Council debates density, site size limits and using development agreements to protect neighbors

Councilmembers asked whether the city should cap the size or footprint of data centers or add rules to prevent multiple I‑4‑zoned parcels from clustering. Gretchen proposed language that would prevent two properties zoned I‑4 from being located immediately adjacent within a defined distance to avoid a 'race to be the first I‑4 plot.' Some members warned such spacing rules could create 'spot zoning' or undesirable scattering of industrial uses if not carefully applied.

Staff and the attorney recommended two tools: (1) use setbacks, footprint restrictions and site requirements to limit where a data center could practically fit, and (2) use development agreements with an individual developer to secure site‑specific protections such as property‑value guarantees, buyouts for neighbors, tax‑revenue commitments or commitments on heat capture if a viable off‑taker exists. "There's a lot of detail in a development agreement," Larry Konopak said, noting he had previously written property‑value guarantees into a development agreement in other contexts but that those arrangements are complex and fact‑specific.

Council also discussed modular/containerized data centers and the need to treat temporary or non‑permanent structures as permanent for setback and safety purposes; staff said the next draft will tighten definitions to prevent developers from classifying modular components as temporary to evade setbacks.