The draft sets a 50-acre minimum lot and a 2,000-foot separation from residential property and specified sensitive uses. It also calls for 500 feet of separation from other uses and streets. Those distances would make location a central question for an applicant: industrial zoning alone would not satisfy the proposed siting rules. The packet includes zoning and other context maps, while the ordinance text states the proposed standards.
The proposed exclusions cover the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones, floodways, the 100-year floodplain and locations within 300 feet of a fault line. Together with the lot size and separation rules, these exclusions are intended to limit which sites could qualify. The proposal does not identify an applicant or approve a particular site; the scheduled action concerns citywide code language.
Water, power, traffic and noise
An applicant would have to submit water-use and cooling plans, along with certifications from utility providers addressing available capacity and whether existing ratepayers would bear an impact or cost pass-through. For customers concerned about infrastructure costs, those certifications would be part of the application for review. The draft describes what applicants must supply; it does not provide findings about any particular facility’s water or electricity demand.
The proposed application requirements also include a traffic study and a 72-hour baseline noise study. The draft sets a 35-decibel ceiling at protected property lines. Those provisions give nearby residents concrete topics to examine at the hearing: projected trips, existing sound levels and how an applicant would demonstrate compliance with the proposed limit. The requirements remain draft language until the city completes its ordinance process.
Other business and how to follow the decision
The commission is also scheduled to consider approval of its Oct. 7 minutes under item 3A and a 2027 meeting calendar under item 5A. The agenda lists call to order, roll call, citizens’ communications, a possible executive session and adjournment as well. The calendar and minutes are separate from the data-center hearing; the agenda describes business to be taken up, not completed decisions.
Residents can use the listed citizens’ communications period for nonagenda topics and the item 6A public hearing for comments on the proposed data-center rules. A useful way to prepare is to compare a location of concern with the proposed spacing and exclusion language, or to ask how the requested utility and noise documentation would be evaluated. The posted agenda establishes those opportunities; it does not establish what anyone will say.
The scheduled commission action is a recommendation to City Council on the Chapter 144 proposal. After Nov. 4, the commission’s recorded recommendation and any later council agenda or ordinance text will show whether the draft moves forward and whether its standards change. For now, the Nov. 4 agenda is the route to the hearing details, and the agenda packet is the route to the language residents can inspect.
