Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have a meeting to order this evening.

I have an announcement of the hearing procedures. Thank you for your attendance and participation. The purpose of the public hearing is to gather information from the public to help the Commission formulate recommendations. In order to ensure a fair and orderly meeting where everyone can participate, the Commission requests that you act respectively to everyone in attendance and follow the public hearing procedures. The chairperson will call the public hearing item. The Land Use and Development Department will present the staff recommendation. Commissioners may ask questions of staff, presentation by applicant and or representatives. Commissioners may ask questions of applicant. The chairperson will open the public hearing. The chairperson will call for public comments from persons in support of items, followed by persons in opposition to the item. The applicant will have the chance for rebuttal comments. The chairperson will close the public hearing. Commissioners may ask questions and or discussion. Take action. Speakers must speak from the podium and state their name and address for the record. There's also a sign-up sheet up there for signing in. The chairperson reserves the right to establish a time limit for all speakers to ensure that everyone can speak. We will set that time limit tonight for public comment at four minutes per person. The designation of a spokesperson for groups sharing a common point of view is encouraged. All comments and questions will be directed to the chair from the podium and not to the applicant, staff, or audience. When the hearing is closed, additional public comments are not permitted. Roll call and declaration of a quorum.

CHAD GERHARDT?

Here.

JEANNETTE JOHNSON? Here. MARK GELBERTH?

Here.

DAN BRYAN?

Here.

TERRY ROBINSON?

Here.

ROSA CAVASOS? Myron Leinwetter?

Here.

With six members present, there is a quorum.

Communications from the public to staff.

There's none.

OK. The ex parte communications by members of the commission. None. Declaration of conflict of interest by members of the commission?

I would say that I know the agent involved in the first item and Mr. Ladson involved in the second, but there's no real conflict. I can still make a decision.

Zoning and subdivision items. Noreen, number one.

Okay, the first case is SP87E. The requested action, this is a request for a major amendment to an existing conditional use permit to remove condition number two from resolution number 80-123. It's located at 4144 Southeast 45th Street in Tecumseh Township, and the parcel is 5.18 acres. Here's the general location of the site identified by the blue star. On August 13, 1980, the Shawnee County Board of Commissioners adopted resolution number 8123, approving the special use permit for an animal hospital. The approval included a condition limiting the SUP to the original ownership and requiring the board approval for any transfer or assignment of the permit. The proposed use is gonna remain the same. There's no changes to that. The request is to remove a condition, which is condition number two of the resolution, which restricts the SUP to the original ownership and requires board approval for any transfer of ownership of the special use permit. Here is the site plan. What you see highlighted in yellow is the special use permit that covers that area, which is equivalent to our conditional use permit today. Here's the vicinity map. 11 letters were sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet of the site. No responses were received. Staff recommends approval subject to the following motion. The Shawnee County Planning Commission finds that the request satisfies the golden factors and recommends approval of the conditional use permit as submitted by the applicant. That concludes this item.

Questions for staff?

Yes. Just so I understand, what was the original intent behind limiting the transfer of ownership without a board vote?

I'm not sure what the original intent was, but I did look back to see what we've done previously as in recent cases, and in those cases, we did not limit or restricted the ownership part of it, so we just left it blank so they would have the flexibility of changing ownerships without coming into the Planning Commission and getting the Board of County Commissioners approval, just making it easier for them whenever they're wanting to sell their business and so on.

Okay.

It also would allow for the sale of the home and maintaining the business. Yes.

I think probably looking back on the history of the case, the original doctor who started, it's Paw Prince Animal Hospital out on 45th, and the original doctor who owned it lived in the home and then years ago sold it and that doctor owns it and lives in the home and I believe the intent is that they're going to sell, but it just doesn't really make sense for them to keep coming back anytime someone wants to transfer the ownership to get permission to do so when the use has continued the same for 30, 40 years.

Is the 1,000 feet notification radius, is that by statute or by county ordinance?

By statute.

By statute.

I will clarify. Our regulations do also say 1,000 feet because our regulations are based on statute, but statute is what sets that 1,000 feet for any rezoning or conditional use permit case.

Okay, thank you.

Any other staff questions? Do we have a presentation by the applicant or represent?

Just a quick clarification, Jeanette mentioned. Do you want to state your name and address for us? Dave Mahon, 7838 Southwest 12th Street, Topeka, Kansas. The intent, the owner or the animal hospital prefers the lease. So the intent is to sell the whole property as one They'll continue on with the lease the way they are. You mentioned about selling a house and having the business be in separate. That probably would not be the, the whole property would still be owned by the same one party. I don't know what that means. It may, it may say.

So the intent is to sell the whole property and then the animal hospital would lease from the person who bought the whole property.

There's another four plus years left on the current lease and I would imagine it'll wanna stay the same.

With that, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in support of the item? Seeing none, anyone in opposition of the item? Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. Commissioners, further questions or discussion? I think with that we'd be looking for a motion.

I move we approve.

Second.

Chad Gearhart?

Yes.

Terry Robinson? Yes. Rosa Cavazos, Mark Gilbert.

Yes.

Jeanette Johnson. Yes. Myron Meinwetter.

Yes.

Dan Bryan. Yes. With a unanimous vote in favor, the item is approved and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Thursday, August 13th.

Item number two.

All right, item number two is CU96-9G, Kaw Valley Electric Cooperative Inc. The requested action is a major amendment to expand the boundaries of an existing conditional use permit to allow construction of a warehouse, office, and additional gravel storage yard. It's located at 1100 Southwest Auburn Road in Mission Township. The site consists of 59.01 acres. Here's the general location of the site identified by the blue star. The proposed use, they're wanting to expand the boundaries of the existing conditional use permit to include development of lot one. The proposed improvements on lot one will include a warehouse facility, office space, an additional graveyard, storage yard, gravel, gravel, sorry, storage yard. Development will include up to 30,000 square feet of warehouse space, up to 10,000 square feet of office space. Lot two will remain unchanged and continue its existing use. And here you will see the proposed conditional use permit extended. You can see it highlighted in yellow. Here is the vicinity map. 26 letters were sent to property owners located within 1,000 feet of the site. No responses were received. Staff recommends approval subject to the following condition. One, AT&T has indicated that its copper and fiber optic lines are located within the subject property. The applicant must contact AT&T prior to any construction activity to confirm the exact locations of the lines. And that concludes this item.

Questions for staff? Do we have a presentation from the applicant?

Hi, good evening. My name's John Ladson. I'm with United Engineering Group. here in Topeka, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I don't really have a presentation, but I'm here to answer any questions if they come up. The applicant wanted to build on the north side, and so their existing conditional use permit only encompassed the middle portion of that lot, and they own all of it, but they would like to expand on the north side. Any questions for me right now?

Their existing office is right there in the middle. Correct. Yeah.

So no feedback from any of the letters that were sent out?

No.

All right, I have a question. I don't know if you can answer this or not. There's no one here from the applicant besides you? Yeah, they're not here. From Free State, no one here? Okay, so full disclosure, I'm a Free State customer. And a few years ago, the two, Free State and the other utility that was in Meriden, they merged. And it was my understanding that as a result of that merger that there would be some efficiencies of scale. And this doesn't sound like, and the understanding was that this building and this property would be sufficient to take care of all of the merged entity, so why is that not the case?

I don't know for sure, but this actually, they have a lease, a tenant that's going to lease the property, gonna lease a building to do electrical supply and also distribution, so they will be, there's two offices, two office space, a conference room in this building and a warehouse facility along with the yard, so.

So Free State won't be actually physically using this building? They will not be at the moment. So they're in the business of real estate? Maybe your bill will come down.

Oh yeah, it sure will. They're making money on the lease.

It sure will. I just guess it'd be interesting to, I mean, I would sure like to know for my own edification why they're doing this and what the business model is. It seems odd that they're doing this. You haven't had any conversations with them during the course of your engineering? No.

Yeah. I mean, we're doing work in McLeod as well, so. Yeah, that's it.

If they were consolidating, it seems like they would.

I think they looked at consolidating and bringing it all back to Topeka, and the numbers or something didn't work out to do that, so it's better to do it there.

Okay.

Thank you. We will now open the public hearing. Any public comment from persons in support of the item? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition of the item? With that, we will close the public hearing.

I'm sorry. Oh, sorry?

Yeah.

And I hadn't signed in. We didn't get our notification until later because our property is a new home that's adjacent right next to the facility. My name is Todd Olsaker. I live at 1130 Southwest. Oh, 8130. I'm sorry. 8130. I'm not saying I'm directly opposed the facility that's being built my concern is With the existing one, which is in lot two, the lighting at this facility is extremely bright. And of course, as a homeowner, it's shining straight through over to our property. We weren't living there at that time when there's an addition going on right now that is a graveled yard area, an existing building that's in lot two right now that they're working on. Our concern is of course the lighting that we're going to get from that because they're going to want to have lighting inside there. Now as you're talking about the facility now that's being asked to be approved and it sounds like it is a retail facility not necessarily used for call balling. My concern there, too, is the lighting that they're going to have there and how bright, I mean, basically the light pollution that we're going to receive in the residential area. And I have quite a few trees in our house that's right next there, but it comes straight through. The other concern would be whether or not they're asking to put, and my concern was it was for an electrical company that there might be additional towers. It doesn't seem like that's going to be the case on here, that there is a quite a big tower that's there right now. I'd hate to see that in a residential area also.

Can I ask a question of staff? So does the current conditional use permit allow for a retail operation?

I don't know that I would call this a retail operation. The current conditional use permit is for a public use facility for an electrical company for the use of it as the electrical company. And so the use that is the current conditional use permit would be for the use of the public use facility as set out originally. And I guess we don't know details about what exactly it is that they're proposing to utilize that warehouse for other than that it fit within that public use facility and what it is that a public use facility is allowed to do.

I mean this isn't a lot different than us approving a strip mall and not knowing who the tenants are going to be, correct? I mean, we don't condition based on if it's going to be a nail salon or a pizza place.

It still has to fit under the guise of it being a public use facility if that's the approval of the original conditional use permit. So if it's not being used as a public use facility or private use facility, then that could be a problem. And so depending on the original conditional use permit, so I think in that case, it would be a little bit different. It's different than just zoning something C2 for commercial use and then whatever commercial use fits within there gets to utilize. This is a special use within a residential area and so that could limit it a little bit in terms of what it is that they could do with that building.

Do you think they should have been a little bit more forthcoming on their application as far as what they're going to do with it? I'm not sure that they... fully disclosed their purposes.

So the proposed use indicates no changes to lot 2, same use and character of the existing lot. Lot 1 will be the same use and character of lot 2. Proposed warehouse space of up to 30,000 and proposed office space and additional gravel storage yards. So they are telling us in their application that they're going to be using lot one which is the northern lot for the same thing which means then it would be the same as what they use their own we don't necessarily ask them if it's going to be a tenant going in that was not part of the conversation that we had but does that mean that doesn't matter okay It could matter if they're not using it for the same purpose.

But if it follows the same purpose.

If it falls in the same purpose and they've said that it does, then that could be the case.

Yeah, you've got opportunity for, you could comment on the lighting as well.

So the tenant that's there is materials that they use. So it's poles, it's things that it's used by people The co-op. Free state, yeah. So it's directly correlated to their business.

So it's not being leased out to just anybody. It's the same exact uses. Okay, so they're using it for their own contractors or the use that they, like if they need supplies instead of having to get them from somewhere else, it's going to be stored in this building? Okay. So then my position on that is then no, it doesn't impact it because it's the same use if they're using it for their own warehousing needs. They're not renting it out to some random tenant who would be using it for storing boats or repairing cars or whatever.

Okay. So it's not retail. I thought I heard you use the word retail. No, it's not retail. Maybe you do.

Okay.

All right. Can we... Can we add a condition to the conditional use permit that has to do with the lighting?

You can make a motion to add a condition, and then if that is accepted by the planning commissioners, then yes.

Did you have any rebuttal or lighting plans to his comments on the new piece? I mean, I know you don't have anything on that.

I do not have that on there now, but we can definitely look at low impact lighting or something. I think they need some for security purposes, but they can look at different things and point them in and different things like that, so.

I think with that, I still need to close the public hearing, so I will do that. And now, commissioners, if you had further questions or discussion.

Well, I think it's good that the representative says they can add some lighting, low impact lighting. That would seem appropriate. Do we just move forward on that kind of gentleman's agreement, or do we ask the applicant to come back, or do we make a motion for an additional condition?

It's your choice to make a motion if you would like to. Otherwise, it will stand as it is. If you want to add a condition that they use low impact lighting, I mean, my recommendation would be either you leave it as it is with the assumption that they will, but there's nothing for us to go back on and enforce, or if you would like to make a motion to add low impact lighting, then you would just want to add that as a condition that they need to utilize low impact lighting.

Okay. All right. Well, I would move that we add a condition that requires low impact lighting. That's pretty open. I don't know how to define that exactly, but I'm sure you do. That would be my motion.

I second that.

I have a question. So are you moving approval of it with the addition of that?

I'm sorry. Yes. OK. Beat me to the punch. Yeah. Thank you.

Myron Langwetter.

Wait, wait, I have one more question, sorry. So I've heard a rumor that across the Auburn Road to the west, that undeveloped lot there is gonna become a Casey's. Have you had anyone talk to you about that possibility?

Well, we've had that case in front of us. It's been rezoned. It's a PUD with either C2 or I1 zoning across the street.

So that would cover a convenience store with a lot of traffic coming on and on?

Yep.

Before we take the vote, can I just clarify? So we are, the motion is to approve with staff recommendation one and the low impact lighting. Yes. Okay.

Yep.

We're ready.

Even though I seconded his motion, I'm going to vote against it. I'm opposed.

Terry Robinson.

Yes.

Rosa Cavazos? Martin Galbraith?

Yes.

Jeanette Johnson? Yes. Chad Gearhart?

Yes.

Dan Bryan?

Yes.

With a vote of five to one, the item is approved with the additional condition and will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on August 13th.

Do we have public comment on non-agenda planning and zoning items?

If you can give us just a minute, please. We need to set the four minute timer.

Good evening, everybody. I'm here to speak about a topic that is not on the agenda, and I'm sure you all have heard more than enough about, the looming specter of data centers here in Shawnee County. So I live in southern Topeka, about six blocks south of the city limit line. So I live in Topeka, but as I have come to find out, I don't really live in Topeka. I've started calling it outer Topeka, since we're in the odd no man's land of Shawnee County, in a place where we live in a city, but we can't vote on its mayor or representatives, for example. And that is why I'm here, is because in that area, we need help in protecting ourselves, because we're a particularly vulnerable entity. So one disadvantage we have here in outer Topeka, we're on rural water district three. And though we get our water directly from the city of Topeka, we pay almost twice as much for that water. We also don't have some of the little things that most Topekans might take for granted, like getting help with tree branch pickup after storms. And we also don't have very big things like sewer service. And now, this is not something I would be complaining about because we're just for those reasons. I chose to live a little bit further out from the city's core, and I know that there are certain compromises that come with that. Although when we moved here, Honestly, I had no idea we were in this strange half city, half not city territory. The address said Topeka, so I thought we were in Topeka. Anyway, the reason I'm here is that, as confirmed in Director of Economic Development Leah Bolling's speech to the City Council last Tuesday, the city has been in talks with Compass Data Centers in regards to extending sewer water and utility service to a proposed site just east of the Walmart Distribution Center, an area that is roughly two and a half to three miles from my home. Like many others, I have serious concerns about pollution, noise, water usage, but I have a practical question. Why should these services be extended out for a data center but not for the city's actual residents that currently lack them? Why should a data center get water directly from the city of Topeka, but we have to play a grossly marked up race? Can anyone really name a single benefit for those of us that will have to live near this monstrosity? Most we've heard is some vague words about maybe property taxes, but those benefits will not be concentrated in our area, as we've been told, but instead diffused across all of the county. And you know what? Maybe our property taxes will get lower because The value of our property is about to take a huge nosedive. Putting a data center is effectively salting the land for so many of us. And there's been absolutely no talk of compensation or how this can be made right with property owners in the immediate area. All we've gotten is evasiveness about what applications are in the works. When all we want to know are basic questions like, should I even bother to make plants here in Topeka anymore? I honestly stood in my garden yesterday thinking, will I even be replanting this garden next year? Are we going to have to flee because no one's going to step in to protect us? These sorts of multi-client, hyperscale facilities should not be right on top of people. And it's not just us residents. It's every person that works at the Mars factory and the Walmart distribution center that will hear increased noise and breathe more polluted air. Every child that goes to one of the two schools that are under two miles away from that site Every person that goes to Forbes Field or the Combat Air Museum will have to inhale more particulate matter from the diesel generators. These facilities currently need to run since they pull more electricity than our grid can most certainly handle here. So because of this and more, I believe our commission should strongly consider advocating for a moratorium on data center and battery storage facilities. And this needs to be done as soon as possible because the application will be coming any day. I'm gonna stop there. Thank you so much for your time.

Mr. Chairman, could you please ask for the lady's name and address, please?

I greatly apologize. That is Amy Gillette, and I live at 5500 Southwest Mountain View Drive in Topeka.

I'm sorry, would you say your name again?

Amy Gillette.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hello and thank you for this opportunity to share my concerns. I also have great concerns about the data centers.

Do you want to lead with your name and address?

Yes, I'm sorry. Scott Henson, 3218 Skyline Parkway in Topeka up on Burnett's Mound. Thank you. Thank you for reminding me. I had that in my notes. I have concerns about the water consumption and pollution and air pollution impacts on health as Amy talked about. And I want to focus on the noise pollution. These centers are known to produce a hum 24-7 up to 96 to 105 decibels. Amy mentioned two schools nearby, Pauline South within one mile, Pauline Central within 1.7 miles. This would have devastating effects on teaching and learning, I believe. Now, it also came to my attention that the Heartland Park site has also been listed for sale as early as the year 2024. That's a little bit farther, but it would still be within 2.2 miles of Pauline South and 2.5 of Pauline Central. This listing that I just read about today was on dcmedia.com. That's drag coverage. It's some sites that have to do with drag racing, Heartland Park. That listing says data center for sale available immediately.

That concerns me greatly.

Again, that water usage, we're talking about, I talked with the mayor just last week, and he had concerns that the water that's used to cool this center could possibly be dumped into the Wakarusa River. If untreated, it has all kinds of pollutants. It has biocides, it has anti-scaling agents, it has anti-corrosives. I think this would be terrible for surrounding folks. The city council member, said that she is also considering a moratorium. Actually, there were four of them at the last meeting I was at. I certainly also say that I would strongly recommend a moratorium. At least you can tell by what I'm saying that I'm not in favor of the data center at all, but at least a moratorium so that independent studies could be done on electric grid capacity, water supply, and how to remove those contaminants, noise pollution, traffic impacts, fiscal impacts on taxpayers, including rising rates on utilities. But most I'm going into my 48th year with education. And so these children are in my heart. These children at Pauline South and Pauline Central. Within such proximity to this proposed center, I can see their days, the quality of their days in school being greatly diminished. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you.

Hello and good evening to the members of the Planning Commission and to everyone who took time to attend this meeting. My name is Sharon Gillette. I am a resident of Shawnee County I live at 5500 Southwest Mound View Drive. It's just a little bit outside of the city of Topeka city limits, but close enough so that I can actually see the state capitol from where I live. We've lived here for four years now. We moved from out of state. And in that four years, I've come to love Topeka and its surrounding area. We moved in the month of May, and in the very next month, in June, I learned about a devastating tornado that happened in June 1966 from an anniversary segment that was featured on WIBW News. Shortly thereafter, I started hearing about the legend behind Burnett's Mound and the tribal belief that that mound would protect Topeka from further wild winds from the southwest by blocking the dangerous tail of the savage storm before it would ever get to Topeka. The mound was to be respected, revered, and not to be desecrated in any way. Powerful stuff. Wow, this really hit home with me because I live on Mountain View Drive, a few short minutes from Burnett's Mound. Both my home and Burnett's Mound lie within the three mile radius of the proposed data center. I consider the building of that data center to be desecration of the land. I know all of you have heard all the negatives. You've all read them. I beg you not to look at the revenue that is being promised. Please don't look through rose-colored glasses at all that's gonna be promised. Commissioner Kevin Cook sat in at a recent meeting and said that money could, the emphasis on the word could, could be used and made available and given to school districts, to nonprofits, to charities, and to start new small businesses. But I ask at what cost? Factor in the air, the noise pollution, the amount of cooling water needed, the impact on human and wildlife in that nearby area. And what about utility rates when they go up and our property values go down? Please, I wish someone would tell me how this data center is good for Shawnee County and who, actually who is gonna benefit from it once all the negatives are subtracted. Thank you for hearing the voices of some of us that are gonna be the most impacted. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

I had no plans to speak today. Chris Golder? And I live at 4301 Northwest 37th Street to the campus. And we have lots of industrial use around us. I hear noise from the highway. I smell things being made. I'm not against data centers and all the impact on the residential. It's already happening around me. But I feel the need to talk about it because I do find that we need to consider the environment around us regardless of the inconvenience it makes on our daily living. So that's my long-term concern. And I also speak from a point of ethics. I have a data science masters. I understand what AI is and how it works. And knowing that, I also know the purposes that it can be used for. I don't find that the long-term ethics of the environmental pollution is worth people being able to make fake videos, for people to be able to do creative marketing, for businesses to sell more stuff that's going to detriment the environment even more. Those are not good uses for AI to me, and that is the gross majority of what's happening today. if the AI is going to be used to come up with new pharmaceuticals for rare diseases, if it's going to be used for us to figure out how to get along with each other better in this world, I'm all for that, and I'm willing to sacrifice some of my comfort maybe in the long-term environmental context.

Thank you.

I don't know the procedure. Are we allowed to ask questions of speakers, public comment speakers?

So usually there's not a question and answer section. But if you want to ask a question of a specific person related to the comments, yeah, you can do that.

OK. Sure. Well, Scott, I think you had some questions about, maybe you're wrong, maybe it wasn't, maybe it was somebody else. I had questions about how power might be supplemented, power that Evergy could bring to a data center, how that might be supplemented with a gas-fired system. additional power plant and you were concerned about the pollution, I wanna put words in your mouth from that gas fire power plant that would release probably CO2s into the atmosphere. If the power plants need for electricity beyond what Evergy could deliver, And it was supplemented by a renewable source like solar. Would that change your thoughts about a data center in Shawnee County?

DAVID BURRAGE- That would only address that would only address the electricity issue. It does not address the water issues that I mentioned. It certainly does not address the noise pollution that I mentioned, which was my major focus. So I think That might be part of the studies that I talked about, independent studies being done following having a moratorium in place. to certainly look at things like that. And I think that, and I want to say my hat, even though I don't have one, my hat off to you, that you are thinking of ways that might alleviate some of these problems. But just that single thing would not change my views. Thanks for the question.

May I ask one more? I think we're probably going to have this conversation if the data center ever makes an application, I assume. A conversation is like this. But we're a body that does issue conditional use permits. And if there were conditions, put into an application by a data center that required the measurement of those kinds of things. I mean, they required many certain decimal limits, for example, and required regular independent measurement of the decimal levels. I mean, is that the sort of thing you're thinking about? Was that the sort of thing that might make you feel different about a data center in Shawnee County?

It might improve. It would depend. It would depend on exactly what conditions would be put in place. Again, one of the major things I'm talking about are the sites, the two sites that there's one like around 77th and Topeka Boulevard. that I've heard about. And then of course the one at Heartland Park. It also greatly concerns me that, just from what I read today, that this Heartland Park site had been put up for sale as early as 2024, yet the Shawnee County Commission says, I was just at the last meeting, they're saying we're as transparent as we can be because there is no application there. But certainly I would think that they would have an inclination that this site was up for sale listed as data center available immediately.

That is not transparency for me.

So there certainly would have to be a lot of conditions met. The main one for me at this point is the site, those two schools that are so close. I cannot imagine, being a former first grade teacher and preschool teacher, I cannot imagine teaching in a school and having 25, 20, 25 children and have this constant hum going on. Also, that noise at those levels also can cause increased anxiety and hypertension and a loss of sleep. That certainly is not the kind of environment that I would want my children to be in. Thank you.

Thank you. Was there anyone else with public comment? No? OK. Just checking. Thank you all. Do we have any other planning related issues? OK. Go ahead.

in front of people. So Colleen Campbell, 3927 Southwest Twilight Drive, Topeka, Kansas. So one of the things that I am concerned about is on the last conditional use that went through with the county commission, a lot of the industrial conditional use was put together, such as the battery storage, wind, solar, and data centers. And I feel like that was kind of like a lumping of all of these industrial uses that aren't necessarily the same. Some of those are similar and some of them aren't. And while like energy storage I think makes sense, but data centers aren't energy storage. They're using energy. And I also, Commissioner Mays talked about the smaller and larger data centers. I think most people here are fine with like BNSF has a data center. No one really cares about that. I think we're all talking about the hyperscale data centers. I think there just needs to be a separation of that discussion and maybe written in those laws. Also, what are the conditions? like Scott said about like an environmental impact assessment and those kinds of things, because they're not listed out specifically in the conditional use. I mean, if Joni is not here next week and it's a different person, for whatever reason, go to Hawaii. Then, you know, whatever she had imagined as those conditions would be brought on by another person and whatever they think of as those conditions might be. And so I think having something that is written out as at least environmental impact assessment, things like that, make it so that in five years or however long this is continuous and there's a continuity. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I don't know. Maybe I should just say that Scott and I know each other. We're friends. I just want you all to know that. We don't hang out together on weekends, but we've known each other for a long time, just so you know, to be perfectly honest.

So next item looks like planning related issues. Do we have any, what's the upcoming cases coming that have been followed?

We only have one case, and that is the composting case. So far, well, actually the deadline.

No, wait. So the deadline for next month is already passed, so that would be the only case.

We just have that one.

Tertiary composting case is scheduled for August Touching on a couple of topics just to bring you guys up to speed some things were said here that maybe you guys haven't necessarily been aware of in regards to Action that's happened at the Board of County Commission meeting. The first is that we did have a resolution that passed in regards to fees for data centers and battery, well, energy storage, because it could be any type. solar farms, we did have a resolution go before the BCC that would require those applications to file a $15,000 filing fee. Our typical filing fee is like 700, I believe, and so this is a grave difference for these specific cases because of the intensity of them. In addition to the increase of fee, they're also required to put another 10,000 in escrow. with the county that would allow the county to hire independent third party experts and if necessary reports or evaluations of the things that have been submitted. And so that did get considered and approved by the BCC I believe about a week ago, maybe two. Also, just so you guys know, based on the regulations here in Shawnee County, I, as the Director of Land Use and Development, have the authority to set the processing schedule of cases. And so I did set a separate schedule of processing for data centers, energy storage, and solar farms, whereby they would not take the same steps necessarily that our current CUP or rezoning cases take. Right now, the way that we do it is that we have a deadline on the fourth Friday of each month. So say for instance, next Friday is the fourth Friday. So if they file by July 24, then a normal case would process and come before the planning commission september i believe it's like 10. so it's about a six week time frame that we do our review we send it out to entities for comment and then get the staff report together and get it prepared to come before the planning commission and we're actually going to stretch that out substantially so that if a case were to be filed on july 24 for battery storage or data center or solar farm, that it would not actually come before you until October, so it adds another month on there. Obviously, with standard processing, any case that needs to be continued as we've had happen with other cases can be continued if we need additional input or research, and then once it comes in front of the planning commission, You do have the authority to ask for additional time or defer action or ask for additional reports or studies to be done. But if you don't and you make a recommendation one way or the other, then that goes in front of the Board of County Commissioners about another six weeks later. So we're stretching it out a little bit to give us additional time in regards to that. So that schedule is something that I set. You've probably heard a little bit. We do know that there's a data center out there planning to potentially file a case. We don't know for sure that they're gonna file. We've had conversations with them in a pre-op meeting to indicate all the information that they would need to provide us in terms of moving forward. They hope to have their application submitted by July 24 so that you would have a hearing on that as of October. I don't know for sure that that would be happening based on whether or not they can get us the information that we requested, which is substantial by that deadline. And so potentially having that coming up yet this fall. There is still the battery storage facility that has been making contact with us and has expressed that they intend to file a case. We don't anticipate that that would happen until late fall. Again, until someone files an application, we don't know, but we do have deadlines on the fourth Friday of each month. Questions about that?

When these entities come before you, how do you judge how serious they are or what their interests are?

You know, we've been getting inquiries from various data centers, battery storage, for several years. You get asked to answer questions about how zoning works or locations or what kind of water access or electrical access And typically we hear from them We give them information and then we don't hear from them again in the case that we're talking about the application that we believe is pending I think they're pretty serious in terms of filing an application So there's been

you know, questions in regards to power use, water use, and noise pollution. Correct. I'm assuming that those, that data would be required to come from them based on the size of the data center that they desire to build.

It wouldn't even require it based on the size. Just similar to the solar regulations that we considered, if you think about the list of items that we said they would have to submit or may have to submit, fire emergency plans, reclamation and decommissioning plans, bond and financial information, setbacks, site plans, any of the, like, Migratory animals, endangered species, trying to think of all the things that we listed off. Traffic studies and construction plans, truck routes, building plans. We had a list of probably 10 to 15 things that would be required to be submitted upon application that they would have to have complete and full studies of submitted to us in order for us to move forward. Noise studies, light pollution, Yeah, all the things. Okay, thank you. You will get a lot of information if this ever comes to fruition.

So you have a set of criteria now that you've already established, a checklist of what they need?

We have guidelines and standards based on, A, the solar regulations that we used, and we created similar standards in office for what we would need. And then, of course, in any situation, when someone applies for something and we get review from not only our department, but any of the outside departments who may have to provide information or detail, they can always request information as well. And so just because we didn't ask for it upon application doesn't mean that we won't require it to continue to move forward.

Is there anybody on the board that's going to be going to the data center conference?

Yes. There are three of you that are planning to go to the summit. Yeah. And Myron and Jeanette, all three are going, is my understanding. Right. But not, I can't be there the whole time. And that's fine. Yeah. If they cannot be there the whole time, then that's fine. And then Harim and I are both going, and I believe other county officials will.

Will some of that material be available to us that can't make the conference?

I don't know what they're going to give us. I will try and gather whatever details that we can and provide those to you. I don't know what they'll give us.

Oh, this is such a contentious issue. And yet, if I would ask everybody out there whether they use data, have devices that use data, and then ask the question about if you need a data center, where would it be built? It's certainly not my neighborhood, which we've heard over and over again. And I understand that. I'm not making fun of that. But it's just that hopefully we'll have the ability to assure the public that we are working or we would make decisions in their best interest based on the best information that we would have available and i thank you for working on that to make that possible absolutely

I didn't get any notice yet from the...

I have to submit the payment for it. They sent an invoice, but because we had a little bit of a change, then I have to submit that today. And then once I get that accomplished, then they'll send you an email confirmation with your attendance. Okay, great. Yes.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.