This transcript features a joint work session between the City Council and the Planning Commission. Based on the context provided and the names mentioned by the Mayor and other speakers, here is the attributed transcript. **[0:36] Matt Montgomery:** This is all the industrial they're all subject to all these limitations. >> Call to order for the city of Canon Falls joint city council and planning commission work session Monday July 21st. Uh if I could get an approval from tonight's agenda. **[0:52] Lisa Zimmerman:** So moved. **[0:54] Matt Montgomery:** Uh I'll give the motion to Lisa, second to Chris. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Carries. So today we're going to be talking about our data center text amendment discussion and John I'll let you introduce the topic. **[1:12] Jon Radermacher:** It's on the memo but it's a lot of stuff that I've been working on. Excuse me. I'll turn my mic on. All right. So before us tonight um and in the subsequent planning commission meeting uh there is a public hearing to discuss the text amendment um that staff received council approval for to draft at the July 1st uh council meeting um to to incorporate data centers as a conditional use within uh zoning within our city. What you have before you tonight is a draft of that ordinance. Um it is something that we have worked with tracked actually in conversations about um you know data center data centers how they function what sort of components are included in that so that we would better understand and be able to establish something that you know if we didn't know better we didn't put something in that just explicitly denies them. Like we wanted to incorporate that as their their information, their expertise as as part of of this as well as the you know review and and comparisons with other communities and other ways that they've drafted this and incorporated them um allowances of data centers within their their zoning code. Um I would say as a couple of the examples that we did follow, ours is a little bit different where we are incorporating it through the conditional use the CUP process uh versus there others where it is just a a standard permitted use within specific uh zoning areas. So um granted like again we are we are moving pretty quickly on certain elements of this. So it it is a it is our draft. as our best efforts. If there are something in there that um you've identified or you have questions on or concerns or you want us to engage with incorporation, that's the purpose of today's meeting, this joint work session between the council and planning commission to to be able to do that. So, we do have representatives here to ask some questions if they are are concerned of that. What it is, you know, what is not necessarily the intent specifically at this time with this ordinance amendment is getting into the nitty-gritty and the specifics of, you know, how is it going to operate, how much water are you going to use, how much uh electricity are you going to use, what are the building heights going to be. We are our intent in this draft was to create a broad enough scope of data centers that this and/or any other project that came to the city would give us the opportunity to evaluate it through a very you know specific process which gives the city a lot more control over that versus just a permitted use where hey if you can meet all of these basic standards and guidelines as a permitted use you you essentially find a area within that district that fits your needs and and you you start your applications, you can do it and the city doesn't have a whole lot of authority after that to to say yes or no. So, that was our intent. The expectation. Um those other finer details, it's not that they're not going to be discussed. They're not going it's not that they're not going to be uh determined. They're not It's not that they're not going to be approved by the planning commission and council at later dates. Those are all coming. This just happens to be part of the process in which we need to have completed first and established it that it's going to get done in order to fully evaluate, vet, and make those decisions about those other finer details at later times. And then I'll just add one more piece just uh because I anticipate it being a question. Um, additionally, we are working with the Randolph Township on the annexation process. We had another meeting with them last week um to you know go over our process for that uh joint resolution uh for an orderly annexation between them. So that is coming and working as well which is another critical component for us to actually be and evaluating uh this project because of where it's located that currently it's in that township. So once it's able to be annexed or we agree upon that annexation, then that gives the city that final authority to um to determine it's uh you know the appropriate land use that we're going to approve. **[5:41] Matt Montgomery:** All right, discussion, questions, comments, council, planning commission board. Thank you. Uh we do have guests here from tract who will be able to help us if you guys have anything. But just to reiterate, I think what John uh what led us here is just to make sure that our city charter has the right language because the last time it was touched a data center was something none of us had probably ever even heard of. So this is just to make sure that we are following the right legal procedure. **[6:08] Jon Radermacher:** So Yeah. in order for the way their application is drafted, the the conversations that we've had about what how they want to develop within this area. Um we do need to establish a conditional use for a data center that allows us then to go into the planned unit development um overlay of zoning um to you know get into those finer details at a later time. So great. So, in terms of, you know, conversations here, if the, you know, there's questions, hopefully, um, I know I sent it to the council. I don't know if I've shared that with with others, but it is available on our city website. The final drafts of the AUGR have been completed. Um, there are, you know, a number of comments that were made in there in responses to those comments that certainly provide some, um, additional context to, um, uh, that the review of that. So uh in looking at the AUGR um it definitely evaluates a data center and its use and what other impacts and uh mitigation strategies would be needed for this um project. Uh at this time we reviewed it from staff perspective. Bill's here as well. Certainly reviewed it um with his team. Um find we had our comments that we shared back and for the most part those things that we we know the AUGR was intended to be a review for we feel um that those are acceptable for us. So there's still right now an agency review period that was actually um sent out as a notice to them today. So, um there's a time frame in which they get a chance to object or appeal or add more comments, but when those are when that's completed, then it will go to the city for a final approval. **[8:08] Chris Nobach:** I I got a couple of things, I guess. Um, so first off, so if we adopt this language as is, does this does this get adopted under I1 or I2, wherever the data centers, whatever that's going to be. Um, did data centers get adopted under I1 or I2 or both? Or how's that go? **[8:27] Jon Radermacher:** It's an I2. **[8:29] Chris Nobach:** Okay. So, have we explored putting—because one of the things that makes me comfortable about this process is the property identified makes sense to me. Have we have we explored the the ability to maybe just have a data center zone perhaps? Is that something that we can do or do you feel that we're protected through a conditional use permit? **[8:57] Jon Radermacher:** I I feel that through this process we are protected through a conditional use permit especially with the possibility to overlay that the PUD elements that do give us the opportunity to make things more restrictive um in terms of setbacks and other other facets like that and then that also then—and with this we talk about you know making sure that the infrastructure needs are evaluated and that can be delivered before we could you know necessarily approve that. **[9:29] Chris Nobach:** So do you feel that protects us in the future as well? **[9:32] Jon Radermacher:** I I feel it does. My concern from my perspective is a project of this scope needs that additional measure of evaluation on the forefront just to say: can we do this? Very much like the positive thing of working with tract and their team have been the things we're asking for and the things we need to do to prepare to be able to fully evaluate this and make sure it’s in the best interest of our community. We have the resources to deliver certain things that they're asking for and know what we can't deliver. We've been able to do that through the studies that we did on the water and wastewater. We've been able to do that in the early stage of the conversations that we've had in terms of higher level elements. Now, in order to fairly make a decision on this through an application, this process needs to be there. So, you know, I believe like if this were approved um that we still have the ability then to say to the next applicant—hypothetically this goes, gets approved, we work through and complete our conversations with tract and we come to a conclusion that they can develop. If there's another one, we're going to go through a very similar process. We're going to evaluate: what are your demands, what are your needs? Because conditionally, are we going to be able to supply that for you without either major investments in our infrastructure or even a site that fits within the characteristics that we're looking for? **[11:13] Chris Nobach:** So, I guess kind of along those lines, I did notice there's language in here under M1 and two about the city engineer kind of approving or being comfortable with it, which I completely respect, but at the same time, does that allow the council any action or any ability to interject on those things? You know what I mean? Like I think that yes, we should have a study and it should make sense for them to be here, but at the same time, if it doesn't align with our city goals or our, you know, citywide plan or that comprehensive plan, um, does that still give us an out to say, you know, we're not comfortable. **[11:54] Jon Radermacher:** From my perspective, it does because as we evaluate things on a staff perspective, it it still always has the opportunity to come to you with our recommendations and it's the council's, planning commission's, and council's decision to say yes or no to our recommendations. And if you're, you know, the situation in this, like as we go back to—I point to the attorneys for these these quasi-judicial decisions when you're talking about land use things like conditional use permits—you have something to fall back to to say yes or no on that decision to back up your standing. Not just this, "oh, there's nothing in the code that specifies this or not, and I just have this gut feeling, so I don't like it and I'm going to say no." Well, if you're ever met with the challenge to that, the gut feelings aren't necessarily a finding of fact. So, you have to justify it for some levels of reasons. And in that instance, hey, you get the application, the city engineer says, "Oh, hey, this doesn't quite meet our definition. So, I'm not recommending this or I'm recommending this with conditions," and it's the council's decision to say, well, we can't meet those conditions at this time without further evaluation or changes in our infrastructure, then we're going to say no. And that's based on a kind of, you know, finding of fact. **[13:20] Chris Nobach:** Um, the last thing I have, I think, let me see. Um M10 provisions acceptable to the city are made to control and mitigate noise, light, air, and water pollution so as not to unreasonably disturb or interfere with surrounding property owners' use and enjoyment of their property. To me, that seems like a little little vague—how's that determined specifically? Is that just something that we're left to interpret? Like in this case, I think last time tract was here, we talked about, hey, I would like to have the generators interior of the property and that was kind of verbally "yes, we can do that." I mean, can we put more specifics in here for something like that or is that something that with this language we can interpret and move forward with? Does that make sense? **[14:14] Matt Montgomery:** I know you guys can respond but my interpretation is again this is just the coding for the language for our coding for data center—that seems like that's getting more in the weeds like we talked about the details for later. Is that okay? **[14:29] Shelley Ryan:** You're both correct. So these conditions are set up to account for any data center. So when you amend the code you're allowing any applicant that can meet these standards to apply and potentially receive the conditional use permit. You won't know today what those future uses are going to be or those types of data centers. And that was one of our struggles. Not with respect to tract—they've been great in terms of giving us their information. But what this is may be outdated within days or weeks after because data centers are evolving so quickly. So we just want you to have the flexibility. What's an annoyance today we haven't even thought of later? So, it'll be up to you guys as a council or your subsequent members of council to determine at the time. Um, so the framework for the conditions is here to give you the flexibility depending on what the particulars are in the future. **[15:23] Chris Nobach:** Makes sense. **[15:25] Matt Montgomery:** Yeah. And I get that's a really good question, but hypothetically, let's say we annex in a bunch of space and there's another similar data center and if we say, oh, the generators have to be on the inside of the building and but there's no neighbors and they're in the middle of space... if we're putting restrictions that's not in this language that will be in the finer tune in the PUD, right? **[15:43] Chris Nobach:** No, I get it. Yep. Thank you. **[15:46] Jon Radermacher:** So, I I think that would open us to say evaluating that application: "Well, we don't believe these provisions would be acceptable." So therefore yeah you need to make changes or you need to then go through the PUD process of number 11 to get your formal approval so then that you could comply with our provisions. **[16:14] Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions, comments? Diane. **[16:18] Diane Johnson:** Did um—a couple. Under definition of a data center the last thing says electrical generators—did we specifically want to make sure that diesels would have to be a variance then? Diesel generators? I mean, I like eliminating it to electrical generators but I'm not sure that... but I mean, if diesel aren't in there, then they would have to get a variance on that. **[16:53] Jon Radermacher:** Are we talking about differentiating the type of generator—instead of "generator of electricity" you're talking electric versus diesel? **[17:08] Diane Johnson:** Well, yeah. Any any any sort of generator that creates electricity as a backup power supply. **[17:15] Jon Radermacher:** Yeah, that's what I interpreted it as. So, not not specifying diesel, natural gas, solar powered, battery backup powered. Um that that wasn't specific in that definition. I believe that was the intent. **[17:29] Diane Johnson:** Okay, that clears it up. Thank you. Uh second thing is um being this is under section 152... do the building requirements of 152.692 apply to this then, which has the building height limitations and minimum floor? **[17:52] Jon Radermacher:** Correct. So in terms of I2 they have to meet all these previous conditions and then if it's going to get approved without any other sort of permissions or like the PUD plan then they would need to comply with all the existing I2 regulations or ask for variances. Or they would need to get some sort of alternatives to those approvals. So, this does open as we're anticipating what would happen—this does allow for a planned unit development to apply where we've talked about PUDs being regulations within a certain district where for the most part the district complies but there's multiple facets where we are going to be more restrictive—like in this instance we're talking about establishing further setbacks—or we're going to be more permissive and allowing for a higher building height or higher fence height. So the PUD, you know, opens that up to creating multiple variances, for lack of a better phrase, within what will ultimately be the final development. So it's not uncommon. I mean, we have that in some of our housing areas where we've established setbacks or wanted to be a little farther in some regards. In some instances, we wanted to make sure that there's additional vegetative or landscaping designs incorporated into the project. So, that's kind of the role of the PUD, but we can't get to the PUD until we get established a CUP for this type of use. **[19:28] Diane Johnson:** Correct. But the regular general requirements for an I2 apply to this as well as everything else. **[19:35] Jon Radermacher:** So say we get away from my hypothetical of tract and we go back to just the hypothetical of any data center: they meet all of the conditional use, we give them that authorization, they could essentially with their plan and application, if they meet all the other conformities of our zoning district and I2, then they could build within those zoning conformities. **[20:13] Diane Johnson:** Now, could we make up a new zone just for data centers then for future use too? **[20:20] Jon Radermacher:** Creating a new zone—and I understand we are in a unique circumstance here where that is actually actively being done right now specific to the fair. That's what we're working towards and we're getting a lot closer to that being completed. So I don't want to ignore that from the reality and go back into and now say this—because I can see being called a hypocrite for this—of "now we create a specific zone just for data centers." Are we spot zoning, island zoning, carving out something for one thing? Um, that's not the best practice. Could it be done? I think so. Um, however, this right now is what we've presented because this was what we asked for and were authorized from the council to do. So, if it is the direction of the council and/or planning commission at a later date and we want to explore a data center specific zone, staff will accommodate. **[21:49] Matt Montgomery:** Any other questions, comments, concerns? Jesse. **[21:50] Jesse [Commission Member]:** I got a couple. Um, under the first section, what exactly is enclosed energy storage? **[22:07] Jon Radermacher:** So like large battery potential storage. So, if you have a battery backup—I know they're becoming much more prevalent in terms of large-scale battery to operate facilities. Uh fuel storage would likely be whatever fuel would be operating a generator if that is needed on site. Backup accessible immediate backup sources of power are critical infrastructure components to a data center. **[22:45] Jesse [Commission Member]:** Right I I understand what batteries and fuel storage facilities are and I understand emergency backups. I just don't understand what "enclosed" energy... is that just interior? **[23:04] Shelley Ryan:** If I can, Mr. Mayor. **[23:06] Matt Montgomery:** Absolutely. **[23:07] Shelley Ryan:** Uh, so I I think it's as opposed to open storage, so energy, battery, and fuel storage facilities, but in an enclosed building. **[23:14] Jesse [Commission Member]:** Okay. **[23:16] Jon Radermacher:** Again, these are the generic definition terms. If we wanted to get into drafting very specifics of that, that would probably be discussed in the conditions later on. So, the definitions try to be much more broad. **[23:38] Jesse [Commission Member]:** And then the electrical generators, you're talking like a diesel, right? **[23:44] Jon Radermacher:** That could be a diesel, natural gas, uh most likely would be the outcome or the options, but also again could be battery, solar, other types of energy. **[24:02] Jesse [Commission Member]:** You've already covered that up top. **[24:04] Shelley Ryan:** Right. I mean, it's arguably redundant with respect to that. So, but you know, again, this is intended to address all future potential means. So, you know, if we're lucky, maybe cold fusion in the future. **[24:29] Jesse [Commission Member]:** Um, this may be a little sidetracked. Um several years ago—well when I came in a year and a half ago—the council and planning commission were just sort of finishing up a year-long moratorium on treatment centers. Now, I think there was a long process there to go through and discuss the definitions, requirements, and all that sort of thing. Was that a year-long time frame? **[25:32] Shelley Ryan:** Mr. Mayor? A moratorium is a process a council can use to hit pause to do as Mr. Jesse is mentioning—to study, to plan, to determine what the appropriate regulations would be. It's an optional procedure available whenever there is a need to study and explore. **[26:10] Jesse [Commission Member]:** I'm just I'm just wondering exactly why, right? Sort because this feels sort of like the same type of deal, right? We're doing a whole thing on a new thing, we don't have a code for it. So, we're going through that process. **[26:50] Matt Montgomery:** Wouldn't that be the AUGR that we're doing? Because that's the study that kind of does what a moratorium would go on during. **[27:03] Jon Radermacher:** I don't necessarily see these as—I get the change in ordinance and amending the ordinance to something new feels similar in that regard. The difference is that there has been a lot of conversation going back to October, and staff have been involved in a lot of conversations to evaluate the project. If we would have determined long ago that hey, we're way far apart and we're going to need a lot of time to get there, we probably have brought something like a moratorium or at least slowed the process down more. But as we've evaluated and had conversations and moved forward with this process, we keep concluding that more and more what we're looking at, and ultimately what we see as an application that's coming, is something that as staff we feel is fair for consideration. So, we haven't had a situation where we felt like this thing is so imminent and we can't get to a point of recommendation yet that we're going to ask for a pause. I haven't had the sense from the council members—I haven't directly asked the planning commission members so I don't want to speak out of turn for that—but I haven't had the sense from the council members that pressing pause is absolutely necessary on this to give us the chance to evaluate it. Now, we have a lot more to handle in terms of upcoming meetings and discussions. That's why we're trying to ensure there's opportunities for these questions to be asked. That's why we had two previous joint work sessions between the council and the planning commission to ask questions of the applicant related to this project. **[29:16] Matt Montgomery:** All right, Isaac. **[29:18] Isaac Naatz:** I I guess based on what was just asked, it kind of—and I don't know if this is relevant or not—but when it talks about enclosed energy, I get keeping it vague to give them options as technology moves forward. I guess my only question would be if we're going to keep it open and vague, would we consult our local fire team to figure out if an incident were to happen, can they actually respond? Or are we going to be relying on different resources to take care of a god-forbid scenario? **[29:59] Jon Radermacher:** Yes. As a project like this gets closer to reality—I mean in this instance for sure in others—that's why the code is drafted to contain things that we believe at that moment within that code we can respond to. If things are going above and beyond that, that's where we absolutely want to review that more in-depth. Those things are part of the review. A large commercial project like this is going to have fire prevention or suppression plans incorporated into that. That has actually been a part of the conversation—that was a big justification for studying the water distribution side was not just on delivering water for them to use for cooling purposes, but also making sure that we had the water capacity within that area of our community to serve for fire suppression needs. Those will definitely be elements incorporated into the platting plans. Once you get to certain large scales, there's automatic thresholds that kick in in terms of internal fire suppression systems. So yeah, that will absolutely be a component of it. **[31:30] Matt Montgomery:** Brian, how are you? **[31:32] Brian Douglas:** So basically what I'm hearing is that this meeting we're having is to put it all in one little box. We got to follow this to get started to get all these other things that we're bringing up. As long as we have this in place, we have some place to go if we need to in the future. If we didn't have this we'd be dead in the water basically. We couldn't just say we want a data center. **[31:53] Jon Radermacher:** Correct. If we didn't have this and somebody comes to us with a proposal that looks like a data center or has nothing that fits within our existing authorized permitted uses, then we would tell them no. No matter how great their plan is, no matter how great their mitigation strategies were, on its face, we would have to say no. We do not have a permitted path through our ordinances to allow for that use within that district. **[32:27] Brian Douglas:** Basically, this opens the door for us to actually evaluate what we know is coming and any future things that come up. **[32:38] Jon Radermacher:** Correct. **[32:41] Brian Douglas:** Got to get this going. Okay. **[32:42] Jon Radermacher:** I appreciate your question because that is exactly at its core the purpose for doing this. I don't want to dismiss that we just do this to "open the door and evaluate it further." We do want to get this right. I also don't want us to be clouded by "hey we know what's coming because we've seen an application." We want to make sure that as these come, there could be future ones. Back to the question of: if they fit within the existing zoning requirements they could just do it and we're not given the luxury of putting further other regulatory pieces on that. **[33:14] Matt Montgomery:** Well, and again from what I remember, I mean, this was built off of you guys reviewing other communities' structures—how they put that together, right? That maybe were larger in population than Canon Falls, but essentially this was built out of various other ones that we felt were going to be most applicable for what we would want to look at now and moving into the future. **[33:43] Jon Radermacher:** Yep. And and there were some that had data centers on the books—and I know it was newish in terms of the scale that we're talking about. Data centers have been a part of a conversation now for 10-15 years. But they were never to this scope. It was really much more of like a 20,000 square foot building with a lot of housed servers that was just background storage. We're not talking about the hyperscaling of data that we're seeing today. The advancements in that and the need for that have changed dramatically in that time. So if you were one of those that said, "oh yeah I want to get one of these quick little data centers into my community" and you had no other provisions around an application for a data center, and now all of a sudden a hyperscaler comes knocking on your door? They could come and apply and you wouldn't have a whole lot of basis to tell them no. That's why we're bringing this up—we do want to create some levels in terms of overview application consideration to ensure: is this available? Is this going to work within this community as it stands today? We want to be at the wheel. We want to be proactive rather than reactive. **[36:08] Brian Douglas:** So that means basically when this was first proposed back in October, we should have just said, "Oh, we have nothing to allow data centers in town." And then we could have maybe started the process back then. **[36:53] Jon Radermacher:** At certain regards there, that could have been part of the consideration. I would say at that time there was still a lot of conversation being had about the demands and the ability to bring those needs in. It wasn't necessarily a high probability of outcome that we're going to get to the point where we're going to have to evaluate a development application up until one came in in May. There was the wastewater and water studies. Those went through April. If it would have come back and we had no capacity for water distribution without major infrastructure improvements, it probably would have changed the dynamic. So, this might not have been necessary. Um, yes, in hindsight, should we have done this a long time ago? Absolutely. **[37:51] Diane Johnson:** Then, as Jesse said, we probably could have taken more time. But just a question John, when you said hyperscale, is that referring to like the AI or the crypto mining? **[38:00] Jon Radermacher:** I'll admit I don't have a fine definition of what hyperscale is. It's a buzz term. **[38:10] Diane Johnson:** Because I just wondered if in our definitions we wanted to say—I am willing to consider regular data centers that store information, maybe even AI. I don't know exactly how much energy, but from what I've heard of crypto mining, they're incredible users of energy and resources. I wondered if this is the time when we say those are expressly prohibited in our definition of what we allow, even as a conditional use. **[38:41] Jon Radermacher:** And that has been on my mind too. I'm going to caution this again: we are talking about regulating a "use." We're creating a conditional use. So we're saying in broad terms a data center is a use of a facility within a certain zoning district that we're going to allow. Specifically what goes on in that data center—whether it's crypto mining, AI generation, or just cloud-based data storage—that is a level of... I don't have a firm answer to whether or not we can say no or yes to any of those. To use a bad analogy: you can allow for a restaurant, but I can't tell them what to put on the menu. **[39:44] Diane Johnson:** No, but I think because of the difference in energy usage in that, I would think there might be a way where we can expressly say this is not a permitted use whatsoever even under a conditional use. I would be more comfortable with that limitation. **[40:13] Lisa Zimmerman:** Do they have to define what type of data they're storing in their application? **[40:24] Jon Radermacher:** That isn't something that I've gone to the point of believing we could do that. There comes a level of things that we can regulate and then we can go too far. **[40:41] Shelley Ryan:** It doesn't jump out as 100% prohibited from regulating the type of data if you can tie that to a rational reason for doing so. This is not housing where you're regulating the occupant—that's a clear violation. **[40:58] Lisa Zimmerman:** Maybe to Diane's point, if power usage is a concern and you think crypto is using too much power, maybe we put a limitation on power amount. **[41:13] Jon Radermacher:** That is beyond our... and Bill talked about this in one of our first meetings. The information that we've gained so far—think of utilities that are our concern: water and storm sewer. The reservoir, the water tower, those types of things. Power is not our concern. And it's also, if I'm correct, that's not information that can be shared. **[41:47] Matt Montgomery:** We don't have that. The feedback that we've received is we aren't able to be told how much power is being discussed. That is between the power provider, Dakota Electric. They have a very defined process in terms of how they evaluate applicants in terms of their power needs and whether or not they have the resources to be able to deliver that. They have the public utilities commission and other regulators they have to go through. Just like us—if we had to increase our water say we were at capacity, we'd have to go through a very specific process to do that. If the electric provider is at their capacity and they have to go get more power generation from somewhere else, then they would probably have to follow a permitted process as well. electricity is a different animal. We don't have that regulatory authority because we do not have a municipal electric utility to control that. Uh, moving on. Tonight is a work session, but I know that there's going to be a public hearing and then a planning and zoning meeting after this work session. Is there a vote or action needed in this or is this just work session discussion? **[43:40] Jon Radermacher:** Work session, discussion, questions and answers. And if there were something of a recommendation to prepare us for conversations in the next meeting, I would be open to hearing them. We're not making a vote or finalizing anything in this part of the meeting. The planning commission is next. The public hearing is a requirement of that. So if there's input from the community members or the applicants, they can speak at the public hearing and you can take those things into consideration in evaluating the proposal. **[44:31] Matt Montgomery:** You want to make changes at that time, you certainly are more than welcome to make changes. This is not ironclad. We're logging on the technology park website when someone has a concern. So if the community has input, they can email any of us. **[44:56] Jon Radermacher:** Yeah, there have been all the public comment periods specifically with the AUGR. All of those questions came into me and were forwarded on to the consultants for evaluation and response; all those were incorporated into the AUGR. There's nothing specifically brand new that I've heard from the community partners. **[45:32] Lisa Zimmerman:** I just referred three people this week to the website because I think people are hearing about it and a lot of those questions could be answered on there. **[45:42] Jon Radermacher:** Yeah. And I know tract themselves have been very good to have conversations. They had the lunch and learn with the chamber. There's been engagement from them specifically about their project. Working with them has been a good process. We've been told specifically on the electric side those things aren't we're not able to know. I think it was mentioned in newspaper articles: 500 megawatts potentially of use. So those numbers are out there, but that's not our jurisdiction to say yes or no; the power provider for this territory is going to make that determination. Yes Diane. **[46:53] Diane Johnson:** You asked also if there are typos. So, under M, data center, probably that number one on the second line—there's a little parenthesy sitting there that I couldn't find a matching one to. **[47:15] Matt Montgomery:** Thank you. It shouldn't be there, right? Okay, good. **[47:23] Diane Johnson:** Also, under section M, go down to... it should be a 12 and it's a 2. **[47:34] Lisa Zimmerman:** Excellent job, Diane. In N3, could there be a little be more specific on who would be determining that? **[47:50] Shelley Ryan:** Excellent question, Council Member Zimmerman. We're going to add the Public Utility Commission (PUC) on to that as well. Though the city does not have the authority to regulate the rules and laws applicable to electrical utilities, what I want you to have is the ability to look at a conditional use permit and a particular user and say, "We don't like that you've had eight violations that haven't been cured to the city's satisfaction." Maybe they've been cured and they still have their permit issued by the state agency, but you guys are nervous. You don't like the conduct and what's happening. So you're not regulating or enforcing those state regulations, but you have CUP authority to control your permit, which is squarely within your authority. If you don't like it, you can pull the permit or initiate enforcement proceedings. **[49:15] Lisa Zimmerman:** The last one I have is for compliance for penalties and violations. **[49:22] Shelley Ryan:** There is a process for that both under state statute and our code. Um, a CUP is a protected property interest. So once it's issued, it runs with the land. It's theirs until and unless they violate the terms of the permit conditions, in which case there would be investigation and enforcement proceedings at that stage. If they violate a condition, that's your enforcement piece. If they cease the use and move out, that's the non-conforming angle—as opposed to a permitted use, where you would not have any enforcement ability at all. **[50:07] Lisa Zimmerman:** Is that something that's spelled out elsewhere in our ordinances? Because I do know we seem to have had a wee bit of trouble enforcing the CUPs. I've always wondered what the next steps are to get that compliance. **[50:41] Jon Radermacher:** In some instances, I would say there are elements that come down to our capacity and resources available to enforce them. You can set and establish standards, but what sort of resources would we have to monitor and enforce compliance? **[51:16] Lisa Zimmerman:** I was looking more like if they didn't have the proper height of the fence or something simple. **[51:33] Jon Radermacher:** Right now those are in place and they're evaluated through the permitting process. We review those and monitor that in conjunction with Goodhue County and their building department. That's part of Izzy Carlson's job, and that's why that position was important for us to fill, because we do have a lot of zoning compliance issues that we want to make sure are addressed. We are doing our best to make those responses and take action to enforce those zoning compliance issues. **[52:39] Shelley Ryan:** Just to add to that for the enforcement piece—there is actually preamble language in each one of your zoning districts as it divides permitted and conditional uses. There's language that requires a conditional use to meet all of the other requirements of city code. You actually have a conditional use permit section entirely separate to this that's remaining unchanged. You're fully incorporated regarding enforcement. **[53:40] Matt Montgomery:** All right. We've got planning and zoning having their own meeting here starting in about five or six minutes. Uh I would seek a motion to adjourn from this work session. **[53:48] Diane Johnson:** So move. **[53:50] Lisa Zimmerman:** Second. **[53:52] Matt Montgomery:** Motion from Diane, second from Lisa. All those in favor? >> I. >> Opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you everybody.