trucks." The whole thing would just be that. So, that's really has been the m the concern for me at that area. >> So, if I >> Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I think maybe rather than having to dig into how are they split, just say across the board in multi-owner properties there's this density requirement and outside of those properties there's a smaller density requirement or something like that like one that allows more food trucks but I'm however you want to do it but just as >> I'm happy to go back and brainstorm. Yeah, >> can we look at the two options too for the start time because just [clears throat] to limit it just to construction sites again affects the majority of my ward and being able to, you know, have access to to food early in the morning on their way to work. Um, so I know council member Bergen didn't like 50 ft, but maybe there's another amount because there's a lot of empty there's a lot of empty land for lack of a better term out there where they just park on street corners. For example, um, Gun Club and six there's a few parked out to the side of Quick Trip. Well, they're not anywhere near houses. Um, and so I don't want to I selfishly I don't want to limit it so that we don't have access to coffee and food in the morning. >> Yeah. >> Um, so maybe there's a compromise we could find in there as well. >> Yeah. And and just to clarify real quick, the existing code limits operations at to start at 7:00 a.m. So if they're operating before then, technically they're out of compliance now. Happy to look at even earlier times. I don't think we really have a big concern with that either. So, mayor, with there being questions, can I u maybe pull this and allow this to be brought back to another um study session um just for review and with just some of the comments and I can work with um with everyone to see kind of see what we can do to compromise. >> Very good decision. I think one um let me just raise u an issue that I think is important and that's from a public health health standpoint. So that um we have uh county public health regulators that say they have to they should empty their gray water out on a on a daily basis, right? Uh at the at the end of their their business day >> at a an approved facility, which is called a commissary. Am I correct in that? >> Yeah. Well, again, it's it's regularly. They don't say daily. They just say regularly. And >> yeah, I don't know what it's a problem with the code. So what does that mean? Um it yeah and it it says at the commissary and to help clarify in commissary um pretty much u you know a lot of the commercial kitchens qualify as commissaries. They don't necessarily you know say their commissary but a lot of these food trucks partner with restaurants and that's approved by the county as their commissary. >> Okay. So there are specific businesses that market as commissaries, but restaurants, a lot of these food trucks partner with restaurants for commissary >> because I thought it was a daily requirement for imposed by county health. Uh >> just the code says regularly. That's all it says. >> Okay. Okay. Uh further Okay. Council member Burger, >> just real quick, I know we're going to continue this, but just for clarification, I think I asked this at peed. Metro districts um can set their own regulations as to food trucks, right? Like like a commercial metro district. So Southlands has its own metro district. >> They would need to still comply with with what's written in code unless it's through a TU. Um and they could make regulations that are more strict than code, but not that that would still be okay. Okay. Great. >> Okay. Well, um, is there further questions or comments because then we'll just move on, uh, with council member Lawson, uh, withdrawing it, uh, to consider the comments that have been made, uh, today. Um, item number 3B, uh, repealing sections of chapter 94 of the city code pertaining to offenses and miscellaneous provisions. Um, city manager. >> I'm going to go and turn it over to Megan Platt, uh, manager for, uh, public safety with the city attorney's office. Uh, and Megan's going to give us, uh, an overview of, uh, the code update. >> Um, good evening everyone. Again, Megan Platt, uh, deputy city attorney. So, um, we worked with Mayor Prom on some of these, um, initial code updates as a result of the Camp Simon's decision. Um predominantly, um this part of the cleanup is really to address the mandatory minimums that are no longer good law based on Camp Simons. Those include, um the retail theft provisions, motor vehicle theft, and the theft um mandatory minimums in the code. We removed those. That's kind of the biggest piece of this. It is 23 pages, so I won't go through every single change that we made, but we also went through the code and sort of looked at violations that maybe we don't charge anymore that are outdated and sort of removed those violations with the intention to continue working with Mayor Prom on the next phase of this, which will be the general penalty updates and what we want sort of the new structure to be and then making sure that um all of those um you know, classes of violations that remain have a penalty structure that's clarified. um based on um sort of the state law equivalents. Um >> and one uh thing that came up during study session that I think was confusing for folks that I'll just touch on is we did remove um a part of the um camping um section regarding that the general penalty provision applies. That's just a cleanup because the entire code has the general penalty provisions apply unless otherwise stated. that was put in there um you know previously just for clarification when it changed from kind of a civil penalty to more of a general penalty. Um but that doesn't change the ability for um enforcement to be within the general penalty structure under 1-13 >> questions >> questions. Any questions? Seeing none, is there any objection? >> Bergen might be trying. >> Oh, council >> sorry going back and forth between my east scribe and this um the skateboard. So that's completely taken out of code. >> Skateboards. >> Skateboarding. Yes, that was completely taken out of code. It's just not something we really see ever enforced or charged regularly. We see a lot more problems, I think, um, from the APD side on, you know, the the ebikes and some of the new, um, toys that kids kind of have and skateboards, not so much, uh, an issue with enforcement. >> Okay. So, the ebikes are still would still be able to be have consequences. >> Yeah, that those um provisions that we had drafted and worked on um, with you, council member, are still all the same. That doesn't apply to any of these cleanup um, items that we have in this ordinance. >> Okay. So, if a um neighborhood, cuz I get these, if a neighborhood complains about skateboarding in parks after hours, then we don't do anything. >> Uh the way that this is written, it there could be a different enforcement provision like park hours if they're there past a certain time frame. There could be trespass issues if they're uh violating park rules and regulations, but it wouldn't be specific to the use of the skateboard itself. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Further questions or comments? Uh is there any objection to moving item number 3B forward? Seeing none, item number 3B will move forward. Thanks for the presentation. Um item number 5A has been um pulled uh from the agenda by the sponsor. Uh item number 5B, evaporative cooling. Um Council Member Wilds and Council Member Bergen. So 5 uh B, 5 C, and 5D are the three items for related to data centers. Uh council passed the resolution uh two weeks ago telling us to come back uh on these items. And so the first one we're going to have up um is to talk about evaporative cooling. The resolution was specific to that. So I'm going to queue up Marshall and his team to walk us through this one um in terms of what the ordinance lays out. >> Yeah. So, very briefly, and it's a pretty short ordinance section, um, what this does is just prohibit new evaporative cooling technologies or systems for HVAC in commercial, multifamily, and industrial spaces. Um, we currently have the largewater user guide that we've talked about quite a bit that council was supportive of us putting in code a couple of years ago. um that still in the large water user guide criteria within that criteria systems still can be built including evaporative cooling components. They're typically a hybrid system. Um what this would do is say no more evaporative cooling components to any HVAC in those three spaces for new construction in Aurora. So, this has been uh implemented very similar code in Las Vegas, Southern Nevada, um fairly recently, but they've had decent success with it there. And so, this would create even more water efficiencies and water savings uh associated with cooling in a room. >> Okay. Um I think it does require um more energy. Am I am I correct? if you're not if you're using closed loop versus evaporative cooling. And I hope that um general assembly it would be great for them to say that they um uh to clarify and reinforce that the rate payer can't pay uh for um what the data centers are using more energy by virtue of what we've mandated on them. Uh further questions or comments? Seeing none, is there any objection to moving number 5B forward? Seeing none, item number 5B will move forward. Item number 5C, text amendment to update the permitted use table regarding data centers. >> So this is one um so this is one where uh there are currently five zone districts where uh data centers are an allowed use um a use by right. There are two where they're conditional use. Um we'll go into more detail on this, but in reviewing um the zone districts as it was led up to the conversation uh two weeks ago um the zone districts of the mixeduse office in uh institutional MUI is one of the allowed zone districts. Um and those very much are kind of in our neighborhoods. It's one of the zone districts that we use uh actually for schools. uh we currently don't have any uh data centers in there nor interest in those sites but uh we think that we would want to go ahead and and remove this for future use um for uh those data centers. So we're not seeing that interest uh in that. So um uh we we think this is one that's pretty straightforward uh in terms of those just given their location. So I can pull up a map here real quick uh and just show you. Um there you go. This is in your packet. Uh so you can kind of see there uh these are the zone districts. You kind of see that light blue kind of there. You'll if you're familiar with the different areas, you'll notice those are in, you know, in and around a lot of our neighborhoods. That's kind of our thought is that we want to go ahead and remove those for future data centers. So that's why we want to go ahead and do that. So uh that's the recommendation and happen to uh answer any questions you may have on this one. >> Any questions or comments? It's a pretty straightforward ordinance update. Uh we go to the the uh use table and we just change that block from MUI and data center from a P from a permitted use to we remove it and it's not an allowed use. So that that's our proposed recommendation. So uh no questions. We'll move that one forward. >> Any questions? >> Seeing none are any objection to moving 5C forward? Uh seeing none 5C will move forward a 5D data set standards. Uh discussion. >> Okay. So to cue this one up, this is one where uh the resolution that was passed two weeks ago really kind of said to come back to you all to talk about um evaporative cooling and then uh setbacks and then anything else um that we think uh is appropriate for council to consider. So um this is really to try and get to um that broad any other uh issue. So, I'm going to ask Brandon Camarada, our uh manager of planning, to kind of walk us through kind of a current state of what our our code, how we currently define that, how we walk that through. Um, and then we're going to go through a couple different um really quickformational. The ultimate goal here today is not to decide what the setbacks are or what the screening requirements would be or any of those things. It's really just to kind of give you some basic information, hear from you all. uh we really want to see what's the consensus on council for in 3 weeks when we come back to the September meeting. Hey, this is what we'd like to see. We'd like to see recommendations on setbacks. We'd like to see recommendations on whatever it is that you all have. So, that's the goal for uh the discussion for the next uh 20 to 30 minutes for you all. So, I'll turn it over to Brandon. >> Uh good evening, good afternoon. Uh Brandon Camada with the uh planning and business development department. Uh thank you Jason for setting that up. Um there's a number of slides which you all have in your package and so I'll try to uh work through them uh effectively. Um you know the first package of slides is really talking about um thinking about distance. Um and so I'll foreshadow a little bit here. You know these are the distances. The second part of the presentation is going to be thinking about things that we can do on site that might uh effectively uh help us uh look at this issue. Uh let's see. So effectively the regulations that are in place for uh data centers uh so data centers have been in our community for a number of years but they've changed what they look like now. And uh data centers have pretty much the same regulations that a lot of the pretty typical industrial developments might have. They don't have special regulations associated with them. So they would have um um landscape setbacks, building setbacks, certain buffers to other uses. So kind of the typical standards that a lot of other light industrial uses might have in the community. Um you can see our definition there. We created that definition not too long ago. Uh the most recent uh change we did with data centers uh was was really to adjust its parking so that it wasn't lumped in with another land use. And so when we did that, we we got that definition um I believe from a Virginia county, so one of the counties that was out there uh experiencing data centers at that time. Uh it is considered an industrial use in Aurora as we've talked about. It is also permitted in some mixeduse districts. We'll get to that. Um, and there are certain things that we don't touch uh from a UN uh zoning code standpoint such as power allocation and things that uh Excel may be more involved with. So, here's the zone districts that they're permitted in, meaning uh they're used by right versus conditional means it's a discretionary discussion. So, we'll kind of touch on each one of these zone districts a little bit and hopefully they'll start to um you know be thinking about uh the distance ideas here and and how they might be applicable to these different types of zone districts. So the first one we already talked about uh just a moment ago which is mixed use office in uh in institutional and so anytime we have a zone district that says mixed use it means it uh is also accommodating residential uses and so we'll want to be thinking about that. So, as we already kind of talked about, these districts are accommodating a lot of times schools. Uh, sometimes they're accommodating things that like to situate themselves in a campus type setting like schools, maybe business parks, things like that. But in almost all cases, they are surrounded by neighborhoods. And so, that's something to be considering. That's what we discussed in the last uh suggestion. uh the airport district. And so the airport district, you can see the map, is basically our light industrial zone district out east uh in the northeast uh part of the city. Um really uh this [clears throat] would be the zone district where we see a lot of the warehouse and distribution. um and things of that sort. It can and does abut to residential land uses. Uh so as you look primarily to the west uh boundary of that, those are probably going to be mixed use or residential districts to the west side of that. And so again, it's not a mixeduse district. So it does not permit uh residential uses. So accident potential zone is a kind of unique uh uh specific zone district. It is situated at the ends of the runways at Buckley Space Base. Uh those areas are are defined for us uh more or less by the by the Space Force base and the studies that they conduct. Um, this is a a district that accommodates a wide variety of things because those came into into being after development already had occurred. And so in some areas there's some residences. In some areas there's light industrial uses and things of that sort. Uh so relatively confined part of area. It's usually sparsely developed because the regulations did take effect in kind of limited uh development in those areas at the ends of runways. So I1 I I I think of I1 as being a lot like AD. So AD, as I discussed, was a light industrial area out east. I1 would be the light industrial area that's more enclosed to town. And so as you can see, it's smaller parcels, finer grain development. It's older industrial areas, usually smaller industrial parcels. Uh so again, it's not mixed use, doesn't permit residential um but could accommodate uh certainly um data centers under our current regulations, a lot of logistic centers along I70. >> Mhm. Now I2 uh is less frequently observed in the city. It is our heavy uh well it's called our medium industrial district but amongst our districts it accommodates the most of what we allow the most intense industrial uses we allow. Um you know when it talks about one of the heavy industrial uses it allows would be heavy manufacturing. We don't see that a whole lot these days, but it kind of has that construct of it can the the impacts of a of a heavy manufacturing can extend beyond its boundaries. Um, meaning uh sound or dust or noise, sound and noise. Um, so that might be something to be thinking about as we think about um um land uses for for data centers as well. All right. So, now we're getting back into some mixeduse districts. So, MUR, make sure I catch up with my notes here. MUR is not too frequently. It's tended for kind of central uh Southland Mall area is an MUR area. It's intended for high intensity sort of uh mixed use areas um um commercial and multifamily uh areas that are viewed by the city as being high-profile important areas of the city that we want to be thoughtful with development activities and maybe take advantage of certain logistics that are associated with those areas uh such as proximity to interchanges things like that. I will say that the QTS sites are are within this zone district. Certainly, this zone district does accommodate uh residential uses. And more often than not, these zone districts are surrounded by other lower density residential uses as well. Then MUA. Uh so MUA is a little bit of a unique district as well. It's kind of a transitional zone district. And so that could come into play as we're talking about data centers. And so as you can see, it's kind of in these areas. Uh if you can view the AD, the AD zoning would be to the right of those areas and then more traditional single family residential to the to the left of those areas. So those are areas where kind of on the transition of industrial areas. They do accommodate uh industrial uses by conditional use. The thought process being, you know, we didn't know where that that magic line of when the industrial was going to stop and residential was going to want to take place and things of that sort. So, it kind of allowed for some discretionary activities there on on making that boundary for those items. So, it does permit a range of residential uses certainly as a mixeduse district. So this is kind of going back to what I what I kind of discussed at the beginning of right now. Uh it's more or less standard uh design expectations for data centers meaning um some screening of um mechanical equipment that you might see on the ground. screening in that context is usually um a wall or a fence and its goal is visual screening. And so you might even say like a trash containment area is usually enclosed, right? And so that is an example of that. Or if you had some big air conditioning units or something that were visible from the street, those would be screened as well. Landscape buffers. So then we're talking about on-site stuff now, not necessarily distance between uses. Um, you know, those are typically if if we're having industrial uses against residential uses, there's an attempt to soften uh the transition there with with some additional landscaping approaches. So, so now we're going to start thinking about the distance ideas. And so, we can zoom in on this map. So, there's a zoom in on each of these. But in general, the the map on the left is residential. And uh it's kind of hard to see, but if you pick up the crosshatch, that would be the zone district itself. And then you have the varying levels of of buffer. So if we wanted to think about a/4 mile buffer half mile buffer a green it quarter miles red half miles yellow green would be a mile. >> So whenever we start talking [clears throat] about setbacks um and buffers it's it's really you have to make sure we're talking about from what to what. Um and so this is a model we're just going to give you show you the impacts of uh taking residential as sort of the base and then sort of you know setting some um buffers out from there. Um I think as a practical matter when you go to implement this I think it's it's going to be easier to talk about that the um any proposed data center would have to be you know you would start with the parcel of the data center and then measure your buffer from that to whatever district you're trying to um buffer from. So if we want to buffer from residentially zoned properties, we would say, you know, start with the parcel of the data center and say you have to buffer from the parcel of the data center to a residentially zoned district. Um, >> is that a clarifying question? Sure. That >> so a lot of times when we're talking about buffering, the question gets asked, are we talking from property line to property line or door to door, structure to structure? Like how are we defining that? And could we define it differently in a way that for example if we were saying from structure to structure it might actually create more spaces that are yellow or green instead of red. we could and when you do structure to structure, you're obviously measuring from uh existing structures, right? And so, particularly when we're talking about some of these areas like the AD zoning, um the these things are, you know, they they take longer. One of the other questions then would be what is the the piece in time that we're we're we're setting back from because often particularly for these large industrial uses they'll come through and get entitled on their property and they they may sit on that entitlement for 2 years while they're waiting for financing while they're waiting for Excel to deliver power while they're waiting for a variety of things and so we just need to think that through the point you make is well made so it's something we need to think through Janine >> Janine Rustad director ctor of planning and business development. Also, if it's structure to structure in W 2 where there's permitted MA, you know, there's master plans, they may may even be site plans, but there might not be the actual houses in yet. Uh, that might not get to what the sponsors are looking for. >> Understood. And that makes sense considering the area. >> Council member Gardner, >> thank you, mayor. Um, why did staff select a/4 mile as the as the minimum threshold? Um, that is significantly further than the standard that's being put in place around most cities in the country. >> We didn't select a quarter mile. We're just trying to show you on a map what that looks like. Again, the details that we're going to go into are going to be in 3 weeks. The the 1/4 mile, any of the other, they're all illustrative only. All we're trying to do is when we're putting up a huge map, it's difficult sometimes to show what a 250 foot buffer looks like, what a 500. We're just trying to show you again when we're talking broad swaths, how much are you you're capturing. You're absolutely right. We have a a slide in the future that's going to show um different buffering areas. And you're right. Those are normally I think we've you've got some that go up to, you know, to a quarter mile. I think some others that are in that 250 to 500. So again, part of this is just for the illustrative thing to today to show you all when you start getting up to, you know, those larger numbers, you start taking out pretty significant swats of land from uh possible development of of of the the data center. And whether you want that or don't want that, we're just trying to show the impacts of those. >> Okay. Well, I I maybe we can disagree on that because to me when you put up what option does council want a/4 mile, half mile or a mile and then other at the bottom, uh there is a minimum threshold being set. So, we can disagree about that, but that's fine. My other question is on the definition of a data center. Who created that definition? And did did council approve that? Because council is the policymaking body in the city, not staff. So, I'm just curious who decided on that policy was our official that was that definition was the official policy of the city. Was that staff or did council vote on that? >> Uh, we took that as a UDO amendment. So, council voted on that definition um a few years back. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Further questions or comments? Council member Wilds. >> And I actually would agree with council member Gardner. I think um there's been comments earlier um in the previous meeting about data centers and how there's some in I believe it's W 4 and how what's the big deal? They're in W 4 and there's been no issue. But I think it would be disingenuous not to clarify that there's a very different thing that's a data center that's in the back of a bank or the basement of a small business or even a large business versus one that is the size of two to three football fields in length. And so I think that is an important disc, you know, differentiator to say that there are different size and different types of data centers that may require different rules in terms of the zoning and the rules that we're looking at down the line because again, a data center could be the size of a closet. It could be the size of five football fields. They probably should not be treated the same. >> Can I respond to that? >> Uh, Council Member Gardner. Well, I appreciate the lecture. I'm aware of how data centers work and I'm aware of the different sizes they can be. The point is is that this is being presented as a one-sizefits-all. So, in for example, in the current zoning map that's up, it's showing a/4 mile. It doesn't say a/4 mile if it's the size of a closet or a/4 mile the size of if it's the size of five football fields as you described it. It is showing it as a one-izefits-all. And that is exactly the concern that I'm trying to raise. >> I was agreeing with you, Council Member Gardner. >> Okay. >> Further questions or comments? >> Yes, Mayor. >> Uh, Council Member Burger. >> Um, this is very confusing. I hate these kind of maps because I can never really decipher them. Um, there it's going to be more complicated on per per zone, right? So if you have industrial versus the I don't know the airport district or the or the mu what is it the other one a az whatever it is um doesn't that matter also like if you just do a particular um buffer setback for everything I don't even know if that makes sense. It seems like it almost needs to really look at the various zones in com in relationship to residential cuz some are not going to even be anywhere near residential ever, right? >> It depends, right? I think context matters and all these things. So, your point does is well made that again context matters on all of these zone districts and where they're at. >> Yeah. I mean, and I think um when we say quarter mile, sorry, here goes my dog. Um quarter mile, half mile, eighth mile, whatever. Can we use feet instead? Because um quarter mile is isn't that like 1320? >> It is. Yeah, we we'll we'll do that. And I think that's a good transition. Let's go ahead and go to some of the next slide that shows kind of some of the >> uh these are again just of looking at different comparisons. Again, the purpose of today is not to get to um what these are, but just to give you all some context. And again, I think some of the other discussions we've had, again, when you look at some of these, you'll see some folks are making a difference between, you know, Aurora Illinois is looking at roof mounted chillers, ground mounted chillers. Somebody else is is um uh uh you know, obviously Ches Peak's doing from zoning. They're doing a larger setback to existing residential structures. So there's a variety out there of the different kinds, but this is just trying to show you again a mix of what some of those um things that we've been able to find. So we won't need to dwell on this too too long, but just trying to show you that those are there. Keep going. >> All right. And Council Garner has >> Mayor, I have a question. I I I do think we need to dwell on it. Can we go back to the prior slide, please? Because again, the slide that is on the the screen >> does not ask about anything shorter. It says other, but it doesn't ask about anything less than a/4 mile. And if you look at the chart that was provided by staff, and I don't know how these were selected because there's dozens of other municipalities that could be put on here, um, but if you look at the chart that was provided by staff, in only three cases were they a/4 mile or more. in every other case and in some it was significantly less than a/4 mile. So I'm still not understanding why we didn't map out a shorter buffer than a/4 mile. >> That's what we'll do in 3 weeks, sir. >> And this is a >> Yeah. Uh council member Bergen. >> Sorry, just also population matters. I mean a lot of places are very densely populated. We're you we've got, you know, room out east. So just that needs to be considered. >> Okay. Um thank you for keep going here. The next point here. So let's go to the next one. I want to go to the uh uh the UDO definition slide cuz this kind of came up right because this let's go back to the that one previous one more back. Okay. So this kind of came up here. So I think somebody had brought it up. Um do you all want to look at again so the point that was brought up there's a difference between a data center that is an ancillary use of a larger building and then essentially a standalone data center. So if you want to I think we could certainly look at um some definitionals um setting for that that again I think there's a difference between a 75 megawatt data center and a 10 watt megawatt you know 10 10 megawatt data center that's ancillary to a hospital or to something else right so I think that's something that we certainly can do but we want to make sure you all um are okay with that and then obviously that definition could also then look into as we talk about both the different zone districts but also um what the setback requirements would be for each of those th those um different sizes. So is that something that you all would like us to explore? Are you all open to sort of looking at those definitions? >> Yes. >> Any comments from members on uh differentiation in scale or size? Council member Hancock, >> I I was going back to the question that he had mentioned before about this the 500 ft. Uh I want to make sure that that is not forgotten in this discussion so that we make sure that that's included. >> Okay. So, we're going to probably have to walk through these in different questions that staff have for us. Um, city manager, is there a question on here about which set of buffers council wants to require that we >> This again, I think I think I've I've heard loud and clear. We we will come back. We want to kind of give you all an overview of um just one, you know, starting with what zone districts are they allowed, give you some um familiarity with where they're at, uh give you some idea of what other jurisdictions are looking at and then we will um come back in 3 weeks with um some look at that and we'll walk you through in that granular level. But as we start to do that, this is a fundamental question here of again are we looking at sort of a difference between you know sort of um large scale data centers uh versus you know sort of something again that's more in that ancillary use standpoint. >> Okay. So just quickly so you are clear and you have heard from the members that mentioned it that they expect examples smaller than a quarter mile to be brought back when you bring that back in weeks. >> Great. Um I'm just sorry. So just on the different differentation of the um the data centers that you're going to explore. I mean are you going to look at the AI ones because they're traditionally different in terms of the power and just the whole dynamic of that? So I is that going to be part of this? >> So typically what you'll see is way when you're talking about modern data centers they're they're very much classified in that no they're classified in in essentially this the scale of them is classified in megawws. So how many megawws of power are they using? We don't get into the end user the sort of AI versus consumer retail versus those things like that. That's very very difficult to regulate. What what we can do and sort of regulate office again is how big is it? How much megawatt is it using? And then that's I think really speak to the scope and scale. I think we can go out and bring you all some um kind of data around where we think those break points might lie. >> Okay. So, any objection to coming back with definitions that include differentiation based on scale and size? >> All right. >> Yes, council member Gardner. And then I'll hand it back to the mayor. >> So, how are those categories going to be determined? those two different categories because clearly there is not there's dissatisfaction with the categories of setbacks that were selected. So I'm just curious how those are going to be established what what we're going to use in terms of the megawatt cut off. >> So if I mayor it sounds like it says at least two categories. Um so if I'm understanding correctly city manager bachelor that means you will for example have the very small scale not modern type data centers and then you could bring back more than one we can yeah that's one of the things we'll try and do is try and give you also some context in terms of some of the different um development we're currently seeing or that's already underway in Aurora is to make you all aware of again hey when we're talking about this data center it's a 50 megawatt data center Right. Phase two is another 50 watt mega dentist day center. So I think that's the type of thing that we can do. >> I was just going to say the industry itself has set different categories. They have the small um the largest right now is hypers scale. So I think they're pretty well set based on megawatt usage. So that's it's an industry standard. Maybe we could start with that. >> Council member Bergen. >> Um yeah I think council member wild uh just said what I was going to say. So there's the hypers scale data centers. Um do we are they they're just always categorized by megawatts not by size. >> Yeah cuz the size piece is is difficult from a um a building envelope standpoint. You have some folks that are doing multi-story data centers. You have other folks that are doing one story. So I mean in terms of size I I think we found that again to the industry standard typically they they're referring to megawatt. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Further questions or comments? >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Oh, sorry. You still have more things you're presenting? >> Yeah, we're going to read. I'm sorry. Um, so Brandon, why don't you go ahead and go to kind of the I think so with that. >> Wait, I hold on. I I object to the last one and we never took a Does anyone object? >> So I object. >> We're taking positions at this time. Am I correct? Well, this is got two raccoons ass. >> So, we were trying to see if folks want us to to try and come up with the differentiations between sizes. >> Okay. Sorry, I had to step off. Um u just go back, Brandon. >> So, mayor, the question was any objection to um staff bringing back at least two categories um for defining data centers? >> I object. >> Two or more or just two? >> At least two. >> At least two. Okay. Uh, is there further objection? Uh, seeing none, uh, >> I object as well. >> Oh, Council Mayor Hancock. And >> I'm sorry, mayor. I object as well. >> Okay. Further objection. U then we'll then we'll move forward with uh two or more. >> I object. >> Okay. Yeah. Council member Anders. Okay. >> How many How many is that? Four. >> Three. >> Three. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? >> Hearing none. >> Can I ask a question? What we're talking about, >> Council Member B. >> Okay. So >> sorry. >> Oh no. So just we are we are saying we don't want to have different categories at all. Zero. So we'll just it it basically we're saying all data centers will be considered the same. Is that what we're saying? >> If you vote no. Yes. So I what we're asking for is do you want to sort of look at again to speak to the issue that was talked about which is you know from a intensity use is you know is a 10 megawatt data center the same thing as 150 megawatt data center. Okay. I guess >> which begs the question, are we try if you if you say yes, are we setting different setback buffer standards for each of those categories? Are we going to just have one buffer no matter what kind of >> come up with different categories, we will try and treat them um within the context of that. So I think there could yes staff would probably recommend >> I guess I object. I object then I guess >> you object. Okay. Council Council Member Bergen, you still object. >> Okay. And council member Lawson objects. Okay. >> Okay. So, mayor, that's >> it's your vote or your direction. Well, I you know I I failed to see [clears throat] I mean why we wouldn't want differences given the the different size and I I think kind of one of the metrics that that really um defines differences in data centers is the me the usage the electric the uh megawatt usage and so I mean that and I think that's probably going to equate to the size of the data center. So I've held to see why we wouldn't want different standards for different sizes of a data center. >> Yeah. >> So floor doesn't work. >> I I I think for me if if residents are concerned about data centers, it seems like we would just look at what is a reasonable um safe buffer for any data center. Don't they basically is are are you saying one will have a more negative impact which is we don't know if that's even proven. I I guess I was just like let's make it simple. >> Well in terms of size and physical size I I think the megawatt the megawatt usage would have some corlary to the physical size of the data center. >> Let me make a if I can mayor I'll make a suggestion with that. Why don't we do a hybrid? Why don't we have a certain square footage and megawws and figure out what that looks like, right? So we cover both because that's what I see like we're going back and forth on. >> Jason's staring at me like he doesn't like that. >> Mayor, so just if I can clarify, so the question isn't what is what are the definitions that staff will bring back. It's just should they bring back more than one, right? They could bring back square footage, >> power usage. they can bring back all anything anyone contacts them and says hey I want to know about this. The question is just do we want more than one category defined in our code or do we want to treat them all exactly the same >> right to look at >> and for the purposes of study session you guys can still if you allow staff to come back and put put those ideas in front of you can still reject them later but if you end it now which it doesn't sound like we're it's it's it's split with the mayor saying no we're going to continue the idea again that's just we just want to know how much information you guys want us to bring back to you for for consideration and I would suggest I would encourage that you allow staff to continue working on on those things and then when we get to that point make the policy decision. >> Okay. Okay. Uh next issue. >> Okay. So then I think the other one too is obviously we've heard you all loud and clear on the buffers. You want to see those much uh lower. Again the information has been provided. So we will come back. We will start at uh you know something much lower and show you all the options around that. So then when we talk about buffers uh buffers were explicit in the um resolution. So we'll come back with a discuss discussion on buffers but I guess we'll we'll start there. Is there anything else on that one on buffers other than you want to see this the smaller level? Okay. So then I'm going to have Brandon walk you through kind of some of the other things that we've seen out there. So um screening some other things like that. >> So just talking about tools, I mean that's what we're trying to introduce is tools and and have you all help us calibrate what those tools uh if they're to be used, how should we calibrate them. Um, so talking about uh, you know, the size of the lots, you know, typically the way our our zoning code is set up, we don't get into uh, requiring certain size lots or floor area ratios and things of that sort. We're mostly relying on what we would say is building setbacks. So, if you're wanting buildings to be far away from property lines, we would talk about building setbacks. And so typically when we're thinking about those things right now, we're talking on on a cord of you know 25 ft um 30 ft. Uh those are kind of the the dimensions that are out there, but certainly uh along certain arterials or excuse me along uh interstates it's 100 ft. So it can it can be a tool that can be used uh so if if that's chosen to to uh address issues. Uh and again that's how far back from the building's the building should be from its property line. Um as it relates to you know some of the other distance parameters that we did talk about I mean those are tools that are in our code in varying degrees. Uh for example you know you have separation requirements of liquor stores you know that is a distance between liquor stores that is out there. there is uh requirements that talk about if you are a bar bar and you're within 300 ft of a residential use then you need a conditional use. So those are tools that are out there that you know if if you think some of those tools might be helpful to calibrate things a little more fine grained those are things that we can do. Um and then I think the other one I might want to get to is is is sound a little bit. Um, so certainly we've talked about screening from a visual component and usually we're not thinking too much about sound with with that sort of screening, but I think we're hearing more concern about sound with data centers. And so certainly um focusing more on that uh focusing on what the nature of the wall or the screen is to produce more sound quality than than than the pine vents uh or things of that sort. So those are are there tools we could look at in terms of the height of that? What makes sense in terms of what we're seeing in terms of height of generators and chillers and all that stuff? Um so those are things that are not uh off the shelf or written in our code uh at this point in time. So those could be things that you look at on a site that helps you maybe package some some mitigations together that uh feel feel like the right calibration. >> Council member Gardner. >> Okay. Council >> Bergen then council member Gardner. >> Yes. Um why would we do this if we're going to setbacks? Shouldn't that happen first? Because why would you build a wall in the middle of nowhere if it's if it's far away with a setback in an industrial zoned area? Like you would just have a wall to nothing. Like I I think I think this needs to wait until we identify the the setback buffer. >> Council Garter. Yeah, I I guess I have a similar question and I so like I'm taking the 45 del level for example in residential areas. Um I mean 45 dB is a running air conditioning generates above 45 dB. Um, and so what I'm getting at is these maximum, we already have maximum permissible sound levels are in many cases lower than what ambient noise is when you factor in uh, trash trucks and semi-truckss and uh, go through the other the list of of various other uses that might happen. And so I don't understand if we're already going to put a buffer in place why we would need additional noise restrictions. That's the purpose of a buffer is to address those noise concerns. And again, 45 dB, for example, in a residential neighborhood, 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Um, a running air conditioning exceeds 45 dB. So we are we already have such low decibel uh maximums that I don't if you add a buffer on top of that I don't see the need for additional noise uh mitigation. >> Okay, >> mayor. >> Unless you just want to make it more expensive, which I I'm guessing is the case. >> Let's see. Um Council Bergen, did we get you and then >> Okay, Council Member Horton. >> Yes. >> Thanks, Mayor. Um question around noise. Um I'm I'm thinking about it from an ecological standpoint, right? Yeah. Yeah. We could, you know, have a data center built, not have a wall, but the frequency of noise changes per living creatures. Um and to be responsible of the environment of our city, um I think this would make sense to to do our due diligence. Yeah, it may be costly and at the same time um it make sure we're doing our jobs well is my perspective. >> Council member Medina. >> Yeah. Regarding that, has there been any talk about the centers to kind of mitigate some of that which is to build them underground? >> I don't know if it's underground. I will tell you that um >> as noise help. Yeah, as I will tell you as has been noted um the noise standards are those are good noise standards that exist in our code. Um for the larger data centers that have been built, they as a matter of course have used um large scale screening walls uh as part of their site development. So they're using screening walls on their site. um best practice is that you put those walls as close to um whether it's the chillers, whether it's the generators, they're typically putting them as close to as sort of as practical to help mitigate that noise um there. So, we're seeing the walls, that's how we're seeing it. There's not been discussions around other items, although I think um as as Brandon noted, um it does allow for chillers to be roof mounted. I think mostly we're seeing our chillers ground mounted is what we've typically seen um from those folks again just because it's lower on the ground that helps with the noise levels and make sure that they're complying with uh noise standards. >> I just want to say I don't think the I'm not a big fan of the walls. Uh what I would rather see is a greater setback uh for purposes of some water-wise landscaping uh because I think these quite frankly these things visually don't look that well. I I think some of the the newer ones look better, but they are massive and and I think uh the some landscaping would break it up more than a a wall. I think look more like a correctional facility with a big wall. Um further questions or comments? Okay. >> Uh the one you touched on it, so I will touch on landscaping. We're not going to touch on landscaping here and staff's requests. >> Yeah. One of the requests would be um given that you all have given us direction to look at our landscaping standards in general around the industrial areas, we're going to bring that forward as part of that. So sort of we're just going to we're looking at the landscaping standards >> uniformly across all of our industrial areas per per the direction from council. >> Good. >> Okay. What's uh further question on this section? >> One more clarify. >> Uh council member >> I just want to make sure. So the noise that we're talking about it's just straight noise. It is not including the low frequency noise. We're just looking at what is >> I'll look at Josh. Josh took off on me. So yeah. So that's that. Yes, that is typically from um >> yeah those pieces that's where we're measuring and that's where we're able to measure. >> Okay. Okay. Um >> so this is kind of those questions. I think we we've gotten uh we got guidance on setbacks. I think you guys gave us guidance on the noise regulations. I've not heard a request for the screenings and then the other areas I think you all are >> I think the screening is from my standpoint it's the um whatever the landscape plan is is screening but but not so but you're said you're going to raise that anyway so right council member Bergen >> what what kind of landscape screening you know we're into water wise landscape >> water approved by Marshall Brown >> that's what we're looking at here Okay. Um, yes. >> Well, and when we talk about screening, um, you know, the generators and the chillers, you know, those are kind of utility features that are on the ground. And so, we would treat them like any other sort of utility feature and and put up a screen approximate to them themselves. I'm not talking per se of a a wall around the property or something of that sort. Uh so those those generators I I think we're seeing roughly 15 to 20 feet tall in terms of the generator facility and so that is kind of a newer uh a taller screen than than we've seen in the past you know and frankly you know the the screen walls that we're seeing by uh QTS you know have some insulative quality that we don't typically see and we thought well that seems like a good idea and so I think that's that's why we brought this to y'all. as just trying to uh respond to the resolution which uh I felt you know asked us to brings forward some ideas of of for you all to consider and so I think that's where we're at right now. >> Okay. Uh Mayor Pertim. >> Um yeah, so there just is the other question and so I do have a question for uh Marshall from Aurora Water. Um with respect to any discharge of water. So we know for example we talked about the kind of salt slug into our wastewater system that comes from uh Niagara. What are the standards around um treating any flushing water or things of that nature to make sure [laughter] that our um waste water which will be reuse water um is not being contaminated in a way that either a prevents it from being used for reuse or significantly increases our costs. >> Yeah. So, great question. Couple couple of uh things there. The good news is um the biggest complication with the cooling systems is the TDS concentration from evaporative cooling. So with the evaporative cooling ordinance, we're eliminating that. >> I mean, could you explain what that is? I'm sorry. >> Yeah. As evaporative coolers get used, the water goes through the cooler >> or the the chillers, etc. of the evaporative mats multiple times and it concentrates salt which is TDS total dissolved solids. So the concentration of the salts then get discharged to the sewer system and the bugs at the sewer treatment facility hate salt. Salt kills them too much salt so complicates all that. So by avoiding evaporative cooling we avoid the salt and totally dissolve solid issues. So we don't have any of that kind of discharge. What we do have with the closed loop systems are they take a little bit of water, much smaller volumes of water obviously, and they fill a system and they add some chemicals to the to the water. And I think that's probably what your question is about. Um, so those discharges are controlled by indust industrial discharge permits in partnership with Metro Wastewater. So the the good news is uh the chemical concentrations are pretty low and the volumes of the discharge are pretty low. So we have not seen challenges with the industrial uh discharges. So that's monitored by Metro and by the state through that industrial discharge permit system like they have [clears throat] regular monitoring that they're completing in accordance with the kind of clean water act and other state patchwork of non city legislation that goes into that. Yeah, primarily Metro Water recovery in partnership with the city. We do monitoring primarily through Metro, but no city doesn't look too to ensure that the water quality reaching the treatment plant is not a problem. And then we identify industrial dischargers that could need to be monitored a little more. Yes, that's how all that's done. Okay. Further questions or comments? Are there other areas? We've talked about everything else. Uh seeing none and thanks for the pres Thanks for your work and we look forward to you come back uh to another study session with some of the answers to this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh final just so you guys know in terms of the other two items we didn't touch on. Uh in 3 weeks we'll take forward the evaporative cooling uh directly to council. That can go there. Uh the UDO update that we discussed on the MUI will go to the planning commission in September. Uh and then I think either at the last meeting in September or first meeting in October, it'll be to you all. So it'll be a little bit further out because it's a UDO update. So has to go to uh the planning commission. So I will >> but the evaporative can come straight to council. >> Okay, >> great. Thanks. Well, we will reconvene at 4 4:55 p.m. in the executive session. >> [music] [music] >> Oh yeah. [music] Oh. Heat. Hey, Heat.