Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer says proposed LEED data center will use less water than approved subdivision; seeks restrictive covenant review
Summary
A speaker during public comment described a proposed data center at 904 Francis Harris, arguing it would use less water, impose less service burden than a 500-home subdivision and be bound by a restrictive covenant limiting water use and guaranteeing water-quality and stormwater measures.
Get email alerts on the Development Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During the council work session public-comment period on May 20, resident and proponent John Mayberry described a proposed building project at 904 Francis Harris that he said is a LEED-certified data center, not a cryptocurrency-mining facility, and asked the council to consider regulating and taxing it if the project is sited within the city rather than in the county.
Mayberry provided council a handout and said the development team intends to propose a restrictive covenant that will bind the land and any subsequent owner. He told council the covenant would require the site to use “50% less water” than an already-approved 500-home subdivision option and that stormwater management, detention and water quality on the site would be “above city code.” He said the covenant would remain in effect regardless of future ownership and that the development would produce less burden on city services than a residential subdivision.
Mayberry urged council to review the covenant language when staff brings it forward and said the project’s design would produce taxable commercial value in the city rather than the county if sited inside city limits. He invited council to direct him or staff to follow up with any questions before a formal presentation at a future council meeting.
Transcript note: Mayberry spoke in the public-comment portion of the meeting and said the restrictive covenant and project details would be shared with council before any formal agenda action; no ordinance or formal council action on the project occurred at the May 20 work session.
