[4:48] Diane, can you test and see if you can hear me?

[4:55] We're just testing to see if our online person can hear us.

[5:01] We had a couple minutes, though.

[5:22] No, I didn't hear anything.

[6:21] Can you hear me now, Diane?

[6:48] Diane, can you hear us?

[6:58] I won't put you all through. That's pretty bad.

[7:04] Hello, Diane, can you hear us?

[9:05] Okay. So we are going to go ahead and get started with the planning and zoning

[9:09] commission meeting of January 2020-26. The Lynn County Planning and Zoning Commission

[9:14] meeting will come to order. Can we have a roll call of commission members by the recording

[9:19] secretary please. Du Bois. Here. Coons. Here. Sadler. Here. Crats. Here. Okay now the planning

[9:30] and development staff will introduce yourselves please.

[9:47] Okay and agenda of tonight's meeting

[9:49] is located on the table outside the entrance to the boardroom. Please be sure to sign the attendant

[9:53] sheet also located on that table. The chairperson will acknowledge anyone wishing to make a comment

[9:58] on cases on tonight's agenda. When called please come to the microphone,

[10:03] state your name and address and make your comment. Please be respectful of others who may be trying to

[10:07] speak and limit your time to five minutes or less. Thank you. The rezoning case on tonight's agenda

[10:14] is tentatively scheduled to go to the board of supervisors for first consideration on Monday,

[10:18] February 9, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the formal boardroom. The conditional use case on

[10:25] tonight's agenda will go to the Board of Adjustment on January 28, 2026 at 6 p.m.

[10:30] in the formal boardroom. The tax amendment case for gas generating facilities on

[10:35] tonight's agenda is tentatively scheduled to go on the board of supervisors for

[10:38] first consideration on Monday, February 2, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the formal boardroom.

[10:43] The text amendment case for data centers on tonight's agenda is tentatively scheduled to go to the Board of Supervisors for First Consideration on Wednesday, February 4, 2026 at 6 p.m. at the Paylow Community Center.

[10:58] Nominations for Lincoln County Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson for 2026 will be entertained at this time.

[11:10] I'm 19.

[11:13] I'll second.

[11:16] Okay, so we have a first and a second to nominate Tina for chairperson.

[11:21] May I have a roll call vote?

[11:23] Or is there any discussion or any other nominations, I guess?

[11:28] No, may I have a roll call vote by the secretary to appoint a chairperson for 2026?

[11:33] Do Boa?

[11:34] Yeah.

[11:35] Coons.

[11:36] I don't know that I can vote on myself, but sure.

[11:39] That's what I thought.

[11:40] I abstain.

[11:41] Coons.

[11:42] Aye.

[11:42] Okay.

[11:42] Crats.

[11:43] Aye.

[11:44] Sadler.

[11:45] Aye.

[11:47] Can Diane hear us now?

[11:49] It sounded like we could hear her.

[11:51] Sorry.

[11:52] Okay.

[11:52] Aye.

[11:57] Okay.

[11:58] Next we will accept nominations for Lynn County Planning and Zoning Commission Vice Chair

[12:03] Person for 2026.

[12:05] Are there nominations for Vice Chair for 2026?

[12:16] I'll nominate.

[12:17] Mike.

[12:20] Are there any other nominations?

[12:24] Okay, so there is, is there a motion to appoint the vice chair person?

[12:29] You're motioning to do so. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a roll call vote by the secretary to appoint a vice chair person for

[12:38] or 2026, Mike is our requested person.

[12:43] For act,

[12:47] Dubois.

[12:48] Aye.

[12:49] Coons.

[12:49] Aye.

[12:50] Cracks.

[12:51] Aye.

[12:52] Sadler.

[12:53] Abstain.

[12:55] Okay, now that our annual business is completed, we will move on now to approval of minutes.

[13:01] Are there any corrections or revisions to the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission

[13:04] regular meeting of December 15, 2025?

[13:07] Okay,

[13:11] hearing no corrections to the minutes, they stand approved as submitted.

[13:15] There are no cases for the consent agenda this evening, so we will go on to our regular

[13:20] agenda.

[13:21] First up is case number PR, 26-001, rezoning 3541, Todd Hills Road, presentation will be

[13:29] by staff, Brad Weilam.

[13:51] Brad are we considering the two cases together, the case number PC-26-001, conditional use as

[13:58] well?

[13:58] Sort of, yeah, the presentation will end up being together.

[14:02] Obviously, the vote will be separate, but yes.

[14:09] So this is for both PR 26 years, there's there one.

[14:14] This is a rezoning from the RR3, which is a rural residential three acre to the USRMF,

[14:21] which is Urban Services Residential Multifamily,

[14:25] as well as a conditional use permit, the PC26001 for a memory care residential care facility.

[14:36] This property is at 3541 Todd Hills Road, I'm 11.68 acres, owner Richard Rojak, care

[14:44] of Amy Rojak, and the applicant is Jerry Horak.

[14:48] So,

[14:52] background about the case, this property is currently zoned, RR3, like I mentioned, a real residential 3 acre.

[15:00] With a Metro urban service area designation on the land use map for Lynn County, this proposed rezoning would rezone to urban services residential,

[15:13] multi-family and the purpose of that is to open up a memory care residential care facility for 14 residents, which is in a loud use with a conditional use permit

[15:29] in the U.S.R.M.F. District.

[15:32] So that is something that's required for any type of group living facility

[15:38] for more than eight residents and nine or more.

[15:43] This property did meet and does meet both our minimum levels of service

[15:48] as well as met the minimum score for lane evaluation site assessment

[15:53] with that score of 198.65 where 105 would be required.

[16:01] Some information about the proposed use.

[16:04] So the group living facility for more than eight residents, like I mentioned, is an allowed

[16:11] use with a conditionally used permit in three zoning districts and our zoning ordinance.

[16:16] since the USRMF, that's the proposal here, but it's also allowed in our two commercial districts,

[16:23] general and highway commercial, for these type of facilities with eight or fewer.

[16:30] It's allowed in any of our residential zoning districts, including the zoning district that it,

[16:36] this property currently is, the conditional use permit would allow the future owner

[16:45] to convert that existing single-family dwelling that's on the property into this 14-bed facility.

[16:56] There is no proposal to demolish and build new buildings as part of this.

[17:01] It's purely a renovation of the existing property.

[17:06] And yeah,

[17:09] As part of this comes some parking regulations, they need to meet one parking space for the facility in general, and then one parking space for every two bedrooms that are there.

[17:25] there. They're proposing, I believe, eight bedrooms as part of this. That's where these

[17:30] five parking spaces come in. That's the minimum amount that they're allowed and that's

[17:36] what they're showing on their site plan that I'll show you here in a little bit. That parking

[17:42] as well as the facility or the home in general would also be screened by largely existing

[17:51] that's there but they would be adding some additional vegetation to kind of fill in the gaps where that vegetation is not currently in place.

[18:03] The business would have two to three employees on site all times and they're estimating approximately 15 vehicle trips per day.

[18:15] Okay,

[18:19] another kind of important thing is that our ordinance for this type of use requires some sort of way

[18:30] to connect to water and sewer for kind of on any neighboring city or anything like that.

[18:36] you'll see here in a second this butts up against the City of

[18:39] High Wata and they did receive a voluntary, well they received I guess approval to

[18:46] use their water and sewer connections but part of that is they had to sign a

[18:50] voluntary annexation agreement so that'll come up kind of further in the

[18:55] discussion here but a lot of the questions that you might have are might be

[19:01] related to that annexation agreement, which is kind of purely between

[19:06] Hywaata and the future, I guess the potential owner, so they might be able to answer some questions.

[19:13] Kind of on that end of things.

[19:15] We did receive a pretty significant amount of public comment so far on this project.

[19:23] We've received 13, I think it's up to 14 now.

[19:27] emails from different members of the public prior to today's meeting, one of those, at the technical review committee meeting, one of the neighbors presented us with a petition that had 88 signatures on it that were in opposition to the approval of this case, meaning recommending denial.

[19:51] A lot of those concerns both in the petition and in the emails that we received kind of highlighted the four main kind of line items that those things were focused on, the main ones being compatibility is this business use versus a residential use allowed what are kind of the other allowed uses in the zoning district.

[20:19] if they've rezoning, does get approved.

[20:22] And then questions about the annexation and whether or not,

[20:27] basically whether or not the voluntary annexation agreement

[20:31] should mean that we shouldn't be going through

[20:34] with anything with the county,

[20:36] versus just waiting for that annexation to happen

[20:40] and then have high off the make a call.

[20:44] But related to the compatibility,

[20:47] As you'll see in some of the photos coming up, pretty much all of the neighboring properties are

[20:54] single-family zone, single-family use, the Hayawatha future land use map labels this area as

[21:03] kind of low density once it, if it does get annexed into there, that's kind of the proposed type of

[21:10] uses that would be allowed there.

[21:14] I can go into that a little bit more in the future.

[21:18] When it comes to whether this is a business use

[21:20] or a residential use,

[21:23] this in our zoning ordinance is listed as a residential use.

[21:27] It doesn't matter whether the person is running a business

[21:32] that it's a residential use.

[21:35] It's kind of it's what it is in our ordinance

[21:39] and the people there.

[21:40] It's their residential place, that's where they're living, all of those things.

[21:44] Other uses that are allowed in the USRMF district, it's kind of what you would expect, I guess, with the label multi-family.

[21:54] It does allow for multi-family dwellings, so that could mean apartment complexes or anything like that.

[22:02] And it also allows for a daycare center sports complex and then all of these group living type of uses this one being like a Alzheimer's dimension memory care facility.

[22:17] And then when it comes to annexation, they, like I mentioned, they did sign that volunteer annexation agreement.

[22:23] I don't know all of the specifics kind of on that end of things, in my one discussion

[22:31] with Haewatha, there wasn't any sort of firm timeline on when that annexation would

[22:38] occur, or if basically there's no firm timeline related to that, they just sign this agreement

[22:46] to have access to the water and sewer.

[22:49] So looking at the property, this is on Todd Hill's road,

[22:57] kind of at the intersection with Edgewood there.

[23:04] Interstate 380 is just to the east.

[23:10] The existing land use here is Metro urban service area.

[23:14] Urban services residential multifamily is in allowed.

[23:19] I guess that's kind of the path that it would need to take, it would need to have this land use in order to be zoned urban services residential multi-family.

[23:30] So it is in line with that land use plan, but all the surrounding uses are both there, they're all single family residential to the north is urban service residential and then right along Todd Hills Road right here is RR-3.

[23:50] And I guess on the corner there is RR1, but then the kind of surrounding neighborhood

[23:56] inside of Hyawata to this health and to the east here.

[24:02] A kind of aerial view of the property.

[24:05] This is generally what it would look like after the, if this does get approved, they're not

[24:14] not changing too much in terms of any of the natural landscaping, all of those things

[24:20] they would be doing a little addition on the house and some additional parking to the

[24:25] west of the house, but otherwise this is generally what it would look like.

[24:32] So I'm pretty significant topography on the site, especially on the east side of the lot.

[24:37] But there is an existing drainage easement that runs in that low area already and wouldn't

[24:46] be allowed to do any development in that area because of that restriction.

[24:52] This kind of shows that low area will pond down there.

[24:57] This is their site plan.

[25:01] You can't see it too great on the screen, but they would be doing on the, I guess it's the

[25:08] the west side of the house, that's kind of a larger deck going on there to have some outdoor access for the residents and then the additional parking just to the west there as well.

[25:21] The existing shed or garage that's there would remain and then they're adding additional screening on the west and yet the west and the north.

[25:34] largely to screen both from kind of the visual impacts but if there's any light

[25:40] from cars coming in and parking trying to block that as best as they can. Here's

[25:47] some images of the property, it's pretty significantly uphill to get up

[25:50] there. This is looking directly at the existing dwelling and then east, west, and to

[25:57] the south towards that neighborhood.

[26:01] So going through the rezoning case first, staff believes that the proposal does meet

[26:11] our standards for review.

[26:14] It meets land evaluation site assessment score, minimum levels of service, it is served by

[26:23] adequate public facilities and of all of the other items underneath the minimum levels of service are met as well and staff believes this does can form with the comprehensive plan.

[26:38] There's a number of items in our staff report that we kind of itemize out looking at largely it's kind of our livable communities element.

[26:55] resourced protection and transportation elements on the rezoning case, the conditional use case, has a couple other items listed there as well.

[27:06] But it's our staff recommendation that all the standards are met for this proposal.

[27:15] And so we are recommending approval for the rezoning as we hop over to the conditional use permit.

[27:24] Here's kind of the main list of questions that we get asked, and we also believe it meets all the conditional use permit standards for review.

[27:35] It conforms with the comprehensive plan through a number of items kind of adding on the economic development and employment opportunities element to those mentioned with the rezoning as well.

[27:53] Well, is the site suitable there?

[27:56] We believe so, there's no kind of items specific to the property,

[28:03] the topography, all of those items can be addressed, and

[28:09] the proposed site plan, if any changes do come, do come up,

[28:15] they would need to come back through the process, go back to the board of adjustment for

[28:20] any significant items like if they added a whole large building or anything like that it would have to go back through the process to the Board of Adjustment for approval.

[28:33] And so we think the site is suitable for what's currently proposed.

[28:38] Is it compatible with surrounding uses?

[28:40] We believe so.

[28:43] The exact use that's proposed is something that we believe is compatible.

[28:49] level, it'll still be residential in nature.

[28:53] There's 14 people living there, but it's mainly just the staff kind of coming and going.

[29:00] They would probably have some visitors at times, but with that number of people we don't

[29:06] see it being something that would increase traffic to a certain level.

[29:11] That would be a large concern and our secondary roads department didn't think so or didn't have

[29:17] large concern about needing top grade the road or anything like that. Mainly it's just kind

[29:23] of the apron and coming into the property and in particular they would need top grade

[29:30] kind of the main entrance. And then can adequate measures be taken to minimize

[29:36] any potential adverse impacts we believe so there's a number of conditions that were added that'll

[29:42] over here related to the screening, it's not something that is in our ordinance specific

[29:51] to this use, but given the concerns from the neighbors, we think we added this condition

[29:58] into

[30:00] Address any screening and they've shown that on their site plan to be met any, any lighting for outdoor lighting would be required to be downcast. Our secondary roads department, like I mentioned, needs the entrance upgraded to a, to a different standard for the permitted entrance. And kind of lastly, just related to not receiving building permits.

[30:31] that's they wouldn't be able to receive any building permits until everything is final.

[30:34] That would mean since this goes to two different boards, the conditional use goes to the board of adjustment.

[30:42] The rezoning goes to the board of supervisors and the timeline doesn't totally line up.

[30:49] This condition kind of allows for if this moves forward and

[30:56] is recommended for approval and the board of adjustment approves the case.

[31:02] they can basically sign off on their end and then you're waiting for whatever the result is

[31:11] of the rezoning. So that does kind of lead us to our overall recommendation for both cases

[31:19] is going to be to recommend approval.

[31:23] It's from our end of things. It's totally fine if you have a

[31:28] different opinion for each case, they don't have to both be approved, they don't

[31:33] have to both be denied, you could do one or the other and kind of let the next

[31:40] board make the final call. So that is my presentation. Are there any questions

[31:48] on this end of things? Okay. You addressed the annexation a little bit. I think

[31:55] was my first question, which is it sounds like they've agreed to an anglic station, but there's

[31:59] not a timeline for that. Is that correct? I think that's the case of the voluntary annexation

[32:04] form. Maybe the applicant can kind of specify what's exactly in that, but it basically is,

[32:12] if you're using our services, you agree to be annexed when whenever Haioata wants to annex.

[32:19] Next, that's kind of the deal that's made in these type of scenarios.

[32:25] It is something that is done maybe not normally for this type of thing, but for some subdivisions

[32:33] we'll have this type of deal where they're utilizing city services, but not within the city.

[32:45] And so usually it's this type of scenario with the voluntary annexation to basically say when the city wants to take you in, you can't fight it necessarily.

[32:56] But it's not pending.

[32:58] It's not like it's imminent, but that's necessarily the kind of thing that I don't think anything's been submitted to the state.

[33:03] We're kind of out of annexation conversations between the state and the city, but it's obviously on the radar.

[33:13] but I don't know any sort of timeline, so.

[33:16] Okay, other questions for staff?

[33:19] And it does.

[33:19] This is Diane.

[33:21] I have some questions to be before we're done.

[33:26] But so my first question is, is this facility

[33:29] going to be licensed by the Department

[33:30] of Inspections and Appeals and Licensing?

[33:33] As far as I know, yes, the applicant can confirm,

[33:37] but yes, I believe that's the case.

[33:40] And my second question, because it's a memory care unit, is it going to be a secured facility?

[33:48] I mean, I'm sure that's another question for the applicant.

[33:51] Yeah, yeah.

[33:51] And that's fine.

[33:52] They do have a presentation also to give on this.

[33:55] So before moving forward, you could call on them to do their presentation, but yeah, anything

[34:04] else, Diane?

[34:08] I think those are the two questions that I wanted to ask, and then I'll have a comment at the very end.

[34:14] Any questions, other questions for staff at this time?

[34:20] Okay, I would ask for the applicant to make their presentation.

[34:25] Especially if you can address some of the additional questions, that would be great.

[34:42] My name's Jerry Horack, I'm the applicant.

[34:44] This is Natalie Ramirez, she's the architect that is working with me on this project.

[34:49] So

[34:58] purpose is to allow for a large group home residential memory care for greater than eight beds with the conditional use permit.

[35:06] Like Brad said current zoning allows for a few feet or fewer.

[35:13] Hi everyone, Natalie Ramirez.

[35:18] Yeah, so currently where the site is limited to eight beds, the desired bed count is 14.

[35:25] So, our application is for both rezoning in order to be able to apply for the conditional

[35:30] use.

[35:37] To answer Commissioner Diane's question, yes we are going to be licensed by a dial before

[35:42] you've been in conversations with them which is pretty routine for a project of this type.

[35:51] So, in order for the residents to be accepted in this facility, the primary care position

[35:57] needs to provide an order for admission and it has a series of conditions that get re-reviewed

[36:02] every couple months. It certifies that the resident doesn't need to live in a direct

[36:08] nursing care home, so this isn't a hospital, this is a residential care facility. The residents

[36:14] would require generally assistance with bathing and grooming and eating.

[36:20] Their state of dementia

[36:22] and functionality disability makes it unsafe generally for them to be at home alone or without

[36:26] 24-7 care registered nurse assesses the residents monthly to ensure the residents are at

[36:34] appropriate level of care because, again, this is really about meeting those where they

[36:39] are and reassessing what is best and most safe for them.

[36:43] And the primary care physician also reviews every three months.

[36:54] So as part of a dial, they set requirements for training of staff and also for the actual

[36:59] facilities, size of bedrooms, type of resources provided.

[37:05] In terms of security, they do have a mandate that when you do provide outdoor space,

[37:09] that needs to be contained.

[37:11] And so a big part of us having, providing a deck is that they have the opportunity to be in an outdoor space,

[37:16] but it's secure and it's safe.

[37:19] And staff is present, available 24-7, they do not sleep on site, they have different rotations throughout the day.

[37:28] And there are magnetic door locks, so access into the facility is secure.

[37:36] So this project is part of a franchise.

[37:40] This is a nationwide franchise.

[37:42] It's an operating multiple states, a very similar to what we see here.

[37:47] They are single family homes.

[37:49] Again, the idea for those with dementia, and

[37:53] Alzheimer's is a place that feels like home even if they don't know it's their home at that moment.

[37:58] is really one of the best places for them.

[38:01] And so this is a very popular model.

[38:04] There are multiple, it's a little franchise-based in Omaha.

[38:08] But again, multiple states, this would be the first one in Iowa.

[38:12] It will be owned by Jerry, who is a nurse.

[38:17] He's been practicing for quite a while.

[38:19] He is trained, and this is really a passion project for him.

[38:23] The model of care really promotes, again,

[38:25] that smaller, more personalized environment.

[38:28] It's something that doesn't currently exist in the area.

[38:31] It really promotes the person and family centric design.

[38:41] So the fact of the renovations, everything is largely interior.

[38:45] There are some upgrades to the facade, again, just to upgrade the curb appeal.

[38:52] And again, we have it.

[38:53] Have that really cohesive residential field.

[38:56] I believe the structure was added onto twice already.

[39:00] So really the upgrades will be related to making it

[39:04] AD accessible, beating the current life safety regulations

[39:08] that would come with the change of use, enhancements

[39:13] to promote resonant mobility, setting handrails,

[39:16] and adjusting the floor transitions that currently exist,

[39:19] converting the touch garage into an additional living space

[39:22] again since they are contained to a structure we want

[39:26] to provide ample space for them to continue to live and thrive.

[39:32] Again, the deck has really added one.

[39:34] As an amenity, there's really great views

[39:36] from the top of that property, but also

[39:38] to provide a safe space for the residents.

[39:41] There are going to be improvements

[39:43] to the landscaping, including supplemental vegetation,

[39:46] to really screen the vehicular headlights.

[39:50] And we're only proposing the additional required parking

[39:53] to meet the code required minimum.

[39:55] really our residents aren't drivers and so it's really just to me we're providing

[39:59] what is required and nothing additional in terms of parking spots.

[40:08] With regards

[40:09] to the voluntary annexation we approached City of Haiawatha requesting a

[40:14] connection to the water and sewer and they said yes on the condition that we would

[40:19] sign a voluntary annexation agreement. The agreement has been signed it is up

[40:25] to them to decide when they will require it.

[40:27] They did not say six months a year.

[40:30] It just said that yes, you're able to connect on the condition

[40:32] that when we decide that it's an appropriate time,

[40:35] we will begin the annexation process.

[40:38] Again, it's primarily to address the utilities right now.

[40:43] It's a septic system, which is the 60s.

[40:45] The well, we think is also at least 60 years old.

[40:49] But really just again, for the health and safety

[40:51] of the population we're serving, it really makes sense

[40:54] to have that reliable source of water.

[40:58] And then as part of that agreement,

[40:59] it'll revert to essentially the same RR3

[41:03] or similar that Piawatha has, but the conditional use

[41:06] will be grandfathered in, when that occurs.

[41:12] Some just metrics, so currently there's

[41:15] about 3,000 people in the county living with dementia.

[41:18] A lot of the options, again, are larger-scale facilities.

[41:22] The oldest baby who returns 80 this year.

[41:25] There's a significant need for an increase of senior services, and really there's just

[41:32] a lot of demographic changes to Chris family size, increases of prevalence of single people,

[41:38] and also people living longer.

[41:43] So opportunities, this is a really great opportunity for an alternate housing option for those living

[41:48] with dementia.

[41:49] This is aligned with the zoning goals to encourage a variety of housing types, really being able

[41:54] to serve Lynn County in a different way.

[41:59] The economic benefits, again, that will be employing a few,

[42:04] for how many you're thinking around 10 employees,

[42:10] because again, it's the 24-hour shifts

[42:11] that are broken down per dials requirements.

[42:15] And then also, significant improvements to the home,

[42:18] but with as light of touch as possible,

[42:20] you want to be a good neighbor,

[42:21] we want to be a good neighbor,

[42:24] and really serve that community.

[42:26] What drew us to the area is the lot also is kind of what we would like to maximize

[42:33] the use of and have it for their enjoyment.

[42:42] Thank you for your time and consideration.

[42:44] Welcome, any questions?

[42:48] What these situations is, like, this is the worry about opening the door for something else.

[42:54] Obviously, this is your plan at this time.

[42:57] What's your future plan?

[42:58] Like, would you plan to build another facility on the land, or what would it be?

[43:04] No. I like it how it is. I think 14 is a good number. Everything to the east of it seems to me not to be

[43:13] developable. And then everything in front of it would kind of take away from the view and what I'm going for.

[43:20] Plus it's kind of a pretty steep hill. I don't know how

[43:22] So, um, developable, it is.

[43:26] Okay.

[43:28] Other commission members, uh, Diane, did you want to follow up on your questions for the applicant?

[43:36] Um, well, I like, I like where you're going with this, um, you know, integrating elderly people into the community, especially when they have dementia.

[43:44] The, um, statistics show that they do much better in this kind of an environment than the larger, larger settings.

[43:52] So, but I think it is important to consider to ensure when you have a memory care unit that safety and security and it sounds like that you've done that so I appreciate that.

[44:05] When you said magnetic locks, I think you might have said something about like to get in but it would also be a magnetic lock for exit or how does that work?

[44:14] So they're attached to the fire system.

[44:16] So if the fire alarm goes off, then they unlock.

[44:21] So they can exit easily.

[44:24] But otherwise, it's a magnetic lock.

[44:26] It's locked all the time.

[44:28] And then staff would have a way to get in and out.

[44:30] Checked.

[44:30] OK, thank you for explaining that.

[44:32] Other questions from commission members?

[44:41] OK, we're going to do public comment.

[44:44] There may be questions again, but we will.

[44:47] Now I will open the floor for public comments.

[44:50] If you would like to make comments on this topic, please come to the microphone, state

[44:55] your name and address, and then we would ask that you keep your comments to five minutes

[44:58] so that everybody has-

[45:00] As a chance to speak. And I know we have a lot of people who mark just. I don't know which case that is. So if it's not this case, we'll come back to it for the next case. And I'll check with you on that one. So if it is this case, we'll start with Jerry Hort. You already spoke. Yeah. I'm assuming you don't want to speak on the other two cases. I'm going to check you off. Charlene Larson.

[45:23] Charlene Larson. My address is 3528 timber Ridge Trail. Like I said, my name is Charlene Larson. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my husband.

[45:33] and Brett, who's unable to be here this evening.

[45:35] We've lived at 35, 28th and average trail for 21 years.

[45:39] Our property sits immediately north

[45:41] of the 35, 41 Todd Hills Road.

[45:43] Because of that, any change to this parcel

[45:45] directly affects our daily lives.

[45:48] I'm here tonight to express our strong opposition

[45:49] to the rezoning request

[45:51] and the conditional use permit for this property.

[45:54] We've previously submitted two detailed letters

[45:57] and also signed the petition outlining our concerns

[46:00] of both Lynn County and Hayawatha Planning and Zoning

[46:02] and Lincoln border supervisors. I did bring copies of those. I need to submit those also tonight.

[46:09] I want to highlight the most important parts of our opposition. Firstly, the proposed

[46:13] rezoning to urban services residential, multi-family is simply not compatible with this area.

[46:20] The zoning category doesn't exist anywhere nearby and applying it to a single parcel surrounding

[46:24] entirely by low-density rural residential homes would create a zoning island with no compatible

[46:30] neighbors. What we understand is that once that zoning is in place it's permanent. That future

[46:35] owners could pursue much higher intensive development such as multi-story, multi-family buildings

[46:40] without any public review. That's a long-term risk that would fundamentally change the character

[46:45] of our neighborhood. We really don't want a big sports complex or condos in apartment buildings

[46:51] behind our property. Second, the proposal does not align with the what we understand to be the

[46:58] adopted planning documents, the adjacent city of Hyawata and the comprehensive plan designates

[47:03] the area's low density residential, the proposed zoning and intended use do not match that

[47:08] designation, approving this request to require the board to disregard both the link county

[47:13] unit and unified development code in Hyawata's long-range land use plans, the plans exist

[47:18] to guide responsible development and the proposal doesn't seem to fit with that.

[47:23] Third, the conditional use permit being requested is not for multi-family housing as for an

[47:27] institutional memory care facility with 14 residents and the potential for future expansion,

[47:33] although he said he didn't plan to do that.

[47:36] This type of use requires specialized building structure staffing needs, licensing and emergency

[47:41] response capabilities with fire and rescue ambulance services.

[47:44] It's not the kind of use the USR-MF zoning district was designed for and it's not compatible

[47:49] with the surrounding single family homes on large logs.

[47:53] Fourth, we have serious concerns about the long term use of the property from what we understand

[47:57] the proposed facility is tied to a commercial franchise model, if the business changes hands

[48:01] or fails, the U.S.R.M.F. zoning would remain in place permanently. That opens the door to

[48:06] other high intensity or commercial uses would be completely out of place in our neighborhood.

[48:11] Once the zoning changes, it can't be undone from what we understand.

[48:15] We also emphasize the very real impacts. This proposal would put on our daily lives, increased lighting

[48:21] and light pollution, more frequent garbage and delivery truck noises and noise pollution.

[48:25] The backup beeping of all those vehicles, periodic emergency vehicles responding to balls or injuries and the associated noise and traffic from all those things would all affect this quiet rural environment we've moved care to enjoy.

[48:39] These are not hypothetical concerns for us and our neighbors, but they are real life predictable outcomes that the proposed use vegetation was mentioned vegetation to word onto the north is barely sparse.

[48:52] from our yard into that property. Most of the vegetation that's existing there now is on our own property.

[48:58] The other vegetation is high with not much blocking lower. If vegetation is added, my concern with that would be that it takes a long time for vegetation to fill in, get big.

[49:10] So with all that said, we understand that the board may still choose to approve the conditional use permit. If that is the direction the board intends to go, we respectfully ask you to consider an alternative approach

[49:21] that would significantly reduce the long-term risk to the neighborhood based on our conversation

[49:25] with the planning staff.

[49:26] We understand that the board and planning and zoning commission do have the authority

[49:29] to allow this specific conditional use permit under the existing RR3 zoning by recommending

[49:34] an ordinance adjustment.

[49:36] This would allow the applicant to pursue their intended use without permanently changing

[49:40] the zoning to U.S.R.M.F.

[49:42] Keeping the RR3 zoning would maintain compatibility with the surrounding area, avoid setting

[49:47] a new precedent and preventing future high-intensity development that could occur with our public

[49:53] input.

[49:53] It is far more responsible and a balanced approach that the additional use permit is going

[49:57] to be approved.

[49:58] In closing, we respectfully ask the board to deny both the rezoning request and the conditional

[50:02] use permit.

[50:03] But if the board chooses to approve the conditional use permit, we strongly urge you to do so under

[50:07] the existing RR3 zoning.

[50:10] This protects the long-term character of the neighborhood while still giving the applicant

[50:13] a path forward.

[50:15] please remember that you'll be making a decision that we and our neighbors have

[50:18] to live with on an ongoing basis, not just now, but in the extent of future.

[50:23] Thank you for your timing consideration. Thank you so much. Greg Epping?

[50:32] Good evening.

[50:33] My name is Greg Epping, 35-24 Timber Ridge Trail. I own a house just to the

[50:40] north of the proposed change. I'm a neighbor of Charleston of the

[50:45] Rangers who you might hear from them.

[50:48] I'm also licensed attorney in the state of Iowa,

[50:51] have been for over 40 years.

[50:54] And a good part of that in the last 20 years

[50:57] has been with real estate.

[51:00] One thing that bothers me about the staff report

[51:02] and whole presentation is what's being glossed over.

[51:06] This is spot zoning.

[51:08] There's no way around it.

[51:10] And I don't know.

[51:11] Nobody's talked about it.

[51:13] It's part of the presentation.

[51:14] If you look at the staff report, page two, they talk about the surrounding land uses in zoning.

[51:23] To the north of the residential, which includes my property, Charlene's property, the reader's property,

[51:29] to the south, its residential city of Hyawatha, to the east, its residential,

[51:35] to the west, its residential, all single family dwelling.

[51:38] Now, how does I.O.L.I. defining spot zoning? Spot zoning occurs when a specific parcel of land is reclassified with zoning uses and regulations that differ significantly from surrounding properties.

[51:53] This is a textbook example of spot zoning. So, what are the requirements? What needs to be taken into consideration?

[52:01] There needs to be an articulated, reasonable justification for making that difference and what is that justification.

[52:11] We've heard a lot about this as an Alzheimer's unit, this is going to benefit people, this is a passion.

[52:17] I have no argument with any of those, but also keep in mind which has been talked about is the fact that this is going to be a money-making business.

[52:27] I mean there's I don't think the applicant can deny that he's going to be operating a franchise

[52:33] and it's part of that franchise is that he's working with part of that pitch is setting up these

[52:40] businesses in order to supplement your income. I'm not against making money believe me but this

[52:47] isn't the time and place to be doing that with a spot zone in this particular area and for those

[52:54] reasons, echoing Ms. Arson and the others who might be talking, we're asking our

[53:03] mass to the board to deny this application. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next up is

[53:10] Mike Crilley.

[53:21] My name is Mike Crilley. I live at 3569 Timberridge Trail and our

[53:27] property is immediate in the immediate vicinity of 3541 Todd Hills Road. We in

[53:34] In fact, our property butts up to Todd Hills Road,

[53:38] we're going to the north of Todd Hills Road.

[53:41] As a 25-year resident in Lincoln, my wife and I

[53:46] are strongly opposed to any annexation or rezoning

[53:49] along Todd Hills Road that is not

[53:51] sown for single-family dwelling 26 years ago.

[53:56] We purchased the 10 acres of land to get away from city lights,

[54:00] noise, traffic.

[54:02] In fact, when we built our forever home, you could look up the sky and see stars and you

[54:08] could see meteors.

[54:10] And as Hayawata has continued to grow north towards us, you see less and less.

[54:18] Like I said, we have seen Hayawata slowly marching north towards our country living and continue

[54:24] to erode our peace and quiet with increased light, noise pollution as well as heavily increasing

[54:32] traffic, the rezoning will detrimentally affect our area in our environment with added light

[54:39] pollution, noise pollution, increased traffic, and also have an impact on wildlife.

[54:46] We feel that any rezoning or annexation of the aforementioned property other than single

[54:52] family zoning will be one more footstep the highway author makes towards us, increasing the

[54:58] light, the noise pollution, traffic, and what could become for development along Todd Hill's road.

[55:09] Please also consider that we are not looking at just 14 beds with 14 residents.

[55:14] We also consider the increase of visitors, support staff, personnel that you need to take care of

[55:24] 14 people.

[55:26] We also feel that these rezoning changes or annexation will set a dangerous precedent for

[55:33] anyone else who requires requests rezoning changes or annexation along Todd Hills Road.

[55:41] The idea of thinking of a few years down the road, I don't want to do this anymore.

[55:46] I can sell it somebody is already zoned.

[55:49] I don't have to, I can tear that house down.

[55:50] I can build up multiple family dwellings, that's the total foothold we don't want.

[55:58] We hope you will consider these comments and concerns of myself and our neighbors and

[56:05] keep 3541 Todd Hills Road and the surrounding countryside zoned only for single family dwelling.

[56:13] You can keep the city living out of our neck of the woods and keep our country living secured

[56:19] By not permitting any rezoning or annexation. Thank you for your time. Thank you

[56:26] Natalie Ramirez and it's okay. That's oh sorry. Yep. Gotcha

[56:32] Michael Schmidt. Oh, yep. Was this about this or something else? Okay, perfect

[56:38] Jim Conlon Craig

[56:46] Wagner

[56:48] Was it about this? Okay,

[56:55] good evening

[56:57] My name is Colonel Craig Winger, retired U.S. Army.

[57:02] I live at 2913 Diamondback Road, which is to the south of Todd Hills Road.

[57:11] I think the people that have spoken before me have done tremendously, and so I'm not

[57:18] going to repeat their concerns for time sake.

[57:24] One question that I have, most of these observations or comments are in the form of a question.

[57:33] I heard ten employees would be the estimated staffing level.

[57:38] I would be interested in knowing what the split is between a daytime shift and a nighttime shift.

[57:46] If

[57:52] the daytime shift is considerably more given the needs of the patients, it would make

[57:59] sense.

[58:00] It would be possibly in the 60-40 or somewhere around that nature.

[58:07] So my question next is, what are the state's minimum evacuation time requirements for a facility

[58:17] like this, for the institutionalized, is it five minutes? Is it 10 minutes? If the staffing

[58:27] level is two people at night, can two people at night evacuate 14 mentally, let's say

[58:36] Alzheimer's, inflicted people in a time where a burning building is taking place, these

[58:45] These patients would be confused from the sirens, the water sprinkler system, the smoke

[58:52] can two people adequately evacuate 14 people in a timeline that would be presented.

[59:00] I wouldn't want to be number 14.

[59:05] Where will the water and sewage hookup take place?

[59:09] Will it be a long edgewood road or a long Todd Hills road?

[59:13] So, what's going to be the impact on the surrounding neighborhood residents when that

[59:20] work is going on?

[59:24] And again, I will just underscore that I think this also sets a precedent for a different

[59:39] use in the future should this facility not come to be, but not exist down the road in five or ten years.

[59:51] And that's a question that nobody can answer as to what might replace it.

[59:57] And that's a concern.

[59:58] I thank you for your time.

[1:00:00] Thank you.

[1:00:04] Todd Midden.

[1:00:08] My

[1:00:14] name is Todd J. Miller. I live at 35, 23 Timber Ridge Trail. I'll be very brief here. This is a business. And to me, this is analogous to putting a 20-fire convenience store in the middle of Bowman Woods. Who knows what's going to happen in the future? Businesses fail. Businesses get bought by new owners.

[1:00:36] Who knows what the new owner is going to do in this property?

[1:00:39] Think long-term. Think 10 to 20 years.

[1:00:44] We have to live there.

[1:00:46] I pay over 9,000 year in property taxes.

[1:00:49] And I strongly object to this proposed rezoning.

[1:00:52] Thank you.

[1:00:53] Thank you.

[1:00:58] Matt?

[1:01:00] Cold, maybe?

[1:01:04] No, not for this.

[1:01:05] Kay and Mike McDowell?

[1:01:19] My name is Mike McDowell.

[1:01:20] And I live at 2935 Diamondback Road, which is just south of the proposed change.

[1:01:27] I want to be short because I think most of the things that I would like to say have already been said.

[1:01:34] The open the door issue is big because once it's rezoned, it can be done with anything whether they want to continue with it or even start the program.

[1:01:43] The biggest thing is, as Greg mentioned, this is spot zoning in an area that is a combination

[1:01:49] of both Hyawatha and the county where everything around it is single-family residential dwellings.

[1:01:57] And this essentially is a commercial operation however you want to admit, it's not compatible

[1:02:07] with this area and what should happen.

[1:02:10] This is an 11-acre parcel, so you take a few years down the road and it's re-zoned to allow for apartments.

[1:02:19] It's not hard to imagine somebody cutting this up and three or four pieces and putting up a whole bunch of large apartments.

[1:02:27] It just doesn't seem compatible.

[1:02:29] I think that what was said early on, maybe the first thing Mr. Ryan has said is everybody's saying, why are we fighting this fight here?

[1:02:39] the intent is 100% to have this part of high watha.

[1:02:45] Why not?

[1:02:47] What does the county have an interest in?

[1:02:49] Because it's going to be rezoned and taken out of no tax rules.

[1:02:52] Everything else is just kind of an end run around what high watha zoning requirements

[1:02:58] may be and whether they will do it.

[1:02:59] So you know, the answer is do not change the zoning.

[1:03:03] if they can fit something in there that fits the current zoning fine.

[1:03:08] Otherwise have it annexed and let's discuss with Haewatha what the zoning requirements

[1:03:14] are whether this should be changed.

[1:03:16] I mean that's probably the simplest answer is this should be in another form not here.

[1:03:22] Thank you.

[1:03:23] Thank you.

[1:03:24] Sherry Monahan?

[1:03:33] Sherry Monahan, 3523 Reed Road.

[1:03:36] I also agree that my neighbors have done a fabulous job of telling you why you

[1:03:41] should deny this request.

[1:03:45] When the property gets annexed into Hyawatha, it was

[1:03:49] the intent of the agreement that I read that it would be re-zoned back to

[1:03:56] urban or sorry, low density residential. So that's one reason to not re-zone it

[1:04:03] and have the slippery slope that you could open a door

[1:04:07] to having different facilities there

[1:04:10] and when it's going to be reverted back to that,

[1:04:14] to keep the zoning around it compatible with what is there now.

[1:04:21] So I believe that they had to change the code

[1:04:24] or propose the rezoning because you don't have in your code

[1:04:30] right now a conditional use under RR3.

[1:04:34] So that's a question for the staff.

[1:04:36] So I think my neighbor also mentioned

[1:04:39] that that would be a use that you could open it up

[1:04:42] and leave it as it is zoned,

[1:04:45] but still permit the conditional use.

[1:04:48] I don't hope that you do that,

[1:04:50] but that would be better than the slippery slope

[1:04:52] of opening it to general that the staff is proposing.

[1:04:58] And then the potential owner mentioned maximizing the use of the lot for their enjoyment.

[1:05:04] I would really like to know more about that.

[1:05:07] The concern is that I think staff mentioned that if they did have additional buildings,

[1:05:13] they would have to go back through this process.

[1:05:17] But then he mentioned that there's not really other uses, but there's a lot of use as you're

[1:05:23] going up to the house.

[1:05:24] So I do feel like 11 acres there's an opportunity to have additional buildings that is not he says he's not intending to do but again slippery slope while you guys are you know waiting or the property is waiting to be annexed into the city of high

[1:05:53] Does anyone else want to speak on either the conditional use permit case or the?

[1:06:02] Over the other ones, yeah, come on up the rezoning.

[1:06:11] Hi, I am Dr. Kelly Kellen.

[1:06:13] I am East Other Property, five and half acres.

[1:06:17] I have several concerns and I'm also very familiar with the area.

[1:06:20] I've lived out there for more than 50 years.

[1:06:23] I'm also one of the owners of the corner of the interstate, the Southwest corner that's

[1:06:28] It's also zoned by Hayawata that annexed in to Hayawata to zone commercial on the interstate

[1:06:35] and it's also part of doing the robins, getting the east side of the interstate to make

[1:06:40] the communities bigger and stronger so they have a bigger tax break.

[1:06:44] Now the reason why Hayawata and Robins worked together years ago when they were put in

[1:06:47] the convenience store and developing those corners was for tax breaks for those two cities and

[1:06:53] everything was supposed to be annexed in voluntarily.

[1:06:55] really. In that area we have a ton of single family residential.

[1:07:03] I know Rick

[1:07:04] Rojak, who unfortunately passed away and that's why the property is for sale.

[1:07:10] Some of my property is right up to his and I used his property. He would not want

[1:07:16] that to be commercial at all. He always wanted it to be outside community. The other

[1:07:24] Another thing is that after dealing with these zoning things and all that, you guys have

[1:07:29] never allowed spot zoning.

[1:07:31] And how you guys are going to get involved with Hayawata voluntarily, let them annex in,

[1:07:38] and then not require them to annex in immediately, like they did with Tim Wilson's property,

[1:07:44] and with my property on the corner of the 380, once we annexed and we had to become tax

[1:07:50] payers of Hayawata, even though there was no development going on.

[1:07:53] So, I don't know how you guys are going to plan your zoning and all your requirements

[1:07:58] when eventually they're going to be in the Hayawatha zoning requirements.

[1:08:02] I think that's a real conflict of interest on that property.

[1:08:08] And the road there, if you are on it, there are so many potholes in it.

[1:08:14] There's absolutely no way that you can put a border to stop the sirens and the lights

[1:08:19] from my property, from that facility.

[1:08:23] And if a patient wake it out, and my mother does have dementia,

[1:08:26] and I work with patients with dementia,

[1:08:28] if a patient got out, there is a pond down there

[1:08:31] they could round in.

[1:08:33] Every night I get woke up by owls killing something,

[1:08:37] screaming, it's part of country, it's what I do.

[1:08:39] I really don't know how Alzheimer's patients

[1:08:41] gonna consider that, or what staff is gonna think of that.

[1:08:45] And the emotional abuse that will do to them.

[1:08:48] I mean, I understand being out in nature, and we all have to care for all summer's patients,

[1:08:54] but that's kind of traumatic.

[1:08:57] So I just think that this link on is should be more consistent and more and cooperation

[1:09:03] with Iawatha on the zoning.

[1:09:07] And there is plenty of commercial development in that area.

[1:09:11] Should there be a memory care facility right down the street from there, does it need to

[1:09:16] be right down in the middle of a residential area.

[1:09:22] Thank you.

[1:09:23] Did anyone else want to make public comment on this case?

[1:09:26] Are these two cases specifically?

[1:09:29] Did you already speak public comment?

[1:09:31] We actually just do it once.

[1:09:32] Oh, sure.

[1:09:33] Thanks.

[1:09:36] Anyone who hasn't spoken on this topic that

[1:09:38] wants to speak on this topic.

[1:09:42] OK, hearing no one additional, I will close public comment.

[1:09:45] I do want to address to you before we

[1:09:47] start addressing the questions and concerns that were expressed.

[1:09:49] We have to address the things that we are legally able to address several of the concerns expressed tonight have nothing to do with the qualifications that we can consider.

[1:09:58] So those would have to be addressed by someone outside of this commission and this this room basically. So we will address the things that we are able to.

[1:10:06] But several of your concerns are not within that scope.

[1:10:10] Can we have staff maybe to address a couple of things?

[1:10:20] Several people talked about concerns, again, that we addressed a little bit before about

[1:10:25] like that slip-per-slip and opening the door.

[1:10:28] With the conditional use permit, what is allowed with that conditional use permit?

[1:10:33] Yeah, so with, I guess the rezoning to this district and then the conditional use permit,

[1:10:41] and the approving the conditional use permit alone.

[1:10:48] Right, no, I mean, assuming that all of the steps go through,

[1:10:51] what would be allowed under the conditional use permit?

[1:10:54] Under the conditional use permit would basically be

[1:10:56] what's proposed, the 14 residents basically in accordance

[1:11:03] with the site plan that they submitted.

[1:11:06] And if there's any significant changes

[1:11:08] that would come down the line,

[1:11:09] And that's when it would go back to the Board of Adjustment.

[1:11:14] So if they wanted to build another facility, another building, do an apartment building,

[1:11:19] all of that has to go through many more processes.

[1:11:22] Correct, yeah.

[1:11:23] It would add a minimum have to go back to the Board of Adjustment.

[1:11:26] If it's like a shed, it might not need to.

[1:11:30] But any sort of, if they would increase the number of residents, that would be a typo scenario.

[1:11:37] that wouldn't need to go back to the Board of Adjustment.

[1:11:41] And that's even post annexation.

[1:11:43] That is where that would be a decision-free offer

[1:11:47] to make it happen.

[1:11:48] Correct, but there's an answer to their question then.

[1:11:51] But we don't have any control of it.

[1:11:52] That's how we can make it happen.

[1:11:54] Can I ask to then, I know a lot of times

[1:11:58] when we're doing things like that, there

[1:11:59] is a, that they have to go through something with the city

[1:12:03] if they're within two miles of the city I think it is.

[1:12:06] Which is not the case with high water that's only for the

[1:12:12] communities that we have

[1:12:15] Fringe area plan 2080 agreement that lays out if

[1:12:20] Somebody's proposing this type of project it has to get approval from from the city

[1:12:25] That's not the case with high water. Okay, but that's a choice of high water than not a choice of the county

[1:12:32] Because that

[1:12:33] That plan hasn't been developed between the two.

[1:12:37] Correct, correct.

[1:12:38] Yeah, I don't necessarily know who's a decision that is,

[1:12:42] but that would be something for the county

[1:12:45] and the city to work on that isn't part of this.

[1:12:48] Correct.

[1:12:50] Yeah, and just in general,

[1:12:52] kind of with the annexation side of things,

[1:12:55] I think that's definitely a fair concern

[1:12:58] or a thing for you guys to consider for you guys

[1:13:03] and then the two boards following you,

[1:13:07] that's definitely part of the consideration is,

[1:13:10] should this be something that's moving forward now,

[1:13:13] or yeah, so.

[1:13:15] And when we're considering zoning, though, again,

[1:13:18] if we weren't to change the zoning,

[1:13:21] they can do this with eight residents now.

[1:13:23] Correct, correct.

[1:13:24] And so the difference between eight and 14

[1:13:27] is really what we're talking about.

[1:13:29] It's not really a difference in use.

[1:13:31] it's residential either way correct yeah yeah that's generally the the case

[1:13:39] yeah they could go up to eight people once they go to nine or more that's

[1:13:43] where the line changes have to go through and go to a conditional use permit and

[1:13:48] to be in the correct Sony district so it wouldn't be able to stay RR3 and have

[1:13:54] this CUP approved and but it could remain RR3 and have eight people

[1:14:00] correct without correct without a conditional use. Correct. They would not need a

[1:14:07] condition. They would not need a conditional use permit if they're eight or

[1:14:10] fewer people. Right. Okay. Thanks Tina. Yeah. I want to clarify something too. So this

[1:14:19] use is allowed in view of the unified or sorry the USRMF zoning district. The

[1:14:28] conditional use permit would have to come back for a minor modification if there

[1:14:31] or any changes requested, if the proposal changed to another use that's allowed in that

[1:14:37] zoning district, it would depend on how it's listed in our use table, whether it's a permitted

[1:14:42] use that would just require administrative approval through a major site plan process,

[1:14:47] or whether it would be an approval process that would go through another conditional use permit.

[1:14:53] I know specifically for the apartment buildings that people are talking about, or another multi-family

[1:14:58] only dwelling those times.

[1:15:00] Those are permitted use in the USRMF district. So, they would not come before the Board of Adjustment through a conditional use permit. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

[1:15:15] Do you know where the water and sewer hookup would be? Is that designated?

[1:15:26] Okay. So, the southern side of the property, basically, I would assume that's where the, it's probably the closest, yeah. Okay.

[1:15:49] Other questions from commission members?

[1:15:51] for either staff or the applicant.

[1:15:59] Tina, I have a quick question, Ms. Stan.

[1:16:02] Could you please clarify, if Hayawatha is planning,

[1:16:08] if they have an agreement for this annexation,

[1:16:10] can you explain to me again why we're going

[1:16:12] through this process in Blaine County?

[1:16:14] Is it just timing or is it more than that?

[1:16:19] Can you give me an answer?

[1:16:24] I don't really know how to answer that, Dan, other than to say it's currently in county

[1:16:29] jurisdiction.

[1:16:30] They submitted an application to us.

[1:16:34] They know Hyawatha has indicated that they are going to have them sign of voluntary annexation

[1:16:39] agreement.

[1:16:40] The execution of that agreement is not something that we can control and we have no idea what

[1:16:45] the time frame for that would be.

[1:16:47] usually it's a the process is anywhere from six months to a year I think in

[1:16:53] general for that to go to the state development board for consideration and to

[1:16:58] go through the entire process but the county doesn't have any any say in that

[1:17:04] process at all. They mentioned that it was signed right? I think on like the

[1:17:10] the 12th of January, a couple of week or two ago,

[1:17:15] it did go and got signed by.

[1:17:18] So how long it takes after that?

[1:17:19] We don't know, but it's blocked.

[1:17:21] And the county doesn't have any control over it.

[1:17:22] And they may not pursue it right away either.

[1:17:25] I mean, it could be years before they do that.

[1:17:28] It's really up to the city of Hywaatha.

[1:17:30] I just don't want people to assume that that means that

[1:17:32] there's an annexation agreement signed

[1:17:35] that that's going to happen immediately.

[1:17:37] There are a lot of times when we do these

[1:17:38] other subdivision cases that is really a part of the process that is routine

[1:17:44] where the city will just have them sign a voluntary annexation agreement

[1:17:48] that is included in the recorded bound documents and it happens maybe many

[1:17:53] years in the future so it really is up to the city. Other questions? Did you

[1:18:01] have any other questions, Diane?

[1:18:17] I would just like to I mean just maybe some

[1:18:19] discussion here for commission members. From my perspective, if you want a quiet neighborhood,

[1:18:25] these are about the best neighbors that you could possibly have. I think it's great to keep

[1:18:31] this land 11 acres with 14 people is really low density residential and I understand lots

[1:18:38] of worries and a lot of those are worries. I don't think that there are things that are happening

[1:18:45] at this time and a lot of those would have to go back through other processes in order

[1:18:51] to move forward.

[1:19:00] Assuming it's not in it.

[1:19:01] Well, it's not as to go through process.

[1:19:03] Well, theirs, right.

[1:19:05] Just not us.

[1:19:06] Right.

[1:19:06] Also, I will state that none of the things that we're doing here are the deciding factor.

[1:19:12] We make a recommendation to both of these boards.

[1:19:14] The deciding boards are not us.

[1:19:17] We are making a recommendation, the Board of Adjustment,

[1:19:19] and the Board of Supervisors make the decision in the end.

[1:19:23] So I would highly recommend that you speak with them

[1:19:25] because they are the final decision on both of these decisions.

[1:19:37] Any other discussion or questions?

[1:19:41] I can just mention timeline for anything moving forward.

[1:19:47] The conditional use permit would go to next Wednesday's Board of Adjustment

[1:19:52] meeting, which is also in this room, also at 6 p.m. that's on the 28th, and then the rezoning

[1:20:00] right now would be heading to the Board of Supervisors on February 9th, and then that's

[1:20:07] a three-step process, the 9th, 11th, and then the 18th for each of their considerations.

[1:20:14] Can

[1:20:17] we pull the standards for review again, which is not as bulleted, but it's

[1:20:42] basically

[1:20:42] meeting MLS, the confine animal feeding operation, distances, Lisa,

[1:20:51] MLS degrading, kind of

[1:20:54] moving down the list those are the items to consider so it's each of those

[1:21:03] items conformance with the comp plan and then the recommendation itself so yeah

[1:21:11] and in conformance with the comp plan a lot of things we look at there's two or

[1:21:14] three yeses and looking through this there were a lot yeah it's a lot of those

[1:21:20] marks of what the the community of Linn County has wanted.

[1:21:27] So it would be a motion one for each case.

[1:21:32] So the first case number PR26-0001, rezoning of 3541 Todd Hills Road, do we have a motion

[1:21:42] regarding this rezoning case?

[1:21:56] Okay, we can't move forward without some type of motion.

[1:21:59] Whatever, whichever motion you want to make, but we've got to have something.

[1:22:11] You basically can move that we recommend, as presented you can recommend denial of the proposal or you can refer back to staff if we have specific things that we would like staff to consider or other conditions to be considered.

[1:22:30] We'll make a motion to deny.

[1:22:32] Okay. We have a motion to deny the rezoning case PR26-00001 is zero second to

[1:22:40] deny.

[1:22:42] Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to deny the rezoning of this

[1:22:47] case. Can we have a roll call vote by our secretary, please? Du Bois. Nay. Coons. Aye.

[1:22:57] Okay. Sadler.

[1:22:59] I.

[1:23:02] Bracked.

[1:23:04] Nay.

[1:23:07] Crats.

[1:23:08] I.

[1:23:14] So that is decided to still go on to the conditional use per match.

[1:23:19] Okay. So separately, the case number PC26-001 conditional use group living memory care facility.

[1:23:28] Do we have a motion regarding the conditional use case PC26-001?

[1:23:34] Again,

[1:23:39] same three options for the motion.

[1:23:53] I'll make the motion to deny.

[1:23:55] Okay, we have the motion on the floor to deny

[1:23:57] the conditional use permit. Is there a second?

[1:24:02] I'll second.

[1:24:04] Okay, there's the first and second for denial of the conditional use permit.

[1:24:08] Can we have a roll call vote by the secretary please?

[1:24:11] Crats

[1:24:14] Du Bois.

[1:24:16] Nay.

[1:24:17] Sadler.

[1:24:18] Aye.

[1:24:19] Coons.

[1:24:20] Aye.

[1:24:22] Correct.

[1:24:23] Nay.

[1:24:26] Okay.

[1:24:27] And I know that the boards have requested feedback about reasons for denial when that has

[1:24:32] happened.

[1:24:33] Yes.

[1:24:34] We would appreciate that.

[1:24:35] Yes.

[1:24:35] So, if those who voted to deny regarding rezoning and conditional use, if you can share your concerns,

[1:24:42] please.

[1:24:43] So pass that along to the boards.

[1:24:45] For me, it seems like spot zoning.

[1:24:47] I mean, to me, right, it's not conducive to the other folks.

[1:24:51] And I love this more than anybody.

[1:24:53] I think we should bring more jobs to Ling County.

[1:24:55] But I think there's a time and a place.

[1:24:58] And it wouldn't strike me as this might be the time

[1:25:00] or the place as a conjoining land owner, right?

[1:25:04] That's my opinion.

[1:25:06] My personal opinion is if they're looking to annex

[1:25:09] into how off they should be pursuing that more so

[1:25:12] and let them make this a little better.

[1:25:13] Absolutely.

[1:25:14] Rather than us here, just basically, we'd be doing it

[1:25:17] and then kicking the can down the road.

[1:25:19] Agreed.

[1:25:21] I would echo that. I think it's spot zoning at best. I don't think it fits the neighborhood

[1:25:26] on all four sides of what's going on there already.

[1:25:38] Is that sufficient or? Thank you. Okay, next up on our agenda is case number PA26-00101.

[1:25:49] Organic amendment data centers. Presentation by staff. Charlie Nichols, please.

[1:25:54] All

[1:26:06] right, I'll give a minute for people to clear out here and for anyone still here interested in that case it so the recommendation of denial will go to the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Supervisors and then they will take their own votes on that and we'll follow along with that case.

[1:26:25] Okay, so now we have PA26001, this is our first ordinance amendment of 2026 and it is a unified

[1:26:34] development code adding zoning regulations for data center facilities.

[1:26:48] Hey Brad, could you tell people to move out of the doorway a little bit, thank you.

[1:26:53] So, what is a data center, I'm going to be very brief on this, I've gone through a presentation before kind of going over what that is and what artificial intelligence is, basically data centers turn electrical power into digital computing work, they generate he is a byproduct that has to be managed through cooling system whether it's air cooling or water cooling, the primary limiting factors for these buildings and how much computing work they can do, are how much power they can concentrate in the buildings and turn into that digital work,

[1:27:23] and then how effective they are at removing the heat

[1:27:25] from the buildings.

[1:27:26] If the buildings get too hot,

[1:27:27] they can't continue to do their computing work.

[1:27:33] So why now?

[1:27:34] Why are we looking at adopting zoning code

[1:27:36] for data centers now?

[1:27:38] We are seeing interest in large-scale data center

[1:27:41] development in Lynn County.

[1:27:43] The one that most people are familiar with

[1:27:45] is Google, Google, and next era have entered into an agreement

[1:27:48] for Google to purchase power

[1:27:49] from the restart of the nuclear power plant.

[1:27:52] There are other data center developers though

[1:27:54] that have reached out to Lynn County Planning and Development staff so the time is right

[1:27:58] to have some regulations, have some code on the books that determine where data centers

[1:28:03] can be built and how they are built. Currently there is no specific code for data centers

[1:28:09] they are in newer use and they're not currently addressed by our zoning code so that's why

[1:28:14] we are bringing forward new code tonight. We have done quite a bit of research on this before

[1:28:20] we brought this ordinance to you. We researched existing data center ordinances from around the

[1:28:25] country, our internal staff here. We've also had meetings with other local

[1:28:29] governments, in particular local governments in Virginia, where they have had

[1:28:33] data center growth for the past 10 years. A loud and county is considered the

[1:28:37] data center capital of the world. They have the most data centers per square foot

[1:28:40] of any county in the country and globally. We met with their planning staff to learn

[1:28:46] what lessons they could share with us and learn best practices as well. Staff,

[1:28:50] myself, I also attended a data center conference to try and learn as much as

[1:28:54] possible. And we took another additional set that we don't typically take. We hire consultants

[1:28:59] to help us review our code. Make sure that we are crafting our code to address the problems

[1:29:08] or crafting our code to address issues in the right way that the zoning code can address

[1:29:12] them. The three groups that we had review our code is the Manna group. They work with the

[1:29:17] National Associated Counties and they lead their Royal Energy Academy. We also work with

[1:29:22] MSA, they're a national land use and zoning experts, they create zoning codes for counties

[1:29:27] and cities around the country.

[1:29:29] And the third group we had to look at our code and help us with this was the Antara group.

[1:29:33] They are more of an industry consultant for data centers, they help developers site data

[1:29:38] centers and evaluate the sites and the available infrastructure.

[1:29:42] So all three of these groups help review our ordinance and suggest language as we move through

[1:29:46] this process.

[1:29:47] We've been working on this code for about five months now.

[1:29:49] So

[1:29:53] with that I will get into our proposed ordinance amendment and I will note that we I do have two proposed changes.

[1:30:00] So, what is in the staff report that was put on the website? They're fairly minor. We meant to have those in the staff report, those were changes that came fairly recently, but they missed the cut. So, I will go over what those changes are when I get to them in our ordinance amendment sections. But first off, we have the purpose and intent. The intent of this ordinance is to establish a clear comprehensive framework for large scale data centers. These are generational infrastructure uses and we want to make sure they are consistent with our comprehensive plan.

[1:30:29] and they're located in areas of the county

[1:30:31] that are appropriate for uses of this scale.

[1:30:34] We want to also ensure that long-term impacts

[1:30:36] to infrastructure, water resources, and surrounding land

[1:30:39] uses are evaluated and mitigated

[1:30:41] through enforceable standards and agreements.

[1:30:43] We also want to respect state regulatory authority

[1:30:46] by coordinating with but not duplicating or preempting

[1:30:49] the Iowa Department of Natural Resources water permitting.

[1:30:52] Water usage is a big concern nationally for data centers

[1:30:55] and it's no different here in Iowa.

[1:30:57] Our ordinance does address water usage

[1:30:59] but it's important to note that Lin County does not have the final authority over how much water a business can use.

[1:31:06] That is either reserved for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or the municipal water supply depending on where they get their water from.

[1:31:12] And lastly, I want to respect state authority over utility regulation and grid planning by requiring coordination with utilities and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

[1:31:24] So we'll start up with a couple definitions here.

[1:31:26] In our ordinance, we differentiate between small scale data centers and large scale data centers.

[1:31:32] Small scale is what we've typically seen over the past 30 to 40 years.

[1:31:36] These could be, you might have seen brick centric-linked buildings downtown.

[1:31:41] These are, these host servers, and they are, the scale, the size of the buildings could be the size of this building.

[1:31:48] They are not the thousands and thousands square feet of hyperscalers.

[1:31:52] So we wanted to make sure in our ordinance that we are carving out a place for

[1:31:55] those smaller data centers to locate and not subjecting them to the same requirements that

[1:32:00] we have for these larger, hyper scale data centers.

[1:32:03] And we chose the cutoff between the two as a test between electrical design capacity

[1:32:09] and how much water they use.

[1:32:11] So if a facility has a electrical design capacity of 20 megawatts or less, and it uses less

[1:32:18] than 50 gallons per minute of water on an annualized basis, then we classify it as small.

[1:32:23] If it fails either one of those tests, so if it has a design capacity of more than 20 megawatts

[1:32:30] It would be a large scale data center even if it doesn't use

[1:32:34] More than 50 gallons per minute of water if it uses more than 50 gallons per minute of water

[1:32:38] It's also a large scale data center even if the electrical design capacity is 20 megawatts or less

[1:32:44] Are there any questions on the division between small scale and large scale data centers here all right

[1:32:50] We are proposing the creation of a new exclusive use zoning district.

[1:32:55] This would be our third exclusive use zoning district, we would call it EU3.

[1:33:00] The comprehensive plan supports exclusive use zoning districts for uses that are unique

[1:33:04] and high impact.

[1:33:05] We consider hyperscale data centers unique uses, very high impact uses that are appropriate

[1:33:12] to have their own exclusive use zoning district.

[1:33:14] So this would add a new zoning district to our code and anyone looking to build or locate

[1:33:19] a large scale data center would need to rezone the land to exclusive use three, meaning

[1:33:24] it would come before you for recommendation and then three readings at the port of supervisors.

[1:33:31] With that, we will update our allowed use table, principal permitted uses in this district

[1:33:36] would be large scale data centers, and then we'd also have accessory uses that go along with

[1:33:40] large scale data centers. These can be battery energy storage systems, solar arrays, on-site

[1:33:45] stand by our backup power generation, substations, micro grids, water treatment, and then officer

[1:33:52] maintenance support facilities. I've highlighted excluding diesel generators. This is one of

[1:33:57] the changes that staff is proposing we make to the language included in the staff report.

[1:34:01] So initially we excluded diesel generators from allowed accessory uses because we had seen instances

[1:34:07] where diesel generators had been put on truck beds or movable platforms to get around air quality

[1:34:15] permitting regulations. We have elsewhere in our code required these facilities to be

[1:34:20] on permanent foundations, so excluding the diesel generators is not necessary in this

[1:34:24] case we are solving through that in another way. So staff is recommending we keep the

[1:34:30] allowed accessory uses but remove the sentence excluding diesel generators.

[1:34:37] Any questions

[1:34:38] on that part before I move on?

[1:34:44] With the best do they have to follow the other

[1:34:47] There are rules around the bus that were made on the other parts.

[1:34:51] They would.

[1:34:52] We do have specific regulations for battery energy storage systems.

[1:34:56] Okay.

[1:34:56] Thank you.

[1:35:00] We've also put in place some new submittal requirements for a developer that is looking

[1:35:05] to re-zone their land to this EU-3 zoning district.

[1:35:08] And we split these up into two buckets.

[1:35:10] Information that is required at the time of a re-zoning application and information that

[1:35:14] is required before the first building permit.

[1:35:17] some information is not going to be available when a developer applies to

[1:35:21] rezona site. So information we're asking for for the rezoning application is a

[1:35:27] legal description of all the properties, a major site plan that lays out where

[1:35:30] facilities will be placed and then a general description of the project,

[1:35:33] including development timelines, location, parking, approximate number of

[1:35:39] employees. And then I've highlighted this section in yellow, a description of a

[1:35:42] backup power plan, describing the fuel source expected usage of any standby

[1:35:46] by backup or temporary power generation systems and the anticipated number and size of generators.

[1:35:52] We still want this information but this is another change that staff would like to make

[1:35:57] to move this to the information that gets required that must be submitted before building permit.

[1:36:04] The developer is not going to know all of this beforehand when they apply to rezone a site

[1:36:09] but they will have a better handle on that information or they will know that information before

[1:36:13] they apply for their first building permit.

[1:36:15] So staff is recommending keeping the language, but moving it to the second section of information

[1:36:19] that is required prior to issuing a bill in permit.

[1:36:22] So that information would be plan location of underground and overhead electric lines,

[1:36:27] grid interconnection points, project entrances, written verification from their proposed power

[1:36:32] provider that the applicant has calculated the maximum planned electroconsumption and the

[1:36:37] utility is verified that they have the supply for that.

[1:36:41] As well as then, site and structure requirements, like a stormwater management plan, stormwater

[1:36:45] pollution prevention plan, erosion instead of mid control plan, and then there's a note

[1:36:50] here that all data center production equipment needs to comply with building code requirements

[1:36:54] and the structures will be placed on a permanent foundation.

[1:36:57] So, again, going back to we want everything, including diesel generators to be on permanent

[1:37:01] foundations, and then the addition to this section of moving the backup power plan requirements

[1:37:09] to be submitted before the building permit.

[1:37:13] Any questions on the submittal requirements

[1:37:14] for rezoning to EU3 at this point?

[1:37:21] Setbacks.

[1:37:22] So we do, we are recommending some fairly substantial setbacks

[1:37:25] here.

[1:37:26] We're recommending a 200 foot setback to property lines

[1:37:29] from structures.

[1:37:30] And we're also recommending a 1000 foot setback

[1:37:33] measure from the closest outer wall of the closest building

[1:37:36] on the data center property to the closest outer wall

[1:37:39] at a public place of assembly and to the property line

[1:37:42] if any residentally-owned property, including residentally-owned property within city limits.

[1:37:47] So if there's a residentally-owned property in payload, and it's within a thousand

[1:37:52] foot of proposed Madison project, even if it's in unincorporated Lynn County, it would

[1:37:56] still need to meet that 1,000 foot setback.

[1:37:59] We are including language that that 1,000 foot setback could be reduced by a majority vote

[1:38:04] of the Board of Supervisors in consultation with the impact of the city.

[1:38:07] So if there is a going back to payload, if there's a project near payload that wants to be constructed and they want to locate closer than a thousand feet to that residential zone property, they would have the option of asking the board of supervisors and the city of payload to voluntarily lower that setback.

[1:38:25] That thousand-foot setback also applies to places of public assembly, which means buildings

[1:38:30] or facilities where people gather for civic educational religious or cultural purposes,

[1:38:35] such as retirement and nursing homes, schools, childcare homes, and centers, group homes,

[1:38:40] hospitals, detention facilities, or human service facilities.

[1:38:45] So again, these are our fairly substantial setbacks.

[1:38:47] what we heard from other jurisdictions was that these uses can have impacts on

[1:38:54] neighboring uses, particularly neighboring residential uses. They're allowed,

[1:38:59] there can be lots of light associated with them. They are running 24-7, so that's

[1:39:04] why staff is recommending a larger than typical setback.

[1:39:11] Other requirements

[1:39:12] follow our fairly basic requirements for all uses where they need to have access

[1:39:18] access to a hard surface road, site access is prescribed.

[1:39:21] There's parking requirements, although in this case, parking requirements typically go by square footage of the building.

[1:39:28] But there is a sentence in there to allow for administrative exceptions there to add a sentence are very large.

[1:39:34] But the number of employees that they have in each building does not correlate with the size of the building.

[1:39:39] So we would require parking based on number of employees and not based on the size of the buildings.

[1:39:45] We've also added a section on confidentiality and open records compliance, and this is something

[1:39:50] that we don't typically do, but confidentiality and open records has been a point of, I don't

[1:40:00] want to say contention, but it has been a sticking point for a lot of communities and

[1:40:03] data center projects around the country, particularly when it comes to reporting water usage.

[1:40:08] Water usage is considered a trade secret by data center developers.

[1:40:12] The reasoning there is they feel that competitors can back into the design of how the facilities

[1:40:19] are lighted out based on the amount of water they use.

[1:40:23] We have different interpretations about that at the staff level and we will be asking them

[1:40:27] for water usage data and we do plan to make that available but we put into our ordinance

[1:40:32] that if there is information that an applicant feels is protected and not subject to Iowa

[1:40:38] open records law. We need them to tell us what the information is and then explain in writing

[1:40:43] why that information qualifies for an exemption for Iowa open records law. So we're saying up front

[1:40:49] that if you want certain information to be kept private and not part of the public process you need

[1:40:54] to justify that. We're also putting in language on avoidance and mitigation of damages to public

[1:41:00] infrastructure. You might be familiar with this from our solar projects. We require road use

[1:41:05] agreements where a existing roadway condition survey is done before construction, construction

[1:41:11] routes are identified. There is a financial assurance requirement. It could be a bond.

[1:41:15] It could be a stable parent guarantee. But then when construction finishes, there is a post-construction

[1:41:20] roadway survey and any damage that has occurred to the roads as a result of that process is then

[1:41:26] repaired by the developer. And we have seen evidence of how much damage

[1:41:33] data center or construction can do on roads, there's two data center campuses being built in the city of Cedar Rapids

[1:41:39] They are using Lynn County roads to go back and forth between job sites in the quarry and that traffic has been

[1:41:46] Surprisingly significant. It was much more than was expected. We do have road use agreements in place for those data center campuses now

[1:41:53] But it took quite a bit of wrangling to get those dots. So we are upfront requiring a road use agreement before any construction can happen

[1:42:02] Any questions on the stuff I've covered so far?

[1:42:11] Noise standards.

[1:42:12] This is one of the things we heard from communities we've met with.

[1:42:16] That noise is a real concern, and what they found is that data centers were passing their

[1:42:23] noise tests for DBA, which is the typical range of noise that is measured, but people who

[1:42:29] to live across the street from data centers.

[1:42:33] This is well within the thousand-foot setback

[1:42:36] in counties that are much more built out.

[1:42:38] They're still able to hear the low humming

[1:42:40] and the low vibration from data centers,

[1:42:42] from the cooling fans and other equipment.

[1:42:45] And they weren't testing for DBC.

[1:42:47] And DBC is a lower frequency range of noise.

[1:42:50] So they were having lots of issues with data centers

[1:42:53] being built in their residential communities

[1:42:55] and meeting their noise standards,

[1:42:57] but still experiencing significant issues with noise because our noise standards didn't

[1:43:02] take into account DBC or that lower frequency noise. So we are recommending a noise standard

[1:43:07] for occupied structures within residential, leave zone property adjacent to the data center

[1:43:12] developments of 55 DBA or 65 DBC. If the property is not residential, those limits bump up to

[1:43:20] 65 DBA or 75 DBC, so we are taking into account both the normal range of hearing, DBA,

[1:43:27] and then that lower frequency sound, that vibration that humming with the DBC.

[1:43:34] Any questions on those two standards?

[1:43:40] As part of the noise standards, we're also requiring, so to meet those, we require either

[1:43:45] setbacks or submit a getting equipment to meet those limits.

[1:43:48] It's up to the developer how they want to achieve that, whether it's with larger setbacks

[1:43:52] or better salmate getting equipment.

[1:43:55] We limit generator testing, maintenance,

[1:43:57] or other elevated noise activities

[1:43:59] to weekday and daytime hours,

[1:44:01] unless otherwise approved by the county.

[1:44:04] We also allow limited exceedance of these noise limits

[1:44:07] for short-term, uncontrollable events

[1:44:09] such as severe windstorms.

[1:44:12] And we will require an independent,

[1:44:13] professional noise study before construction,

[1:44:16] so modeling what the noise would be.

[1:44:18] And then after construction,

[1:44:19] we require another study to verify

[1:44:21] that the actual noise generated by the facility

[1:44:24] is in compliance with the code.

[1:44:26] So it's a test beforehand, which is modeling

[1:44:28] and then a test after which is actually boots

[1:44:30] on the ground measurement.

[1:44:32] Then we would also require ongoing noise evaluations

[1:44:35] every five years with the life of the facility

[1:44:37] to ensure that there is continued noise compliance.

[1:44:40] The last part of our noise standards is we do allow

[1:44:43] adjacent property owners to voluntarily agree

[1:44:46] to hire noise limits through a written and recorded waiver.

[1:44:49] This would give the developer the opportunity

[1:44:50] to approach a neighbor and say hey we're not going to be able to meet the

[1:44:53] noise standards on your property, but we will buy your property or we will do

[1:44:58] do something else to compensate.

[1:45:00] So it gives the developer another tool to try and meet those noise standards.

[1:45:09] Any questions on noise before we start talking about water supply and sustainability?

[1:45:16] So water supply and sustainability is a national concern and talking point for data centers. These are very large water users if they use water for cooling. So some facilities use water, some use air, but if they do use water, it's a fairly large volume of water that is used. So what are we can do with our ordinance?

[1:45:35] is established water use as a local land use impact.

[1:45:38] We can require information and analysis on supply and usage.

[1:45:41] We can accommodate future technologies.

[1:45:44] So the technology is getting better.

[1:45:45] It uses less and less water.

[1:45:47] And we can accommodate future water regulatory frameworks.

[1:45:50] What we can't do with our ordinance,

[1:45:51] and I mentioned this earlier,

[1:45:53] is substitute for or supersede idea

[1:45:55] in our permitting authority.

[1:45:57] The highway department of natural resources

[1:45:59] is fuel issue permits for large water uses

[1:46:01] in unincorporated Lynn County.

[1:46:03] We can't regulate existing water users and we can't regulate municipal water systems either.

[1:46:10] So we've taken a two track approach to water regulations here. The first track is requiring a

[1:46:17] water study as part of a rezoning application. The water study demonstrates that there are sufficient

[1:46:23] water resources available without causing undue impacts to existing users, groundwater or surface

[1:46:29] water systems. It identifies proposed water sources, ranges of the water demand, and assumptions

[1:46:34] related to cooling technologies and address the system reliability and contingency planning.

[1:46:39] And then it must be prepared by qualified professionals and provide enough information for

[1:46:44] the county and the public to understand and evaluate potential water impacts.

[1:46:48] So we are asking any data center developer with their rezoning application up front to provide us with a study outlining where they're going to get their water from.

[1:46:57] How much they're going to use and also to demonstrate that it's not going to have an adverse impact on existing users.

[1:47:04] The second thing we are asking for, then this would come prior to a building permit, but not at the time of rezoning, is a water use agreement.

[1:47:13] This would establish ongoing coordination between the applicant and the county regarding water use.

[1:47:18] It would establish what kind of data is reported to the county and on an ongoing basis.

[1:47:26] They would establish verification of compliance with applicable permits and approvals from the IDNR.

[1:47:33] it would provide a framework for response during constrained conditions like droughts, emergencies or other situations where water use adjustments may be needed and then it also allows for adaptive management and mitigation measures.

[1:47:44] So this is the part where we're asking them to show us or tell us what is your actual water usage.

[1:47:50] How are you going to monitor your water usage? How frequently are you going to report your water using this data to the county?

[1:47:56] Now, we don't make decisions on when water usage would be curtailed, that would be either

[1:48:03] the IDNR, if they're drying their water from the river or from a well, or it would be

[1:48:07] the municipal utility if they're getting their water from an municipal utility.

[1:48:11] What this allows us to do is provide as much information as possible to those permitting

[1:48:15] authorities so they can make the decisions on does curtail money to happen, does there

[1:48:19] need to be some water balance to water usage balance happening at the data center development

[1:48:24] based on what is happening in the region.

[1:48:26] So although we don't have the authority

[1:48:27] to make that call on ratcheting down water usage,

[1:48:31] we can make sure that the government bodies

[1:48:33] that do have that authority

[1:48:35] have a wealth of information to make those decisions.

[1:48:38] And I also wouldn't be surprised

[1:48:39] if five, 10 years in the future,

[1:48:42] Iowa starts developing a more robust framework

[1:48:45] for looking at water usage.

[1:48:46] Right now we are a state that doesn't have water scarcity

[1:48:51] that could change.

[1:48:53] So, in the future, if there is a more kind of robust framework for managing water usage,

[1:48:58] this would also ensure that we have the processes in place to have these data center uses kind

[1:49:06] of plug into that framework and work alongside whatever regulating bodies are managing that

[1:49:12] either now or in the future.

[1:49:15] Questions on the requirement of a water study and a water use agreement for these developments?

[1:49:21] Yeah, question on the water use agreement. So data centers have SLAs, right? There's 99.9% up time.

[1:49:29] And you talk about curtailment, which would cause an impact to their SLAs, which they're

[1:49:35] contractually bound. Is there any sort of like charge back, or are we anticipating they're

[1:49:40] going to accept this and say, yeah, you can shut the water off and it'll be hunky-dory?

[1:49:46] That's a great question. Millions of dollars.

[1:49:48] Yes, it is. It's millions of dollars of impact. And this is one of the reasons. Well, we don't have the authority to say you need to ratchet down your services. Right. But the idea in our who they get the permit for does have that authority.

[1:50:04] And it would be a monetary impact to the company, but that's part of what they agreed to by getting a permit through the state.

[1:50:10] Okay, so we are not we're not going to determine, yes, shut your water down now, but we will be working with the organization that does have that authority and we will be supplying them with its information.

[1:50:22] Okay, so it's easier for them to make that call.

[1:50:24] Yep, that makes sense.

[1:50:31] Any other questions on water supply?

[1:50:37] All right, the next section of our ordinance is requiring an economic development agreement.

[1:50:42] And we are requiring an economic development agreement because these are our generational

[1:50:47] infrastructure uses that do rely on significant public resources and services.

[1:50:53] The economic development agreement ensures upfront clarity and long-term cooperation rather

[1:50:58] than addressing fiscal or infrastructure impacts on an ad hoc basis and it also provides a

[1:51:02] transparent framework to ensure that the communities that are supplying the land, power, water,

[1:51:07] roads and services that these facilities need receive that reinvestment and protection.

[1:51:13] So the terms of the economic development agreement in the ordinance establish ongoing coordination

[1:51:18] between the county and the data center operator over the life of the facility.

[1:51:22] It would identify economic development incentives if applicable and the expectations tied to those

[1:51:29] incentives.

[1:51:30] It also requires the creation of a community betterment fund to support public infrastructure,

[1:51:35] services, environmental protection, workforce developments, or other community priorities.

[1:51:40] This is, so Cedar Rapids did this with their data setter campuses, they required a community

[1:51:44] betterment fund and an annual payment into this fund that goes back to community projects.

[1:51:50] As part of this economic development agreement, we're also requiring that a developer considers

[1:51:55] a property value protection plan to address potential impacts to the nearby residential

[1:51:59] properties. The reason we're worrying this is requiring consideration and not just straight

[1:52:04] up requiring this is because depending on where the project would be cited, it could

[1:52:10] be far away from residences. There might not be residences around that would be impacted

[1:52:14] and that would require a property value protection plan.

[1:52:18] And finally, the Economic Development Agreement language preserves county flexibility to tailor

[1:52:22] the agreement to the scale and location and nature of each project depending on what it impacts

[1:52:27] to the community and to the resources of the community would be.

[1:52:31] So it's there's no prescriptive data center projects have to pay this amount per year in a community better met fund

[1:52:38] There's no prescriptive. These are the tax incentives that are are not offered. It's a fairly open

[1:52:46] mechanism that you know if you're going to locate here you have to enter into an agreement before

[1:52:51] rezoning can occur. So this would come before

[1:52:53] rezoning could occur of a site. They would need to have an agreed on economic development agreement

[1:52:59] We're

[1:53:04] also requiring an emergency response plan that would identify facility responsibilities

[1:53:09] and response procedures for emergency scenarios that would include site-specific evacuation

[1:53:13] of procedures, egress routes and emergency staging areas.

[1:53:17] It would also require a separate emergency protocol for battery energy storage systems if present

[1:53:22] on the site and must be developed in coordination with Lynn County Emergency Management and Public

[1:53:27] Health.

[1:53:32] The staff does believe the creation of this new exclusive use district and these standards

[1:53:35] are in alignment with the comprehensive plan.

[1:53:38] As I mentioned before, exclusive uses for unique high-impact land uses, and we believe

[1:53:43] that large-scale data centers meet the definition of unique high-impact uses.

[1:53:48] But we feel this advances smart planning principles by promoting transparency and coordination

[1:53:52] and long-term planning.

[1:53:54] We feel it aligned with economic development and employment goals by providing a clear, predictable

[1:53:58] framework for major employers while ensuring public benefits and fiscal sustainability are

[1:54:03] in place.

[1:54:03] It supports public infrastructure and utility planning by requiring coordination with utilities

[1:54:09] and evaluation of power and water capacity.

[1:54:12] And finally we feel it protects natural resources, public health and community character through

[1:54:16] larger than average setbacks, buffers, noise standards, and ongoing monitoring requirements.

[1:54:21] Staff is recommending approving the proposed amendments with those two changes I had mentioned

[1:54:27] of removing the excluding diesel generators from the allowed accessory uses and then moving

[1:54:32] the backup power plan from submittal requirements at time of rezoning

[1:54:37] application to submittal requirements for first building permit. Are there any

[1:54:42] questions or comments on this before we get to public comment here?

[1:54:57] Okay, hearing

[1:54:58] no questions from commission members at this time I will not open the floor for

[1:55:03] public comment. Would anyone like to speak specifically on the case number P.A.

[1:55:08] 826, there is your one ordinance amendment data centers.

[1:55:13] Come on up to the microphone.

[1:55:15] State your name, address, and make your statements.

[1:55:21] Good evening, Michael Schmidt, 1059 Street Southwest.

[1:55:25] It's nice to see everyone.

[1:55:26] I last I saw you as an October,

[1:55:28] when we had the presentation regarding

[1:55:30] the information on data centers.

[1:55:33] At that time, we were,

[1:55:36] or the committee was trying to decide whether or not

[1:55:39] what they could do regarding this.

[1:55:41] if they were at all a benefit to the county or moving forward based on what we've seen.

[1:55:55] One of the things that I've noticed after reading the proposal numerous times was

[1:56:02] the standards should be designed in to assure that the county assumes no obligation regarding

[1:56:09] in these facilities. The companies that are building them are making billions in profits

[1:56:16] every year. They can assume the cost and not the county or the people.

[1:56:23] Likewise, any

[1:56:25] future date or when they have new data centers or multiple additions to them, it would be

[1:56:30] nice if they were open to public review an additional passage for

[1:56:39] multiple buildings as well because

[1:56:41] of the cumulative effects that these facilities often have.

[1:56:46] With the accessory uses on the amendment that was shown, I would like to see additional

[1:56:52] details regarding each of those.

[1:56:54] It was just a point regarding them.

[1:56:56] I don't know if it's maybe regulated by an additional committee or just having one thing

[1:57:05] without any additional information underneath it leaves it open to interpretation, I believe.

[1:57:11] As well, it would be nice if we could remove what I see as loopholes, regarding the board

[1:57:18] of supervisors in Pacted City, reducing the setback as well as later on with the noise.

[1:57:26] It would be nice also.

[1:57:29] The one thing they did mention is with the very definition of the zoning to something new,

[1:57:36] it also carries new opportunities for us to properly regulate it.

[1:57:42] Confidentiality, of course they're going to save water and electricity is

[1:57:46] trade secrets, but at the same time that is very important to the impact to the

[1:57:52] community.

[1:57:55] With regards to these

[1:58:01] as well, is there any ability to appeal to a

[1:58:04] proper authority regarding them? I know it was mentioned, especially with the

[1:58:08] last issue that not everything can be covered by this committee so if there is some process

[1:58:14] that can be put in place to appeal to the proper authority it would also be useful.

[1:58:22] Just another option here is with regards to this making sure that they use local labor.

[1:58:29] It would be a nice as a condition currently the ones that are being developed are from out

[1:58:34] state and labor. Profits for the big, of course, like I mentioned before, profits for big

[1:58:42] tech are in the billions or hundreds of billions. We don't need to subsidize their profits via

[1:58:48] the expenses for these things. Currently, as an example, the current Google data center that's

[1:58:55] being, that is an agreement, has a 20-year, 70-percent tax exemption. The only requirements I have found

[1:59:01] One for that is basically that they have to maintain at least 31 jobs, paying a minimum

[1:59:08] of 26, 20 an hour, which equates to about 54,500 a year, where the median income for

[1:59:15] Cedar Rapids is 68,000.

[1:59:18] So they are paying their labor underneath median average for Cedar Rapids.

[1:59:25] Water usage, I won't touch on this too much, but I've earned my research.

[1:59:32] Buffer zones are a great thing, but also the landscaping for them uses water.

[1:59:39] There's numerous examples I have found for Arizona data centers granted, this is Arizona,

[1:59:47] but oftentimes the water usage for the landscaping is more than the data center itself is using.

[1:59:54] The water study is a great idea, but it needs to be done by an independent party.

[2:00:00] How the wastewater is addressed, intrigued, it was not mentioned in here, and I was curious as to if that was by another authority or if it can be addressed also.

[2:00:13] Electricity regards for this. We are at five minutes if you can wrap up, please. My apologies. That's okay.

[2:00:22] With regards to the electricity, I would highly recommend that this not be listed as a generational information.

[2:00:30] infrastructure, infrastructure has a certain level of priority, which means that if these

[2:00:37] were to need more power or water, they get priority over the people, as well as the creation

[2:00:43] of an energy use agreement, we have road agreement, water agreement, why not a power agreement?

[2:00:49] Ideally, you would have these classified as separate consumer class with an increased

[2:00:54] rate and a demand response for the residents.

[2:00:56] Okay. Thank you so much for your comments. I appreciate it.

[2:01:03] Just take turns coming up.

[2:01:09] Good evening. I'm Pam McEtailor. I live at 2200 South 31st Street in Marion. I

[2:01:16] appreciate the county's efforts to get a handle on data centers. They can have a

[2:01:20] huge impact on our quality of life in Lynn County. The planning staff has spent a

[2:01:26] significant amount of time creating the ordinance and the public has had little time

[2:01:30] to review the ordinance. I would suggest that the ordinance is not ready for prime time and needs to be sent back for more work and greater review and I would piggyback on to some of the things that Mr. Schmidt said a few minutes ago.

[2:01:44] It is good that the county sought input from other governments and consultants. The information reports from that input needs to be available to the public, to the commission and to the supervisors to review.

[2:01:56] Looking at the proposed ordinance on page 3, item D and item E, the site plan and information

[2:02:05] do not really tell us anything about new projects and for something this big and this

[2:02:09] significant more information needs to be provided earlier.

[2:02:14] There are very few requirements in addressing real ongoing problems of data centers including

[2:02:20] including water usage, electric electricity usage, and air pollution from the diesel generators.

[2:02:26] There is noise regulation and that's a good step.

[2:02:30] I would suggest that there should be required annual public reporting of water use, electricity

[2:02:38] use, and diesel generation usage.

[2:02:41] There is no requirement limiting the use of diesel generators or requiring battery backup

[2:02:47] instead of the generators.

[2:02:48] And the air pollution from the diesel generators can exacerbate respiratory diseases and illnesses

[2:02:55] including asthma.

[2:02:58] I would suggest you look at the water use in greater detail.

[2:03:03] And although some of the things are in the purview of the DNR, there are no standards related

[2:03:09] to water by which zoning officials should grant or deny the permit.

[2:03:14] We all know that the Jordan aquifer is declining in its water levels, and we also know that

[2:03:21] there are looming problems with nitrates in the water sources used by the Cedar Rapids

[2:03:26] to provide drinking water.

[2:03:28] There is a huge risk in the water area for the Lynn County and the areas around us.

[2:03:35] There are no standards.

[2:03:37] There are no long-term impacts, totally addressed.

[2:03:40] There are no requirements for dealing with periods of drought and limits on water withdrawal

[2:03:45] and on page six, all of the areas around the water studies talk about May.

[2:03:51] They don't say shall or should, they say May.

[2:03:55] It would be important to include methods to conserve water and to reuse water rather than

[2:04:01] ascend it down the drain or have it vetted off a steam.

[2:04:09] There's nothing about electricity use, and there's a real problem with electricity.

[2:04:14] The utilities in Iowa are not even required to do integrated resource planning, and

[2:04:18] so that long-term use of energy and how it is supplied to the community is going to

[2:04:25] be a question.

[2:04:27] There are no efforts to require implementation of energy efficiency methods for the data

[2:04:33] centers, and equipment, there's no planning around supporting infrastructure to supply

[2:04:38] large quantities of electricity while still protecting the individuals and businesses in

[2:04:43] the community.

[2:04:45] In general, I think that we need to think about what happens for some of these data centers

[2:04:53] that are being built on spec.

[2:04:55] Some of them may be abandoned later on.

[2:04:58] Some of them may be used for a few years and then the buildings are left behind.

[2:05:04] We need to think about that and the risks and what effects that's going to have on the community.

[2:05:09] As I started out saying, I think we need to do some more looking at this ordinance, spend

[2:05:14] some more time on it, maybe do some more community engagement and hold off and don't pass it

[2:05:19] tonight.

[2:05:20] Thank you.

[2:05:21] Thank you.

[2:05:28] Hi, my name is Jim Conlon.

[2:05:30] I signed the wrong sheet, which is what you called on me earlier.

[2:05:32] No, they're just all on there.

[2:05:34] I apologize for that.

[2:05:35] No, you're good.

[2:05:36] I don't live in Lynn County, but I do own Lynn in Lynn County, including unincorporated

[2:05:42] Lynn County Fairfax.

[2:05:46] I have been approached by data center operators.

[2:05:49] I know something about this.

[2:05:52] I think the regulation makes sense.

[2:05:54] I do think it has to be adaptable, and it has to frankly be integrated because this whole

[2:06:02] process data centers AI is moving faster than really anybody can get in front of.

[2:06:08] So the important thing is to not, you know, dig in and say it has to be this,

[2:06:13] it has to be this, because things change so quickly.

[2:06:16] For example, electricity has become a major choke point, probably more than

[2:06:22] any of the other choke points that have been described. The utilities have done a

[2:06:27] a great job in Cedar Rapids.

[2:06:30] But they don't have an extra 500 megawatts,

[2:06:33] which is what a 500 acre data center would require.

[2:06:39] That's caused the industry to say, well,

[2:06:43] we're going to have to go, quote, behind the meter,

[2:06:45] meaning build your own power plant on your own data center site.

[2:06:50] That won't require integration in the traditional sense with utilities,

[2:06:55] but it will require energy source. That energy source today is natural gas, is not coal, and it's not nuke.

[2:07:04] Nuke will be coming, but it's just not here yet. Frankly, I don't think it'll be here for eight to ten years.

[2:07:11] And so, natural gas-fired power plants to spend the turbines to power the data centers is where this is going to be for the next eight to ten years.

[2:07:21] I would say what I just heard makes a lot of sense, as long as it's flexible, as long as it's adaptable.

[2:07:27] Data centers are incredibly important to unincorporated Lenn County, Lenn County, generally, huge economic benefit.

[2:07:36] Also detriment, but it's highly, highly impactful.

[2:07:41] So I would say the next item on the agenda ought to be baked into this agenda.

[2:07:46] which is thinking about the location of natural gas fired power plants separate apart from this is not where the world is today.

[2:07:55] They actually go together, whether the setback is 1,000 feet or 2.25 miles, it's all the same.

[2:08:04] So I agree that I don't know about pause because I think you need to do something.

[2:08:10] But I also think what you do has to have built-in flexibility that allows you as well as the commissioners generally to say,

[2:08:20] you're going to have to come and get our approval every single time you're going to do a data center.

[2:08:25] You're going to have to get our approval on power, you're going to have to get our approval on water, you're going to have to get our approval on setbacks.

[2:08:32] We're not going to prejudge it because things are moving too fast to prejudge it.

[2:08:36] So, no preclusion, but no approval, either, in advance.

[2:08:42] Those are my thoughts.

[2:08:44] Thank you.

[2:08:49] My name is Stacey Bakker, and I reside at 5021 Lynn Benton Road, which would be in Fairfax.

[2:08:55] It's Section 7, Township 8 on the land that I own.

[2:09:00] I would like to thank you for doing your due diligence to conduct these studies,

[2:09:07] but then to also set specifications around what it's going to look like and what it's

[2:09:13] going to mean for our community and a role in county residents.

[2:09:17] The one thing that I am missing and seeing anything in regards to consideration is what

[2:09:23] Iowa is known for, agriculture.

[2:09:27] The land that is being requested for turning over, for example, Google 800 acres will no

[2:09:35] longer ever produce 160,000 bushel of corn ever again.

[2:09:42] So I'm just here, I'm going to read a little thing that I sent in a case here to try to

[2:09:46] learn more about this and how it's impacting all of us, our neighbors.

[2:09:50] But I really speak for my daughter, my 14-year-old daughter, who will be the 7th generation to inherit

[2:09:56] a farm, a homestead, and many acres that's been in our home, or heritage, 173 years.

[2:10:03] So, is powering the AI evolution really in the best interest of our community or have

[2:10:11] we lost the advantage of selling ourselves out?

[2:10:14] I've been a conscious observer of the ongoing expansion of the development of what will

[2:10:18] be happening with the direction Cedar Rapids is taking with the industry and power sourcing

[2:10:23] since 2021 when the Iowa Utilities Board held a local land over meeting and Fairfax on

[2:10:29] the upgrades of their Morgan Valley Twinkle Power Line project. At that time, we had no choice

[2:10:35] in regard to pre-existing lines at the Grandfather tried to push back against 1959 that were

[2:10:43] condemned, that they had indicated to us that this was merely just an upgrade. And at the time

[2:10:52] we were told, we were not told that these were actually in fact a power pre-existing that

[2:10:58] You already knew Google and QPS data centers that were coming in.

[2:11:02] I sat through several town hall meetings and very fax listening to the potential of the

[2:11:06] wells running dry due to demand and the new aqua fire projects on our most valuable resource

[2:11:11] in water and the land that produces the food to feed us.

[2:11:16] When I heard 800 acres of Google was coming to town, I actually was ecstatic about the development

[2:11:21] an opportunity that would bring here in the jobs and all of the residential growth and

[2:11:28] how this would help our community.

[2:11:30] But then later learned and discovered these massive data centers would really employ about

[2:11:35] 35 people per facility.

[2:11:38] They're here to take our energy, our water, and our land for billions of dollars in profit

[2:11:44] to themselves.

[2:11:45] In October, my neighbors were, and this is all, you know, everybody's selling now because

[2:11:52] the average acre, you can get $15,000 an acre if you're going to keep it an agricultural.

[2:11:57] These companies have come to me and offered $80,000 an acre.

[2:12:02] You're looking at a multi-millionaire, if I sign a contract, to put lithium ion batteries

[2:12:07] on my land, and or sell out to data center support for what these huge warehouses need to power them.

[2:12:17] Other neighbors, I've heard now in the stallments that have been there many, many years, have 80 acres contracted to potentially put this gas power plan up.

[2:12:27] That's going to be my new neighbor.

[2:12:31] This is also on the corner Highway 30 Lynn Benton of Road, right on the adjacent to Morgan Valley Township.

[2:12:37] with thousands and thousands, with investors from Chicago subsequently funded by Black

[2:12:45] Warock in regards to what they want to do with the land.

[2:12:50] Now Duane Arnold will be coming back on with next-era energies promise and Google's

[2:12:54] force to bring a non-operational nuclear dust plant back online to support the astronomical

[2:12:58] power demand that these AI centers required to operate.

[2:13:02] There are three offline nuclear plants in the United States, guys, that have never been reconvened.

[2:13:06] that's already done deal. It's happening, right? But we need to make a decision about how we're

[2:13:12] going to protect the future of the land that is going to be turned over. And when somebody comes to

[2:13:18] you for 120,000 and up and acre, that's your choice. But what a decision to make when you're losing

[2:13:26] money if you're just planting corn and beans, right? It's like an unfair advantage. And that's probably

[2:13:30] way beyond you guys. I thought about Colin Chuck Grassley. But I'm just asking you to please

[2:13:36] really think about the future of what's happening here.

[2:13:40] Even from where I'm at on my hill on Lynn Benton Road in West Cemetery,

[2:13:44] it looks like the sun is coming up from the data center that are existing there.

[2:13:50] It's so much light and that's looking over out on Highway 30.

[2:13:54] We're at five minutes, so.

[2:13:56] So just to wrap this up, we also have to take into consideration what's happened in other areas.

[2:14:01] I wanted to give you guys cited resource for Stanford E.D.U. data center.

[2:14:06] They're safe for power and water.

[2:14:07] There are many studies on this.

[2:14:09] Amazon 11 billion, how it has impacted communities in Indiana.

[2:14:13] But the one thing that you have to take into account is we are the number one producer of corn,

[2:14:19] pork, eggs, and beans.

[2:14:22] You are letting hungry teenage boys in the pantry and they're going to eat it up.

[2:14:28] Thank you.

[2:14:28] Does

[2:14:34] anyone else want to make public comment on this case?

[2:14:41] Good evening, I'm John, this is a classic, and I live at 531 Laundale Drive, Southeast

[2:14:47] in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

[2:14:49] I wanted to express my appreciation to the staff of Lynn County for spending the time and

[2:14:55] an effort that they have to develop this ordinance.

[2:15:00] Clear, they did a great deal of research. I worked for over 20 years in information technology and dealt extensively with data centers, so I completely understand what they do currently, and I've gained an understanding of how they're going to evolve into the future. I think that it's amazing what's been put in here to deal with one of the biggest issues which is water for us. So as you all know, we're going to restart the Duane Energy Center. They already have a very significant

[2:15:29] water use agreement in place and we also have many of you know our waste treatment plant deals

[2:15:37] with waste water equal to the equivalent of a population of 2 million people and that's

[2:15:42] because we also process all the industrial waste from companies like ADM. They use massive amounts

[2:15:47] of water and so these data centers are going to add to that water consumption and what I wanted to bring

[2:15:53] up was the fact that the way climate is changing. If you look at the forecasts for Iowa going forward,

[2:16:01] you can see temperatures are going to rise and of course we've been having typically more water

[2:16:06] in the spring, but then we hit these periods where things just dry out and those of you who have

[2:16:11] been working your land know the amount of moisture that comes out of the soil in very short periods

[2:16:17] of time is astounding, the level of diminished water in our streams increases very rapidly.

[2:16:24] And so it's good that Charlie's got all that data in there, and all those relationships

[2:16:31] built in with the organizations that are going to manage this because I can just see there

[2:16:36] being a point where we hit one of these flash droughts, and now the nuclear plant doesn't

[2:16:42] have sufficient water, or it's overheating the water, it's letting out into the streams.

[2:16:46] And so it has to shut down at the same times the data centers now may not have enough water

[2:16:52] So they're going to turn up their compressors and pumps, which is going to require more energy

[2:16:56] But the nuclear plants shutting down and of course you've got ADM that has all their water needs and their process is good slow down

[2:17:04] So I just think it's extremely important that wood Charlie's done is built upon over time so we can manage these kinds of events going forward

[2:17:14] Thank you very much.

[2:17:16] Thank you.

[2:17:22] Is there anyone else who want to make public comment on this topic?

[2:17:32] Okay, saying no additional public comment, we will close public comment.

[2:17:37] Charlie, I think we had a few questions maybe.

[2:17:53] I know that one of the concerns was whether or not the county was going to be putting any

[2:17:58] like financial benefits, while it does say that that's a possibility this does not in any

[2:18:04] and we guarantee that, correct?

[2:18:06] No, and that would be a decision for the Board of Supervisors

[2:18:09] to make.

[2:18:09] It was pointed out that the City of Cedar Rapids

[2:18:11] has given a 70% tax abatement to the Google Data Center

[2:18:15] project.

[2:18:16] The national conversation has turned such

[2:18:20] that giving tax incentives to data centers

[2:18:24] is being seen as something that is not really

[2:18:26] necessary for their business model.

[2:18:28] So I'm not sure what the Board of Supervisors will choose

[2:18:31] to do at that point, but I think it's

[2:18:32] a very valid concern and point people are bringing up

[2:18:36] of why would a large company need property tax incentives

[2:18:40] from either a local county or a local city.

[2:18:42] So that will be a question that is addressed

[2:18:44] by the sort of supervisors, but it's not prescribing

[2:18:47] or code what tax incentives have to look like

[2:18:49] or what they should not be.

[2:18:52] With the consultants and stuff that y'all got,

[2:18:57] and Mr. just more for my curiosity, do they give an estimate

[2:19:00] of what they thought of property tax like influx would be

[2:19:03] If data centers are built, like for data center, for megawatt, anything like that.

[2:19:07] Do you mean like as the benefit to the county?

[2:19:09] Correct, yeah, to the county.

[2:19:12] They did not.

[2:19:13] We can estimate it by looking at the buildings being constructed and cedar outfits right

[2:19:18] now.

[2:19:20] And they don't have final numbers in its all preliminary, but we're talking about facilities

[2:19:25] that will be one of the largest taxpayers in the city or in the county if they're constructed

[2:19:30] in the county.

[2:19:30] It would be very large property tax bills.

[2:19:34] Thank you.

[2:19:36] There was a question about if there would be review of additions, like if they were going to build additional things.

[2:19:41] I feel like it was in the ordinance, but I can't remember.

[2:19:44] Yes, so data centers are typically built in phases.

[2:19:48] So a developer will apply for a site to build anywhere between five to seven buildings.

[2:19:55] that would be the rezoning would approve a package for a phased type. So the

[2:20:03] zoning approval would happen once for a multi-phase site information like

[2:20:08] water usage would come in on a per building basis as the buildings get

[2:20:12] constructed. So the way our code is set up right now is that zoning approval

[2:20:16] rezoning is needed for the site itself but the rezoning is not needed for every

[2:20:21] additional building. But those other assessments would be done for each additional building.

[2:20:26] Yes. Meaning electrical and water and those kind of things.

[2:20:32] Can you remind the additional

[2:20:34] uses, approved uses? Can we go back to that side? I just want to review them again because I did

[2:20:38] come up as well.

[2:20:45] And again, the battery energy storage system has other policies, our code. Yes.

[2:20:52] for Win County already, and as well as solar raise.

[2:20:59] If it's a solar array just for the site, it wouldn't go under our utility scale solar

[2:21:04] regulations.

[2:21:04] They would be treated as an accessory solar project.

[2:21:07] These are a list of uses that are typically seen within data center developments.

[2:21:13] So a data center campus contains the building itself, but then has a lot of support infrastructure.

[2:21:17] So, electrical substations, power distribution equipment are often part of those projects.

[2:21:25] Water treatment and recycling facilities are also commonly part of those projects.

[2:21:29] So the list of accessory uses are things that you would typically find within a data

[2:21:33] setter campus.

[2:21:42] If there were concerns, either, let's say, like, even for the sound, right?

[2:21:46] There's every five years there's going to be an assessment done for sound, but what if

[2:21:50] were complaint in the middle of that period,

[2:21:53] like how would I make a complaint and what would happen?

[2:21:57] So if there was a complaint,

[2:21:59] the zoning department would look into it and verify

[2:22:02] if there were for grounds to require a sound assessment

[2:22:06] to be done before that five year period,

[2:22:08] we would probably use kind of ad hoc measurement equipment

[2:22:11] to establish is this close enough that there's a possibility

[2:22:15] that evaluating the sound regulations and if it is,

[2:22:17] then we would require that test to be done

[2:22:19] before the five-year period.

[2:22:21] And so the sound is a specific issue.

[2:22:23] But if any of the things, and if there were concerns

[2:22:26] about any of the things that the data center

[2:22:28] is supposed to be following, those

[2:22:29] could also be followed upon at any point.

[2:22:32] Yes.

[2:22:36] Charlie, this is Diane.

[2:22:38] When you talk about the large scale,

[2:22:41] what's the footprint size of that?

[2:22:45] I'm listening to some of the comments about land

[2:22:51] in our availability land and so one I think about how many of these data centers are coming

[2:22:59] to Iowa and why that's one thing I think about. I think we make it easy for them and

[2:23:06] two, what's the footprint? I'd like to kind of get a wrap my head around that.

[2:23:12] Yes, so the footprint ranges in size. If we again look at the Cedar Rapids project, you

[2:23:16] you know, Google's buildings range from 250,000 square feet

[2:23:22] to 350,000 square feet per building.

[2:23:25] QTS' buildings are more like 1 million square feet per building.

[2:23:28] So it depends on who is developing them.

[2:23:31] And there is a pretty wide range of 250,000 square feet

[2:23:34] to a million square feet per building.

[2:23:38] And how many buildings do they, when we look at what's already

[2:23:42] been built, how many buildings do they put on a campus?

[2:23:45] Do you have an average number typically is between four and seven so they will commit to building one to two buildings for sure

[2:23:54] But then they will plan to build between four and seven if if the operations go smoothly and they're able to keep

[2:24:00] Constructing one building after the other

[2:24:04] Is there a reason why they can't build upward instead of?

[2:24:09] You know vertically instead of taking up all the land that they take up is there a reason why they don't do that?

[2:24:16] I would imagine if we were in New York City, they would build up for it here in Iowa, it seems like people want to build laterally.

[2:24:26] Yeah, it's just the cost. If you go up, then you need more support for the additional floors and it becomes more expensive, the taller you make the buildings. It's cheaper to build single-story larger buildings.

[2:24:39] things. Generally, data centers have like false floors. If a condition that blows up,

[2:24:43] if you build up, it's going to be really hot. And it's going to even hotter and it's

[2:24:46] going to use more water, generally.

[2:24:51] Other questions from commission members?

[2:24:56] Charlie, do you know does the city have any kind of decommissioning plan for any of the data

[2:25:01] center buildings that are going up in the city? Is there, there's nothing in your ordinance

[2:25:05] about decommissioning, is there?

[2:25:07] Right on both counts. So the city does not have any decommissioning plan requirements and

[2:25:10] and we are not proposing a decommissioning plan requirement for this ordinance.

[2:25:18] Why not?

[2:25:21] It's not something that we typically require for commercial or industrial uses.

[2:25:28] We do require them for the solar projects and the wind projects because of the scale of

[2:25:34] those projects.

[2:25:35] I have heard arguments that decommissioning plans should be part of the requirement for data

[2:25:41] centers moving forward.

[2:25:44] but there's not a concern either among the planning practice or the data

[2:25:48] setter industry that when these buildings reach their end of useful life

[2:25:53] that they won't be repurposed for something else. There's just not that

[2:25:58] concern right now that this is something that is going to be a vacant warehouse

[2:26:03] basically when it gets to its end of life. It's going to be useful and it's going to

[2:26:06] always have some sort of purpose.

[2:26:10] That's why we're not proposing it today.

[2:26:12] I

[2:26:16] know when we talked about this before water and electricity obviously we're

[2:26:19] big concern so I do appreciate the regular data collection and making that

[2:26:24] public to the public because while the county may not be able to make

[2:26:28] decisions about limiting the water if it's public information then at least the

[2:26:33] public can have an opinion on that so I do appreciate having that very clearly

[2:26:38] delineated and

[2:26:45] it's closing comment I do want to validate the concerns of people who

[2:26:48] have spoken so far, that there are valid concerns around water usage, power usage, just the

[2:26:52] impact of these facilities on the community. And when a, when an if the county does give

[2:26:58] a proposal to rezone land for a data center project, voting no on the proposal is an option

[2:27:04] that the Board of Supervisors can take. What we are trying to do with this code is provide

[2:27:08] the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors with as much information as possible on any future

[2:27:13] your potential project to make that call of,

[2:27:15] is this a good decision for our community, or is it not?

[2:27:19] One lesson that we did learn from other communities

[2:27:22] was you want to have approval authority over these sites.

[2:27:26] You do not want them to be allowed by right.

[2:27:28] So a lot of the counties in Virginia had data centers

[2:27:30] as allowed by right in certain zoning districts.

[2:27:34] So they were popping up without any board of supervisors

[2:27:37] oversight or input from the public.

[2:27:40] And now that's changing and people are shifting towards having a rezoning model like we're proposing here, I think the important part is that for every data center project that is proposed, there is public scrutiny on it, there is a public process where these projects are discussed and evaluated in public and then the elected officials make the decision based on the public comment and the information they have.

[2:28:01] Oh,

[2:28:08] sorry, I appreciate you and your team the work that you did and the information that you gathered, I really appreciate that, sharing that with us.

[2:28:19] Okay, any other questions from commission members?

[2:28:25] Okay, now is there a motion regarding ordinance amendment case number PA26-001?

[2:28:35] Can you go to the choices or options?

[2:28:38] So,

[2:28:46] again, our options are basically the same, approve based on what it is at, approve with some proposed changes, deny it, or send it back for review if we have specific things that staff.

[2:29:00] We want staff to review on and modify.

[2:29:10] I would make the motion to approve the proposed amendments, no changes to draft ordinance.

[2:29:15] Okay, and we have a motion on the floor to approve.

[2:29:17] Do we have a question that would you also approve or recommend approval of the two changes

[2:29:22] I mentioned of removing the language excluding diesel generators and the power plan requirements

[2:29:28] to the building.

[2:29:29] So then the only issue number two.

[2:29:32] Yeah, if you're okay with doing that.

[2:29:34] So I will change my motion to approve the proposed amendments with changes to the draft ordinance.

[2:29:39] Thank you, Chair.

[2:29:40] As presented at this meeting.

[2:29:42] Yes.

[2:29:43] Do we have a second?

[2:29:45] I'll second.

[2:29:47] Okay.

[2:29:47] Any further discussion by commission members?

[2:29:53] I would just like to say I think this is a great first step.

[2:29:56] And as we've seen with other ordinances we've done, if it needs to be revised, they'll be...

[2:30:00] Revision, so it is a work in progress always, I think.

[2:30:07] Any other discussion by commission members?

[2:30:12] Can we have a roll call vote by the secretary, please?

[2:30:16] Crats, Aye.

[2:30:19] Du Bois, Aye. Sadler, Aye.

[2:30:24] Kunz, Aye. Brecht.

[2:30:34] Up next is case number PA-266-0002, ordinance amendment, gas electric generating facility

[2:30:40] presentation by SAF, Charlie Nichols.

[2:30:42] All right, last item here, the people in the back, you want to move forward, you can, or

[2:30:47] you can just stay back there, whatever you want.

[2:30:50] Come on up to the front.

[2:30:51] Yeah.

[2:30:52] So we're on PA26002, another tech amendment this time for gas-fired electric-generating

[2:30:59] facilities.

[2:31:00] A brief background, what is an electric-generating facility, it produces electricity for

[2:31:04] off-site distribution using the combustion of natural gas and turbines for reciprocating

[2:31:09] engines, these facilities typically include tall stacks, cooling systems, emission controls

[2:31:14] equipment, and electrical interconnection infrastructure, and they're designed for

[2:31:18] continuous operation over multi-decade lifespans. This photo here is a picture of

[2:31:23] Alliance Energy's natural gas plant in Marshalltown, Iowa. You can see the

[2:31:27] stacks and generally this is what gas power plants look like.

[2:31:38] So why are we

[2:31:39] line energy proposed constructing a gas fire facility within the city of Fairfax.

[2:31:43] That proposal prompted significant public interest, including concerns on land use, compatibility,

[2:31:49] proximity to population, infrastructure impacts and community impacts, and following this concern

[2:31:54] in this interest, a line expanded its site selection for other properties, including properties

[2:31:59] within Lynn County.

[2:32:02] Some more background on this.

[2:32:04] There were concerns over the Fairfax location within the airport hazard area that the stacks

[2:32:10] And the steam emitted from the stacks could cause conflicts with approaching airplanes or future expansions of runways at the eastern Iowa airport.

[2:32:21] We also have, so our current regulations for gas fire electric generating facilities require conditional use permits.

[2:32:28] So there's no specific standards for these facilities that they are allowed with conditional use permits in agricultural zoning areas.

[2:32:34] Today, we are proposing adding those into the exclusive use to district that was created

[2:32:39] for nuclear power uses.

[2:32:41] And finally, on the background, the public health department has a big role to play in

[2:32:44] permitting these facilities.

[2:32:46] A topic of discussion during the Fairfax meetings was air quality and emissions.

[2:32:51] The public health department issues permits on air quality and emissions for these facilities

[2:32:55] to make sure they are staying below allowable standards on a community-wide basis, not just

[2:33:00] a site-specific basis.

[2:33:05] We've had some public comment on this before this meeting, so we've had public comments supporting this project and alliance, investment, and energy investment in our community.

[2:33:14] We've had public comment over our proposed setback. I will get into that in the ordinance that we are proposing a very large setback from population centers and we've had comment over that would make it hard to build these facilities.

[2:33:25] And there's also just a general public comment about concerns on air quality and health,

[2:33:30] noise and quality of life impacts, airport safety and compatibility concerns.

[2:33:35] And then we've also had public comment on the economic and tax benefits that a natural gas power plant would bring to the community.

[2:33:45] So getting into the ordinance amendments, the purpose and intent here is to establish clear land use standards for gas fired electric generating facilities that reflect their scale.

[2:33:54] protect public health safety and welfare through planning level tools like setbacks and noise standards and

[2:34:00] Provide a predictable and transparent framework that supports responsible energy investment while aligning with the county's comprehensive plan

[2:34:09] A couple definitions to get started airport hazard area when I talk about that

[2:34:14] That means any land any area of land or water or space above it lying within the approach transitional horizontal

[2:34:19] or chemical surfaces as defined and adopted,

[2:34:22] airport hazard zoning ordinance applicable

[2:34:25] for a publicly controlled airport.

[2:34:27] So that's an important part.

[2:34:28] It doesn't apply to private airports.

[2:34:30] It is only for public airports.

[2:34:32] A population center means the corporate limits

[2:34:34] of an incorporated city or any U.S. census

[2:34:37] defined urban area.

[2:34:38] And then a publicly controlled airport means

[2:34:40] an airport or under controlled by municipality.

[2:34:43] The Eastern Iowa Airport qualifies

[2:34:45] as the publicly owned airport.

[2:34:46] The Merian Airport does not because it was sold

[2:34:48] to a private owner in the city of Marion no longer has involvement with that report.

[2:34:55] So what we are proposing is adding in gas-fired electrical generating facilities as a permitted

[2:35:00] use in the exclusive use to zoning district that was created for nuclear power generating

[2:35:04] facilities.

[2:35:06] So with this change, the principal permitted uses in this zoning district would be nuclear

[2:35:10] energy generation facilities, nuclear waste storage facilities, and gas-fired electric generating

[2:35:15] facilities.

[2:35:16] is we're also proposing a few new accessory uses,

[2:35:19] interconnection and metering stations,

[2:35:21] onsite substations, water intake and outfall structures,

[2:35:24] onsite water treatment, and then cooling towers

[2:35:26] or air cooled towers would all be allowed

[2:35:28] accessory uses in this district.

[2:35:32] Site and structure requirements.

[2:35:34] So we are proposing 200 foot front rear side

[2:35:38] and corner yard setbacks.

[2:35:39] We are also proposing a setback to dwellings

[2:35:41] in places of public assembly of a thousand feet

[2:35:44] measured from the closest outer wall at the facility

[2:35:46] to the closest point of the dwelling or place of public assembly.

[2:35:50] And the definition of the public assembly place follows what we had for data centers.

[2:35:56] Setbacks can be reduced to zero and property but another property used for the same use.

[2:36:01] So if a developer controlled multiple parcels but they were all used for the gas power plant,

[2:36:06] the setbacks could be reduced to zero in between those parcels.

[2:36:10] Setbacks can also be reduced to zero where an intake or outfall structure or utility connection

[2:36:14] and or other infrastructure components

[2:36:16] to be located at or near the property boundary.

[2:36:22] And this is the last part of our setback

[2:36:23] and the one we have received public comment on.

[2:36:26] Gas-fired electric generating facilities,

[2:36:28] we are proposing a 2.25 mile setback

[2:36:31] to any residential zoning district

[2:36:33] within a population center.

[2:36:35] As determined under this subsection,

[2:36:38] a population center means the corporate limits

[2:36:39] of any incorporated city

[2:36:41] or US census defined urban area.

[2:36:43] For our county, this just means a corporate city.

[2:36:47] So we are proposing a setback from the point of emission of a gas power plant so where the stacks are to residential zoning within any incorporated city of 2.25 miles.

[2:36:57] This is a very large setback, this is a conservative way to try and balance health safety and welfare concerns that did come up in public meetings in the city of Fairfax and that have been discussed in public meetings with the board of supervisors.

[2:37:13] It's a conservative starting point to try and balance those competing concerns here.

[2:37:22] Any questions on the setbacks before I move on?

[2:37:24] And I'm sure we'll have some public comment on this, too.

[2:37:27] Yes.

[2:37:27] If we were to, have you taken a map of the county to determine locations where it would

[2:37:34] not be allowed based on 2.25 miles?

[2:37:38] We have.

[2:37:39] And I do have a map I can share.

[2:37:41] here, it is 90% accurate.

[2:37:47] Stephanie, can you unhide that map?

[2:37:49] So what we've done here is we took a map of all of the

[2:37:52] incorporated cities in Lynn County, and then we put a 2.25

[2:37:56] mile buffer around those limits.

[2:37:58] It's important to know that our setback is not just from the

[2:38:00] city limits.

[2:38:01] It's from residential zoning within the city.

[2:38:03] So for many of these cities, the zoning around the edges is

[2:38:06] not residential.

[2:38:07] It's agricultural.

[2:38:08] So these buffers the the buildable areas actually a bit more than what is shown on this map

[2:38:14] There's a little over half of Lynn County is still buildable with for gas fire power plants with the 2.25 miles that back

[2:38:22] I think it's also important to note that these facilities can also still be built within city limits if a city has a zoning code for these and is willing to

[2:38:31] approve

[2:38:31] projects in city limits. So we're not trying to prohibit gas fire

[2:38:36] electric generating facilities from being built. They could still be

[2:38:39] located within Rural Lib County and they can also still be located within

[2:38:43] city limits where cities have utility infrastructure and services designed to

[2:38:47] support larger industrial uses.

[2:38:54] And I if I understood correctly you said that

[2:38:55] approximately 50% of the county foot parenthesis still available, is that what

[2:38:59] you said? Yes and granted you can these structures need to be located along

[2:39:04] transmission lines so not all of the county is eligible for construction of

[2:39:08] these but the the two point sometimes large setbacks are meant to kill projects

[2:39:13] this large setback is not meant to kill the project it is meant to try and

[2:39:17] address public concerns related to health or other negative impacts from these

[2:39:22] facilities.

[2:39:27] I feel like you did that map because you know I was gonna ask.

[2:39:31] We have to say no a couple of meetings I got questions. Yeah it helps

[2:39:36] We'll also illustrate though, just where these can be bills and where they couldn't be, and also it would be more difficult to locate these facilities in Lynn County with the setback.

[2:39:48] We're also proposing language on airport hazard area approval.

[2:39:52] If a project is proposed within an airport hazard area, we would require written approval from the airport authority confirming compatibility with airport operation.

[2:40:02] So we're not saying you can't build these facilities within airport hazard areas, we're saying if you would like to,

[2:40:07] You need to coordinate with whatever airport is impacted and get a statement from them saying that this is compatible with their

[2:40:14] Hazard planning area would one be able to even be built in that hazard area with that setback

[2:40:24] Probably not for the eastern Iowa airport right that's what I'm getting that okay

[2:40:29] Other

[2:40:32] requirements for an application to rezone to this is a application form and fee

[2:40:37] demonstrating notice to the Utilities Commission that the local approval process has been initiated.

[2:40:42] We're also asking for an economic development plan stating how much how many jobs will be created

[2:40:47] during construction and during permanent operation, how much money will be invested in the project and

[2:40:52] then a general estimate of property taxes that would be paid. We're also asking for a host community

[2:40:58] agreement. This is part of the EU2 zoning district that was initially established for nuclear power

[2:41:03] plans. This would be an annual fee that helps cover county services needed for

[2:41:09] accommodating a natural gas power plant. And then we'd also ask for a major site plan that lays out where

[2:41:15] buildings will be and where other support structures would be on the site.

[2:41:24] We're also putting in noise standards and these match the data center noise standards.

[2:41:28] We thought they were applicable for gas power plants as well.

[2:41:32] that we are looking at a limit of 55 of DBA or 65 DBC for

[2:41:38] residential zone property adjacent to these facilities.

[2:41:40] If the property is not residential zone, then those limits again increase to 65.

[2:41:45] DBA or 75 DBC, there's limits on generator testing and

[2:41:50] maintenance or other elevated noise activities to weekday times and hours.

[2:41:55] We also do allow limited exceedance of the noise limits for short term uncontrollable events,

[2:42:00] such as severe wind storms or critical maintenance activities.

[2:42:04] An example was brought to our attention

[2:42:05] and where if a plant goes down in the middle of the night,

[2:42:08] you're going to need a repair and that could be noisy.

[2:42:11] So there is some exceptions there

[2:42:12] for those critical maintenance activities.

[2:42:15] Again, going back to the data center ordinance,

[2:42:18] this would require independent professional noise studies

[2:42:21] both before and after construction

[2:42:22] and then ongoing evaluations every five years.

[2:42:26] With, again, the option that adjacent property

[2:42:29] and ours could voluntarily agree to higher noise limits.

[2:42:35] We've also inserted a language about avoidance and damages, avoidance and mitigation of damages

[2:42:40] to public infrastructure, requiring a road use agreement with the secondary road department

[2:42:44] doing a roadway condition before construction starts, having a financial insurance in place

[2:42:49] and then doing post-construction roadway condition surveys and repairing any damage to roads or culverts

[2:42:55] that happens as part of that construction.

[2:42:56] The

[2:43:00] staff does believe adding this to an exclusive use district and adding in these requirements

[2:43:05] is that in alignment with the comprehensive plan, we believe that it aligns with the

[2:43:09] plan's guidance to separate incompatible land uses, using setbacks and buffers to protect

[2:43:14] residential areas, community facilities, and population centers while preserving that flexibility

[2:43:18] in rural areas.

[2:43:20] staff also believes it aligns with the plan's hazard planning guiding principle to proactively

[2:43:24] reduce risk to health, safety, and property and lower demand for emergency response.

[2:43:29] We believe it aligns with economic development and employment goals by providing a clear and predictable framework for major employers and

[2:43:37] We also believe it supports public infrastructure and utility planning by requiring coordination with utilities

[2:43:42] so this was

[2:43:44] shorter than the data center presentation and that's because we're not creating an entirely new district

[2:43:49] We're proposing adding in this use to an existing exclusive use to zoning district the main changes here are

[2:43:56] We're adding in some noise standards and we are adding in airport hazard approval and then setbacks from population centers

[2:44:06] Any questions on

[2:44:08] The proposal to add these facilities to the EU to zoning district

[2:44:11] I

[2:44:16] didn't I might not have taken a big picture to figure out where it is, but

[2:44:19] H has an airport hazard area approval and then I has the application, but in that I

[2:44:27] It doesn't say anything about this type of facility

[2:44:29] I wonder if it was an oversight.

[2:44:32] It only says like the Nuclear Facility and Nuclear Waste Storage Facility.

[2:44:39] Sorry, that's real specific, but I've read the whole thing.

[2:44:43] No, that's a great point here.

[2:44:45] So this is referring to applications for nuclear facilities, where you have nuclear facility

[2:44:50] and a nuclear waste storage facility being cited at the same time.

[2:44:54] And it's specifying that if that is occurring, that separate application is required for both

[2:45:00] The waste storage facility and the power generation facility. So it's not relevant to this part. It is not relevant to this. Just wanted to double check. Good question.

[2:45:12] Other questions from commission members before we do public comment.

[2:45:18] So Charlie, consider this possibly ends up on the border between Lynn County and other county. Have you had any feedback from any of the contiguous counties? We have not. Have you reached out to any of them? We have not.

[2:45:32] Until we have a proposal for an actual site, we won't do any of our publications or mailings to surrounding property owners.

[2:45:40] So the other question I had was with the setbacks.

[2:45:44] If a developer, so this thing gets built in a two and a quarter mile setbacks.

[2:45:50] And if a developer violates those setbacks developing into that setback, that's no harm done to the utility or the facility, correct?

[2:46:00] You mean they develop after after the fact to spill and then they build into that

[2:46:05] two and a quarter mile so help me understand what you're saying so they build

[2:46:10] the facility is where it's supposed to be but then the the city grows and they're

[2:46:16] now less than two and a quarter miles away that would not be a violation of zoning

[2:46:20] code it would be considered conforming at the time it's constructed and that

[2:46:25] that does happen even with normal setbacks you'll have growth and something

[2:46:28] that metaceptic at one point in time might not meet at 10 years later that is still considered

[2:46:34] a legal non-conforming use that it meets the metaceptic at the time so it is considered legal basically.

[2:46:42] But yeah, good question.

[2:46:45] Yeah, because that's the opposite of the CAFOs, like we can't build some

[2:46:50] things too close to those, right? Yeah. Where did the 2.25 miles come from? Like that specific number?

[2:46:57] Yeah, so that is a very conservative number based on concerns we heard from public meetings and Fairfax.

[2:47:05] It also came from discussions with supervisors in public meetings going over the gas-fired power plant.

[2:47:12] The 2.25 number specifically was brought up by a supervisor during a meeting.

[2:47:17] This is a number that they were comfortable with and felt like could adequately address public concerns for these facilities.

[2:47:27] is for zoning one of our primary tools

[2:47:29] for trying to mitigate negative impacts is setbacks.

[2:47:33] So it is a very large setback,

[2:47:36] but there are high emotions around these type of projects.

[2:47:42] Well, and there's good research on the impacts

[2:47:44] that it can have, potentially, too.

[2:47:49] Okay, any other questions from commission members?

[2:47:56] Hey, at this time, I will open the floor for public comment.

[2:47:59] Does anyone want to make public comment

[2:48:00] And then on case number PA26-002, ordnance amendment gas electric generating facility.

[2:48:09] Before, this is all fine, the 2.25 is not fine.

[2:48:14] It is wildly inappropriate.

[2:48:17] In fact, I would go so far as to say when you look at all of unincorporated Len County,

[2:48:23] the bulk of the data center construction will be from 100 west.

[2:48:30] So that 50% probably, frankly, over states the damage that will be done to natural gas-fired power generation.

[2:48:42] And the harm it will do to Lynn County in the data center development world.

[2:48:48] My own view on where the 2.25 came from is one supervisor who didn't want power production being south of 30.

[2:48:56] There's a natural gas pipeline that is miraculously 2.25 miles from the city limits of

[2:49:06] Earth Hacks. I don't think that came out of the air. It's just too high. The rest

[2:49:13] of it's fine. And I would suggest that rather than having a 2.25 mile hard line,

[2:49:21] you have

[2:49:25] example when I rose before of behind the meter as the phrase is used, power production

[2:49:32] meaning the data center sits here and the natural gas fired power plant is part of it.

[2:49:39] You were literally going to shift where the data centers go.

[2:49:43] So at least the next age to 10 years.

[2:49:46] So again, I think this is all fine.

[2:49:48] The 2.25 is arbitrary, it's capricious, and it's unnecessary.

[2:49:53] Sure.

[2:50:09] Good evening, my name is Matt Cole.

[2:50:11] I'm an Assistant Vice President with Alliant Energy.

[2:50:14] My address is 200 First Street, Southeast and Cedar Rapids.

[2:50:19] Thank you members of the Lynn County Planning and Zoning

[2:50:21] Commission for your time,

[2:50:23] and thoughtful attention that you devoted to this ordinance.

[2:50:26] At Alliant Energy, we believe we share a common goal

[2:50:29] with Lynn County.

[2:50:30] Turing that residents and businesses have access to reliable,

[2:50:34] cost effective energy that can support the economic momentum,

[2:50:37] this region counts on. Our foremost commitment is and always will be to

[2:50:44] customers. Every decision we make, we prioritize their needs, whether related

[2:50:50] to affordability, reliability, or supporting continued community growth. This is

[2:50:56] why we recognize the importance of an ordinance that responsibly outlines

[2:51:00] setbacks for future generation facilities.

[2:51:05] For context, typical setbacks for

[2:51:07] gas fire generating facilities are generally much less restrictive. These facilities operate

[2:51:12] under stringent oversight from local, state, and federal agencies such as the Iowa Department

[2:51:18] of Natural Resources, Lynn County Public Health Department, and the EPA. These agencies regulate

[2:51:25] emissions in public health standards, and a line of energy has a strong record of meeting

[2:51:30] these requirements. Our facilities use proven highly efficient technologies with advanced

[2:51:36] emissions controls because we take seriously our responsibility to the communities that we serve.

[2:51:43] We are supportive of future conversations as Lynn County considers future generation projects

[2:51:49] and we support the proposal ahead of you this evening. However, we respectfully disagree

[2:51:55] with the proposed 2.25 mile setback distance. While we can still move forward with new generation

[2:52:01] plans with the proposed setback in place, the rationale for this decision and this distance

[2:52:07] as we understand it appears to be tied to emissions considerations. Yet those factors

[2:52:13] are already closely regulated by local, state, and federal agencies with the authority and expertise

[2:52:20] to set those standards. The actions of these agencies when reviewing permanent applications

[2:52:25] conditions for new sources that potentially have air quality impacts are designed to

[2:52:31] ensure that public health and welfare is protected.

[2:52:35] The proposed setback is beyond the established norms and could unnecessarily limit our ability

[2:52:40] to cite essential generation resources needed for resiliency, affordability, and long-term

[2:52:46] system reliability.

[2:52:49] New setbacks, requirements extend far beyond those established by the EPA.

[2:52:54] Iowa DNR and Lin County Public Health Department do not increase protections for surrounding communities.

[2:53:02] Instead, they introduce unnecessary barriers at a time when energy needs and regional growth require flexibility and thoughtful planning.

[2:53:11] Reliable energy is foundational to Lin County's continuous growth and vibrancy.

[2:53:17] Siding and designing and building these facilities requires a rigorous multi-layered regulatory process.

[2:53:22] One that ensures safety and environmental responsibilities every step of the way.

[2:53:28] We value our long-standing partnership with Lynn County and we appreciate the opportunity

[2:53:33] to be part of this open dialogue.

[2:53:35] Thank you for your time, your service and your consideration as we work together to support

[2:53:40] a strong, vibrant future for the region.

[2:53:43] We look forward to continuing collaboration as discussions on this ordinance move toward.

[2:53:48] Thank you.

[2:53:49] Thank you.

[2:53:55] Anyone else want to speak on this?

[2:53:59] John's the classic 531 Laundale Drive Southeast in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

[2:54:06] So I've been working a very long time to address emissions that are causing global warming and messing up our climate.

[2:54:16] So to see that we're now in a situation with these data centers that consume so much energy that we're going to have to put an additional gas fired plant in place is very upsetting.

[2:54:27] You may be aware that Lynn County has a climate resolution in place that says we're going to be net zero by 2050.

[2:54:35] So building a gas-fired power plant, which obviously typically operates for 40 years plus,

[2:54:42] now means that we're going to have an additional amount of emissions that we're going to have to offset.

[2:54:49] I don't know what we're going to do about that.

[2:54:51] But there aren't a lot of ways to provide 24 by 7 power to a data center without using something like nuclear power or fossil fuel.

[2:55:01] But I am hopeful that small modular nuclear reactors may be able to take the place of these gas fired power plants that generates so much in the way of emissions.

[2:55:11] Gas-fired power plants generate less emissions by 50% and coal, but there's an issue with acquiring, transporting natural gas and using it, their leakage that occurs along the way, and there are papers out there that indicate methane being such a powerful emission that traps heat.

[2:55:34] Sometimes, natural gas plants end up with all that other leakage of methane being more

[2:55:41] pronounced than coal in terms of the heating effect on our environment.

[2:55:46] So I just wanted to bring that up.

[2:55:47] I know that's not something that this group has to deal with, but we're going to have to

[2:55:53] figure out how to handle this at some point.

[2:55:55] You know, it's exploding in our face.

[2:55:57] So the other point I did want to make, I also agree with the fact that in the future it's very likely these data centers are going to need on-site power.

[2:56:08] So perhaps EU2, the exclusive use 2, could actually incorporate as another allowed use EU3, which is the data center.

[2:56:20] because they're very similar in the way they're structured and it does make a lot of sense to me to eventually have those two components in the same place.

[2:56:30] Data center and their power source on site, it's what they have to do with their diesel generators.

[2:56:36] They have to have the power, the diesel right there on site because if transmission goes down or distribution or they lose power from the grid,

[2:56:45] They've got to be able to continue those powers.

[2:56:48] As you said, with the service level agreements that they have in place.

[2:56:51] And many of these data centers also have to be able to back up their data.

[2:56:56] So if they lose power, they get themselves into a really critical situation.

[2:57:00] Thank you for listening to me.

[2:57:02] Thank you.

[2:57:10] Anyone else want to make public comment on this agenda item?

[2:57:19] Final call?

[2:57:22] Okay, saying no other public comment.

[2:57:24] We will put close public comment

[2:57:30] Any other discussion by commission members

[2:57:34] Or any questions for Charlie to me personally I

[2:57:38] If we're looking at I mean we just change it but

[2:57:42] Recommendations standpoint to me it strikes me as for and to develop like a non arbitrary setback

[2:57:50] That's that's the reason we don't agree very often, but I'm 100%

[2:57:58] I agree. It's arbitrary. Yeah. I do have one comment on that setback. So there was some preliminary

[2:58:05] pollutant emission modeling information shared with county staff

[2:58:10] early on that showed the radius of impact from pollutants from a gas fired power facility being

[2:58:15] at about 2.22 miles. That also helped inform the 2.25 miles setback. We do have a lot of very qualified

[2:58:23] but alliance staff in the room, so maybe one of them could explain the radius of impact

[2:58:28] for pollutants and how that interacts with distance, because the 2.25 miles was also

[2:58:34] based on the radius of impact.

[2:58:37] I guess what I would like to see is some actual data, like some information about what

[2:58:41] our typical setbacks, what does the research show about the impacts?

[2:58:46] I'm not thrilled about a natural gas plant, I mean truly I would much rather see the data

[2:58:51] centers have solar on top of the entire thing because it's a huge footprint

[2:58:55] anyway. But if we're going to do it I think it should still be database as in

[2:59:01] like information data. Do we have any information from the Department of

[2:59:05] Public Health on what they would recommend?

[2:59:09] We don't. So every project is site

[2:59:13] specific and they do their modeling based on where the project's located, the

[2:59:18] the height of the stacks, how big the facility is, so they don't have a baseline or general

[2:59:23] recommendation of how best to cite these facilities.

[2:59:27] So is that a situation where maybe the height of the stack would then be able to reduce

[2:59:33] that setback distance?

[2:59:36] The height of the stack definitely would influence how far the pollutants disperse.

[2:59:43] I would recommend against putting formulas trying to calculate a pollutant dispersion over

[2:59:51] time into zoning code because that is really the purview of the public health department.

[2:59:57] The setback is more of a general tool trying to-

[3:00:00] To manage those impacts with distance, but it's not meant to be fine to link to a specific formula. Good question. We do have a public health staff person in the audience to have specific questions about their permitting process for these facilities. I would love to have some information on their permitting process for these facilities.

[3:00:28] Did you know you were going to be put on the spot?

[3:00:29] Good

[3:00:33] evening. I'm Wanda Ryder-Kins. I'm the air quality branch supervisor. So I have met

[3:00:41] with Charley's group. A couple things about our branch. We are part of public health, as was

[3:00:47] mentioned. We are only one of two local programs in the state of Iowa. Polk County is the other.

[3:00:52] They are part of public works. We have three separate sections within our branch. We have our permitting

[3:01:01] section we have complaints and enforcement and we also have our ambient air monitoring

[3:01:06] groups. So they all work together to make sure that we maintain our federal standards.

[3:01:15] One of the reasons when Charlie has talked to me and my staff with regards to this setback

[3:01:22] air quality data cannot technically be used for this information. The reason being is because

[3:01:30] of Senate file 558 in Iowa administrative code where local regulations for air quality

[3:01:38] cannot be more strict than the state of Iowa. So a couple of years ago that would have

[3:01:44] been fine but it was in 2023 I believe where this was put into Iowa administrative code

[3:01:52] sort of at the last minute and as a result our local regulations cannot be more strict than

[3:01:59] in the state so we have to be consistent with state

[3:02:02] and federal regulations.

[3:02:04] The size of this particular power plant,

[3:02:07] it's a very, very complicated permitting

[3:02:10] and modeling process.

[3:02:12] And as Charlie had mentioned, we typically do not get involved

[3:02:16] until we get an application from alliance consultant.

[3:02:21] We then we would know a lot more information

[3:02:24] about the type of equipment,

[3:02:28] type of control equipment, height of stacks, things like that, and then we can work with

[3:02:33] the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to issue the air quality permit for the facility.

[3:02:43] Thank you.

[3:02:44] Any other questions?

[3:02:49] So, I'm understanding this correctly, like with putting a setback in place before you

[3:02:55] actually have the information is kind of arbitrary, isn't it?

[3:03:03] for air quality.

[3:03:05] For air quality.

[3:03:06] For air quality.

[3:03:08] Yes.

[3:03:08] So any information that we would have for air quality cannot be used in the setback information.

[3:03:16] Again, because we cannot be more strict than the state.

[3:03:20] And what is the state?

[3:03:23] The state doesn't have a setback.

[3:03:25] They have air quality.

[3:03:26] Air quality is only and no, nothing to go off of.

[3:03:30] Yes.

[3:03:30] So we're just kind of throwing a number out there.

[3:03:32] So I guess what I would like to see is like what do other places have that have

[3:03:36] ordinances? What is a normal or you know, setback or what's the range of set

[3:03:41] back?

[3:03:44] I guess that would be where I would start.

[3:03:50] So with that it sounds like the

[3:03:53] commission is kind of in consensus on that. So you could table this and ask us to

[3:03:58] come back next month or you could have a recommendation that if this goes onto the

[3:04:02] Board of Supervisors, that information is looked into and presented to the Board of Supervisors.

[3:04:07] Aren't they the ones who came up with the setback?

[3:04:12] I'm hoping we table it.

[3:04:14] We do have the data.

[3:04:16] I mean, we've looked at other ordinances that are available, so I'm sure that we could

[3:04:21] provide that information.

[3:04:23] But there isn't a lot to go on.

[3:04:25] I don't think there are a lot of examples out there.

[3:04:27] I mean, do we know what, like, the setbacks are for the others that are built?

[3:04:30] like that exists today? Marshall town? Well and you're saying we can't use local

[3:04:36] air quality data but like is there general air quality data about how far

[3:04:42] things travel or you know like?

[3:04:47] We can look at setbacks that are in place for

[3:04:49] other communities. They are more along the lines of the the 200 to 800 foot set

[3:04:53] backs. Big difference. So that's a dramatic difference. They're 800 feet to 2.25

[3:05:01] miles I feel like we're we're at two different ends of the spectrum here you

[3:05:12] know I guess I don't know how anybody else feels about that up here but I would

[3:05:20] love to discuss this another month see where you're going I mean to me I

[3:05:27] whether it's a combination of air quality or what other places have done or what

[3:05:31] exists today? I don't have any interest in hearing what somebody

[3:05:37] pontificated is the right answer. I would like to have some basis personally, but

[3:05:45] that's me.

[3:05:48] I mean there's definitely impacts. I mean that's I don't think

[3:05:53] that's an dispute. It's just a matter of what what is the line. And frankly I'm on

[3:05:59] on the conservative side of this and quality,

[3:06:02] but I, again, would rather have the information.

[3:06:05] And maybe 2.25 is the exact perfect right answer, right?

[3:06:09] But are

[3:06:14] there a more questions for me?

[3:06:16] I don't have a question for you, Charlie.

[3:06:18] I have a comment for John.

[3:06:21] As soon as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves

[3:06:25] the nuclear design that one of the data centers has,

[3:06:28] some of this will all go away.

[3:06:29] additional

[3:06:35] discussion by commission members.

[3:06:41] Do you have anything Diane?

[3:06:47] I do kind of

[3:06:49] agree with what people are saying about 2.5. It seems like a huge variation. I think I would

[3:06:57] like to have a little bit more information than just somebody suggesting that.

[3:07:07] That's my comment.

[3:07:09] Okay, is there a motion regarding ordinance amendment case number PA26-002?

[3:07:17] A motion we table the proposed amendment case and refer draft on its back to staff for

[3:07:23] additional review.

[3:07:24] Specifically of?

[3:07:26] Correct, specifically of the setback.

[3:07:30] Okay, this is Diane.

[3:07:32] I'll second it.

[3:07:33] Okay, we have a first and second.

[3:07:35] Any other discussion by commission members.

[3:07:42] Okay, can we have a vote by our roll call vote by the secretary, please?

[3:07:59] I would also request that if you are looking at other specific distances if you could redo the bubble map,

[3:08:11] redo my map.

[3:08:13] And if we can see where transmission lines are, because that's what I see on the

[3:08:18] Internet.

[3:08:20] Okay, thank you.

[3:08:22] Next thing on our agenda is other business.

[3:08:25] Do we have any other business this evening?

[3:08:29] Nope.

[3:08:29] No.

[3:08:30] Commission comments.

[3:08:31] Any comments by commission members?

[3:08:34] I would thank everybody from the public who's still here and also who already left for participating

[3:08:39] this evening.

[3:08:40] We're at three hours, which may be a semi-record for our meetings, but it's been a good one.

[3:08:47] Any staff comments?

[3:08:49] No.

[3:08:50] Any public comments?

[3:08:52] This is a chance to public comment on any topic.

[3:08:54] It does not have to be on the agenda.

[3:08:59] Okay, seeing no public comments for closed public comments and seeing that there's no other business,

[3:09:02] the meeting is adjourned.

[3:09:03] Thanks for joining us.

[3:09:04] Have a good night.

Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript