Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

We look so similar. They probably choose us if they didn't have the right name. Good in the back. Okay. Good evening everybody. You are at a plan commission for the city of Wasa. It is Tuesday, April 21st, 2026. It is 5:00 p.m. and we're in the council hall chambers. I'll call the meeting to order. First item on the agenda tonight is public comment on agenda items. And we have two signed up for public comment. I would ask uh Arlene Katz to come up.

Thank you. My name is Arlene Katz and I reside at 3020 North 10th Street here in Wasaw and I just have a comment or a question regarding data centers. Since there are so many issues regarding data centers, I was wondering if the city considered creating a temporary task force that would study the issue and maybe study other communities and what they've done or how they've approached the the issue and then made changes to their ordinances. And since it's a temporary, a task force is temporary, they study the issue, they make recommendations to the city, and then they are dissolved. So it it's kind of it's easier than a committee creating a commission. And um my background is I have a master's degree in city planning and public policy. And prior to retiring, I was a city planner for 30 years. So therefore, if you were going to create a task force, I would be honored to be a part of that task force if you would need assistance.

You could send me an email. Oh, okay. And and basically I I would if you when we get down, I would like if you could have discussion whether or not you would even consider a task force or Thank you for the suggestion. We'll put that in we'll put that under the discussion when we get to that point. And if you talk to Michelle over here, she can give you my email address and her email. Thank you. Uh up next we have Tom Kian.

Uh thank you Tom Killian, 133 East Thomas Street. And I just wanted to give a few comments about the public participation draft plan for the comp plan. And I first I want to you know thank the staff in community development and ED for their commitments and efforts to fostering more robust uh resident and citizen involvement. I think that's really commendable and uh what I saw of the draft plan looks really positive. I'd like to bring up just a couple observations that I hope uh will be considered uh positive contributions. And uh in terms of additional feedback mechanisms, the the first request would be for uh additional feedback where city staff schedules and attends at least one meeting of each end toend neighborhood association meeting because I think it's self-evident that if anyone knows a neighborhood best, it's the neighborhood. So as has been described historically in policy and documents, I think the feedback and priorities of the neighborhood should play uh key roles in the planning for those neighborhoods. Secondly, the city has or is undergoing extensive planning and development input processes currently and in the past and it may be in there and I simply overlook those elements but if they are indeed extensive planning processes which they appear to be and I think that's what the citizenry citizenry's been told then all those plans should be informing the new comp plan in both narrative and future. future land use designation. So not just for appropriate representation from the

citizenry which should be driving policy to begin with but for the sake of efficiency. It would not make a lot of sense to spend time and efforts in extensive public input processes and then not use those to inform the narrative and future land use designations. Uh and lastly, I'll just say very briefly because it came up that in terms of data centers with artificial intelligence specifically, I think that relates to comp plan planning as well because the the focus is going to need to be how do we build and protect a human focused economy and community? And when you're dealing essentially with an existential threat that will almost inevitably lead to an extinction level event, these types of parameters in the packet today are rearranging the uh the seats on the Titanics, so to speak. So I think looking at this in a more informed, realistic way that it's fundamentally an antihuman initiative would probably be a starting point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Killian. and CS CS. Did I get that right? Thanks, Arlene. All right. Up next is consideration of the minutes for the preceding uh meeting which was March 17th regular plan commission meeting minutes. Would entertain a motion from Larson, second from Bruce Bulan. changes, comments. Seeing none, all in favor of accepting the minutes from March 17th signify by saying I.

I. Any oppose? Okay, that passes. Uh, item three is a public hearing. This is the uh discussion on reszoning 230 East Thomas Street from a neighborhood mixeduse zoning district to a two-fat residential zoning district. City of Wasa develop from the city of Wasa development department and we do we have any public comment on that item asking again we someone coming in that's yours okay public copy you can still comment come on up and last call for public comment on on the 230 East Thomas Street uh zoning mixeduse zoning recommendation. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Move to item four is discussion and possible action. And this is on that same item. Uh discussion and possible action on reszoning 230 East Thomas Street from an NMU mixed uh neighborhood mixeduse zoning district to a TF10 two flat residential zoning district. City of Wasau Development Department would entertain a motion.

Borman Rugamman. Comments on that questions on that. We've had we had the public uh hearing on this already. Any other Oh, this is the first public hearing. This is I'm sorry. Okay. The next item would be a recommendation to council to change the zoning on it. Okay. Do we need any any anything from uh so if we're comfortable that then we will take action to uh to approve this for uh where we going with this? Help me out.

Oh yeah, I think um wasn't a motion and second made to approve it already. We kind of combined 3A and 4A. Um maybe there was a public hearing I believe

we saw this in infrastructure I believe, right? No. Um, I think it was introduced as in the ED committee. Our community develop, just a little background on it. Our community development department is looking at this parcel and some others along Thomas Street for potential redevelopment. Uh, this one is a a smaller parcel. It's basically a remnant parcel from the Thomas Street reconstruction project. Uh, it has a different zoning district. Um, and by itself, it's it's too small really to be developable by itself. So the idea is to combine it with the parcel immediately to the west. But in order to do that, it has to have the same zoning district. So we wanted to reszone this parcel uh to TF10, which is the zoning to the west and across the street and then ultimately combine it with that parcel and and look for development opportunities with one bigger parcel rather than two small small ones which really aren't developable. Did I capsulize that? Okay, Patrick

Brad, that was spot on. Okay, that was great. Yeah, nothing like stealing my thunder. Wow. Yeah, I would just add part of the four parcel uh RFI we put out that does combine those two to just make it advantageous to any contractor ultimately um because if you look at 230, which is the eastern side, a good part of that is actually within um the 100red-year flood. So, it'd be more of a sideyard. So this allows the contractor to build on 226 and have that more as a sideyard ultimately. So it's a advantage to combine the lots ultimately and part of the first step is to reszone it.

All right. Thank you Patrick. And there's a pretty decent picture in the packet that shows that combination. So with a motion and a second to approve that action. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? Right. That passes. Uh, under 4B is discussion and possible action on approving a conditional use permit for 218 South Fourth Street to authorize and allow construction of a personal storage facility uh, use in the light industrial zoning district for Dunwy Storage. Would entertain a motion. Motion to approve

from Bugamin to approve. Second from Mournament. Discussion or questions? We have the the rendering there. This is down on the back side of the post office area.

Else we want to add, Brad?

Um I'm going to um Good evening, Mayor Denny and members of the commission. Just a couple quick things. Um, you'll notice staff did recommend approval with the following conditions on page four of the report. I think it's page 14 of your packet. Um, there there is an amendment um that's needed to the landscape plan to meet landscape requirements. Um, we're also requesting lighting and spec sheets. The southern and eastern elevations um we're recommending further enhancements that display greater interest in variety. So, there'd be some sub subjectivity there, but we would want to see some enhancement. Um both of those elevations are visible from the dog park and um we'd just like to see some variety. There's also an assumption with the landscape plan that the um they are undergoing WDNR remediation process right now and we're assuming that soil will be allowable. If it's not for any reason, that would need to come back just because that application as presented would not stand and then just that sign permits would be obtained under separate permitting.

Okay. And did that raise any questions, Mr. Bourne? Well, I'm wondering do we need to um I'm just wondering if we need to redo the motion to include those um staff recommended conditions. Yes. I'll take a look. George, did you make the original motion? I I didn't, but I'll withdraw my second if the person who made the motion wants to change it. That was my intent. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion to accept as

as predented with the staff recommendations on those conditions. I'll second. All right. And the second again from Barnaman. Further discussion? Any concerns from the developer on those conditions?

Jason Jason Dunwy and my beautiful and intelligent wife Melinda Dunwy. Um, can you give us any kind of uh direction on what those further enhancements may include? Yes. So, common ways it's it could be done is through color variation. Um, it could be through recesses and projections, but I know that probably is difficult with the exterior materials you're using. Um, it could be with adding some um like alternative materials like a stone or some kind of other material. I know you have the mural proposed on the um it's the east elevation, correct?

Which is really nice. Um, I don't know if there'd be the ability to repeat anything, not continuously, but like if there would if you'd have the ability to repeat elements of that along that um larger elevation. I mean, that could be something that would be compatible with the other elevation. Um, just something to break it up basically. Okay, that makes sense. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. With that understanding, do we we have a motion and a second? Anything further? Seeing none, all those in favor of the conditional use permit for 218 South Fourth Street signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? No. And that passes 5 to one. Or six to one. Six to one. Okay, up next is uh discussion and possible action on item C, approving the city of Wasaw 2027 comprehensive plan public participation plan draft. We've heard a few suggestions and Brad if you can get us going on that discussion.

Sure. Thanks. So in the packet is a draft of the public participation plan summarized PPP and um this is part of the comprehensive planning process that we are just starting off with our partner regional planning commission. Um as some of you were on the committee 10 years ago, our last one was adopted in 2017. Uh by statutes we're uh required to do it every 10 years. So, the time is now to update our comprehensive plan. And really, it starts uh by adopting the public participation plan, which outlines how we're going to involve uh the public while we're doing this. Um a little bit later in the in the document, there's a timeline. We'll we'll show that it um you know, there's public participation throughout the the process. There's a variety of different strategies that we can look at as well. Um, but it's a rather lengthy process about a year and a half from start to finish. Um, so and I guess Carrie and I along with regional planning will be the main main uh staff undertaking this, but this body, the plan commission will be involved along the way. We'll bring updates here. You're going to be the main kind of overseers of the plan. We'll bring progress updates and try to incorporate any feedback that you guys have along the way. and as we go along. So, um just yeah, the PPP I won't go through it word for word, but it outlines our objectives and again the overall strategy of of what we're going to be doing and how we're going to be doing it. There are some specific strategies uh that are also under number

six. Do we want to talk a little bit more about some of these? Yeah. So, yeah. So, we're really excited about I mean the comp plan of course is an overarching document that advises a lot of other planning documents and um we want to have like very integrated engagement across a lot of different areas and um you know different ways people are engaging with the city. So we have a lot of traditional methods, you know, the website, social media, we of course will use that. Um a survey, regional planning will help us develop a survey. We will have input into that if there's specific um types of things we want more information about. Um meeting in a box is a fun kind of way that a lot of communities are are getting engagement right now. It's basically like someone on their own doing their own meeting with like 8 to 12 people and instructions are given on on how it should be done and like what kind of information we want. Um we're working on developing that now. So that's something people can take and do on their own in return um without having being at a like governmental building or being with city staff. um popups. Brad and I will go to a couple I don't know if it'll be like the farmers market or just places people are engaging anyway um where we can have you know hopefully the survey link and whatever we have available at the time and just make people more aware that there's a update happening. Um regional planning for the housing study did a really great job with stakeholder interviews. So it would be similar to that. Um but not just people of course related to housing, it would be people people related in different ways. And then we will have some focus groups that are concentrated groups of people that are really collected around a certain topic area where they can have some you know interactive discussion and and we can you know pose some questions to them and get information um to find out what what issues they think are most relevant and things that we should be looking at

as a city. Um, and then a public involvement summary is also proposed. And I know public comment about um, attending the neighborhood meetings. Um, I think that could be something that we could easily in integrate. Um, if we wanted to do that. And then later on we have a timeline. and we worked with them on a timeline which um helps us as staff know, you know, that we're on track with the various pieces of the plan. So, they they did a really nice job on this. they have a public participation section so that we know we're on track there and then just kind of when this planning commission would would be seeing the different chapters of the plan and then we'd be shooting for a winter um 2027 2028 adoption to meet the state 10-year requirement. So um and so we are bringing it forward today for adoption by the planning commission.

All right. That explanation from Carrie jog some questions. Mr. Bugamin, relative to the public comment, is there um where would you feel the neighborhood meetings could be incorporated? Is it the meeting in the box and we could make that available relative to each of the neighborhoods that are hosting their meetings and they could host their own or is it stakeholder stakeholder interface something more formal that's scheduled as a stakeholder meeting or do you have thoughts there?

I mean I like I like those thoughts because it okay for us to attend a meeting it's like what are we bringing back? I like the idea of doing like a stakeholder interview or meeting in the box because then it's like we have defined questions and information that we're taking back from that neighborhood meeting and we have something quantitatively that can be incorporated. So I think those are both good ideas. We we probably could do either one. If it was a stakeholder interview, regional planning will be conducting those. If it was a meeting in the box and we're developing that now, um we're looking at like five or six f like topics and then we have some questions related to each topic. So I guess it's what type of information do we feel like would be most beneficial to get from those groups?

Would an amendment be in order to add neighborhood groups as uh appropriate? Not all neighborhood groups are the same. So some may not enjoy having us asked to come and see them, but others may. We could do that as we where it says or others. Could we add, i.e. neighborhood groups under stakeholder interviews?

Yeah, we could we could add it there. Um, if I'm trying to think of Yes. I mean that it'd be the RPC if if we think the neighborhood group I mean maybe for those specifically we'd want someone from the city to come with or or I mean in some ways maybe they'd prefer having a third party who they maybe they would feel more comfortable sharing ideas you know with the regional planning commission versus um a city staff. I guess I could see it either way.

Yeah. I mean, I think the interviews are intended more for smaller groups, not like big, you know, gatherings because they're interviews. So, you want to kind of have a smaller group. I think this says community group leaders, not the entire group for the interviews. So, maybe not I think interviews are more for, you know, one-on-one or smaller groups versus larger groups, but I like the meeting in a box idea. I think that could be again these neighborhood groups are all over the board I guess in terms of their numbers and and organization. So okay watch

one specific strategy would work. I guess I sort of look at all the neighborhood groups having their own personality and maybe it's something we can coordinate with each alder to maybe tailor a meeting in a box for each community, you know, each neighborhood group. Um, and then the alder could take it or communicate with the person in charge. I think that and then we could ask them what questions we really want to drill down to. Well, I guess my preference would be that it should be a staff function than individual alders, but uh I think some consideration for neighborhood groups where we put it. I guess I'll leave it up to you as to make what makes sense, but but I think we should should state that somewhere.

Yeah, it's I mean it's we're just kind of hearing about it tonight, so I don't know. We'd have to look at where we think it would fit best. And I don't know how many are currently active and which ones are. I mean, I don't know if the N2 group meets as a whole anymore even. So, I don't know. It does not, but that's another matter. Alder Watson, I was wondering if we could just insert it into the list under public participation activities in number five. Um, just say public meeting stakeholder interview is neighbor to neighbor groups. um just make sure that they're captured in there and then they would be part of the the plan. So So it sounds like an amendment for item for uh bullet

I guess it would be paragraph five. Yeah. Number five, public participation activities. Yeah, I would I guess I would amend the document to just add neighbor to neighbor groups or neighborhood groups. um maybe after stakeholder interviews and between focus groups.

So this is on page 38 of the 43 page packet. Stakeholder interviews, focus groups. Where would you insert that? The neighbor to neighbor. Right between stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Just like insert that extra group of people we want to make sure we we collect data from. Okay. So, we have a motion to amend paragraph five to insert N2N after stakeholder interviews and focus groups. Got a second from Bugamman. Any further discussion? We have a comment from the floor.

I would just like to ask a clarifying question. Um, this might be nitpicky, but I don't know that every neighborhood group is a part of N2N specifically. So, if we say N to end, is that limiting us to only the neighborhood groups who are part of N2N? Sorry to throw a wrench in that, but under the N to tab on the city website is where we list the actual neighborhood groups. So, I guess I was sort of hoping it could stay neighborhood groups in my amendment, but is that okay? say neighborhood groups instead of so we're going to amend that amendment to say from end to end we'll say neighborhood groups that's what I hope

are you amanable to that and we have that all right Carrie did you c Michelle did you capture that okay anything further on the comp plan public participation plan seeing none with a motion let's See, let's let's We have a motion to amend. So, a motion to amend to add neighborhood groups. All those in favor of that amendment signify by saying I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Okay. So, then we're back to the original motion as amended. We've already got it.

Any further comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting as there was a second. It was Bugamin Bulan. I didn't see a thing. You didn't. Oran Bornean just sitting here watching. Well, for the record. Bugamin Bornean. Second. Okay. All those in favor of adopting the public participant plan for the 2027 comprehensive plan signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? And that passes. How we doing on time? Oh, we got a lot of time. We've got to be out of here before the 6:30 city council meeting. So, up next is discussion. Uh, it's item A under discussion. Preliminary code amendment discussion on data centers. Do you want to or is that Carrie? Carrie,

thank you, Mayor Deny, members of the commission. So, this I'm sure everyone has heard a ton about this topic. I mean, it's definitely um something that we're hearing about a lot and I thought it was a really good comment about, you know, looking at what other communities are doing. So, just for a little context, so WA was um one of the things that as a city we do is we're members of the Wisconsin Local Government Climate Coalition, which it's a really great organization and it's a good way to network um with other communities and actually um right now I'm part of their data center work group. So just just to so we know um that we are pretty regularly in communication with a lot of other communities and um you know looking what other communities are doing around this and this isn't reactive. This is this is proactive. We're just bringing it forward so that we have it better defi well defined at all in our zoning code. We have a very good new zoning code but it was written in 2020 and I think this was just kind of starting on the horizon. And um so by defining it, we have more ability as staff to have requirements around it and have have an idea of how we want to handle them um moving forward. So I won't read the whole thing, but but we're mainly um we're not as concerned about the AI hypers scale data centers just be for a couple reasons. We don't really have sites that would accommodate them and we don't really have utility capacity to accommodate them. Um, I did touch base with Marathon County just to see what they were doing with this issue because one unique thing about data centers is even if it's not right in your municipality, their utility needs can impact your municipality. Um, and they right now do not show them as allowed in their zoning code. And so they're considering that as a it's a prohibited use right now, just just so the commission knows. Um, in Marathon County. So, so we're not as concerned

about the hypers scale, but the enterprise and collocation, the small to midsize are definitely something that we could see proposals on. Um, enterprise or just when a business has their own basically it, you know, data center. So, we certainly have those now with some of our bigger users. Um, but we're talking a standalone um data center, you know, that would be proposed. So, um I think we've all probably heard a lot about the electricity, water, and other sustainability impacts. So, I won't go into a ton there, but if anyone has any questions, um feel free to ask and I'll do my best to answer. Um so, we are looking at a dedicated definition. So, the data center definition would be a completely enclosed facility that that houses technology infrastructure such as servers, storage, and networking equipment to process, manage, and store data. supporting equip equipment typically includes cooling systems, power infrastructure and generation and security systems for on-site activities. So basically a lot of cities are adopting or or doing code amendments right now. So I just kind of looked at a variety of definitions and you know what I thought best encompassed um the use that we'd have proposed. The biggest the biggest advantages with it being conditionally permitted is we can have our supplemental standards that are required. So we can require that they provide utility plan and operational capacity needs, noise, traffic or utility study if we think those will be concerning and then um just require that everything's happening within the building. So by by defining it um then we can attach you know conditions as we see fit depending on what specifically is being proposed and what we're proposing now but of course the commission you know can modify amend or or whatever um would be conditional in medium industrial and heavy industrial um I guess we feel like the use itself would be compatible in those districts and then again by it being conditionally permitted we would have the ability to require utility plan and

the associated studies that would provide the information we need to make sure we have adequate infrastructure um that it wouldn't be causing impacts to the neighborhood or surrounding uses. And then the parking is pretty benign, but I mean we just need to have a parking requirement. So it it's just similar to our other industrial types of uses like warehousing or whatever. um one space per employee on the largest work shift and then um the maximum is 150% of the minimum parking requirement. So I did share director Lynman had some comments about just just making sure we had all utility needs included like water, storm water, wastewater, everything just so we have everything covered. Um and then we're basically this is just preliminary review. We're just looking at commission feedback to know if and how we should proceed with a formalized code amendment at this time. So, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Carrie? Mr. Balcon.

Um, I think this is terrific all the all that you've done on this. My question and it what I'm wondering if it's outside the purview of of of this plan commission. It seems to me that a a lot of the unhappiness with these things happens in the negotiation for land in the first place and the transparency that seems to be missing from a lot of these and people you know people are looking at saying oh well geez this will be a lot of jobs but then they realize that the long term is not so good. Is it is it necessary for us? Does that does does the transparency of a negotiation fall under plan commission or somebody else?

Well, I I think that's a good point. I mean, I this is an long time ago, but there was a water kind of in California there was a where basically property was bought up adjacent to each other under different names and like the municipality didn't know that something like that was happening. So, I think those are all like very valid concerns. I think that type of thing unfortunately can happen like it's hard to create regulation that would you know if we don't know who's buying what sometimes it's hard I mean the good thing I think in W was like we we looked as staff pretty comprehensively um for land in these zoning districts we don't have a lot of contiguous parcels that would accommodate a really like a user that would need a lot of land so I think it would be more difficult honestly for a county because they they do have the land sometimes depending on how the townships are distributed. Um not to say it's not something we shouldn't be thinking about. I mean we definitely should. Um I guess my concern is more related to like the utility generation like how the some of the utility needs can be offsite. I mean they can be and then I guess just even surrounding municipalities. It's like if it happens somewhere else, is it affecting our like city of Wasa utility users? Um, which we don't have control over. I mean, if it's being built somewhere else, but but I guess what's what I think is solidly within our purview is like if we had a proposal, how do we want to handle it basically?

Yeah, I think that's an excellent explanation. And I think land disposition, I mean, we have a process. If the city owns it, it goes through our committees and council and I mean, we can look at that, but again, within the city limits currently, there really isn't a a large, you know, uh, bank of of property that would sell to a huge huge data center at this point. I mean, we'd be possibly looking at small to medium size, but um the big ones that a lot of people, you know, are worried about, we don't see that happening in the immediate future anyway. And again, given that the county kind of restricts them, we have our own zoning here in the city and a lot of the towns are and incorporated areas have their own zoning. Um Marathon County has zoning outside those that don't have their own zoning code. So yeah, I guess the that land disposition is kind of a tricky one, especially if there's private private folks involved. The city might not even get involved in those transactions at all till they're done. So Alder Watson. Oh,

Mr. Bugamman.

So I had a couple uh as we think about the enterprise and then the small to medium. the enterprise we already have today, right? We have local businesses that have d their own data data centers. They're not located in the classifications that we already have or we're proposing here. If one of those places proposed to expand, right, um or add on um to that, is this something that they would need a zoning change or a conditional use permit at that point in time to do that? And I think about certainly our healthcare organizations, you know, here in town andor other employers that that may be a need um either now or in the future. So how how does how does that especially for those enterprise data centers?

That's a really good point. I mean I Bill would probably have better insight but I think if the primary use is like hospital just say and they're and it's like a part of their like how they're running their business. I think we would consider like the principal use unless they were doing like a separate parcel separate building where it was categorized separately. Um, now if they were doing something like collo like the collocation with other users, it'd be hard for us to really regulate that or know. But again, if it was like a separate parcel, separate buildings going up and that's what's happening on that parcel regardless of if it's like school, hospital, whatever, that parcel would be defined by the use, you know, that exists on that parcel.

Okay. And then a as it relates to the the utility plans in I guess the regulations on sub paragraph A that need to be approved or reviewed by public works. It it will there be process or further procedures defined as to what Eric and his staff would have to review and require and what that would look like? Um I'm presuming you know it it this being something new right are we adopting something from somewhere else um relative to the utility studies the water usage etc. I I think one of the hardest things about this use is it's like the biggest concern probably or like area of concern is under utilities and it's like we we have WPS so it's like we're working with WPS so but trying to like in our code we have to have departments that are housed under us to approve. So I think I think it gives Eric broad discretion like I think he could request kind of anything and then if it if we feel we don't have adequate infrastructure if we don't know if we do I feel like it gives him the ability or you know a department the ability to say this doesn't meet what we have available basically

I will say with like large users and stuff you know we uh depending on where they go and the facilities we have in place Um, typically they will provide us, you know, what their needs are. Uh, for a perfect example is like Great Lakes Cheese when they moved out on the far west side on Innovation Way. Um, you know, they obviously needed the water and sewer facilities. And so, um, those things they had to work closely with us, right? And those things had to be designed and and developed uh otherwise that facility just wouldn't wouldn't function. So, um, but I do think with, you know, rather than having very specifics, keeping it a little bit broad that for for us to have some discretion on what we ask for, I think it'll be beneficial as Carrie has stated. But um but I think without those utilities um obviously electricity, fiber and stuff we don't we don't deal with but the other ones we definitely will or the ones who would have to approve uh their their permits and their connections to those systems prior to them, you know, getting those services.

Yeah. No, I I guess what I was more getting at was you don't know what you don't know, right? And yeah, absolutely. Uncharted water for waters for all of us, right? And um the first time you enter it, it'll be the first time you're trying to explore that, right? Yeah. Um and and what what are those resources that we'll be relying on to kind of help determine did we get everything we needed to know what we needed to know? Yeah. So, yeah. Okay.

Alder Watson. Um, per our public comment, I mean, I do think it's sort of a a really good idea to have like a short-term time time focused task force maybe on this that we can loop in some of our partners. I know you don't love task force per perhaps like there's committees and you can committee something to death, right? But I think it would be smart to bring in like Marathon County partners um you know because I don't know and just local partners. So I think it would be a really great idea especially and then I also wondered um like I heard something about like Rapids Wisconsin Rapids are they sort of navigating this kind of situation now too? So my understanding is I think Rapids had approved a project in like January of 25 and then it fell through because they didn't the utility needs that the business needed didn't exist and so I think it fell through in the summer but there may be something else now. I'm not sure. I I know they're incl I know recently on their planning commission agenda they also did a similar like defined it or including it in the zoning code and then they can require um the studies and utility information.

Okay, further questions for Carrie or the staff? George.

Yeah. I'm I'm just wondering if it's uh if it's possible, you know, I really doubt you're going to see one of these hypersized things come in uh especially unless you're going to enex a whole bunch of property and and come up with something like that. I'm just wondering if there's a a possibly a way within the code to just make it a prohibitive use that you don't even look don't even look at having something that large because I'm just thinking of the utilities the the electric use. A lot of these are going to have backup generators. They're going to be powered by natural gas. So, you're going to have the natural gas lines to consider coming into them. and they're they're I think uh within the city I think it's just not going to fit. I just can't see something like that being uh anywhere close to the uh metropolitan area or the residential area or anything which is primarily what you have except for the west end. Just

yeah just George did you say making them a prohibited use of a certain size

they that they are prohibited within any you know zoning district the large one I don't know how you're going to define large probably by the megawatt usage or something like that or or square footage but uh because some of these I know are just you know they're massive and the infrastructure that they require is massive as well. The water they require is mass is a lot of lot of water. I know it'll probably be a you know all this goes to council any for their approval and it may be more appropriate for them to decide whether it's a something they want.

Yeah. Well, I think the process that we had outlined or thought of is this is just a preliminary discussion. Again, Curious says we're being proactive. There isn't anything, you know, pressing and this isn't the public hearing. Like, if we did want to change the regulations by adding this, we would need to come back to this body with an actual text amendment that would go to council for final adoption. I don't think we may not be there quite yet, but um that would be a step before we send it on to council. This is just meant as a preliminary discussion. If you have some direction, that's great.

Preliminary and proactive on staff's part here, which is is good so we're not reacting later on when we have to deal with it. Mr. Mulan, um, one more comment. Whereas I think writing something to prohibit would be easier to write. Uh, I'm I'm afraid if we did that, you know how the information is is plucked along the way and the way businesses look at communities and say, "Oh, well, they don't like this or they pro they have an ordinance prohibiting this." It's like, I mean, you know how it is with well, with data going through things and it's like if you get flagged for something and it's just like, well, you're just not being

cons. We've got a ban and that's the headline. You're right. But if we have the upper limit within our capacity that we can we we have some flexibility, we can I think does that cover us on the Yeah, I think we'd have to look into what what that limit would be. You know, where where the cut off might be, whether it's side square footage or energy usage or whatever other metric we define these things with. Good point. Anyone else? I'm all for it on the new ice. So,

okay. Well, thank you, Carrie. Thank you, Brad, for putting that together for us. You'll see more from this coming up. Thank you for the public comment. Uh item six, well, let me look at our next meeting is May 19th. Same place, same time. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion to Balkan Barnament. All in favor of a German sing by saying I. I. I. See you later.