Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Center Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Brainerd planning commission begins drafting data‑center ordinance, debates noise, location, permits and energy standards
Summary
Commissioners and staff spent the Dec. 18 meeting hashing out a preliminary ordinance to regulate data centers (including crypto mining), focusing on whether to require conditional use permits instead of interim permits, how to measure and mitigate 24/7 noise, location buffers (500 feet proposed), hazardous-waste plans, notification radius and potential energy/renewable requirements.
The Brainerd City Planning Commission spent the largest portion of its Dec. 18 meeting discussing a preliminary ordinance to regulate data centers, a category the draft defines to include commercial crypto mining, AI centers and cloud-storage facilities.
Staff recommended that data centers be treated as a distinct allowed use and regulated through conditional use permits (CUPs) rather than five‑year interim use permits (IUPs). Staff and several commissioners said a CUP provides durable authority to condition operations, require mitigation and revoke approval if a business violates permit conditions; operators countered that five‑year limits can undermine long-term investment decisions.
Noise dominated the conversation. Staff proposed requiring a third‑party baseline noise study before approval and discussed an L50-type metric for continuous (24/7) operations using MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) guidelines. Operators and residents disagreed about whether annual testing is necessary: some operators urged testing be required only on complaint or by council action, while residents and local proponents urged a more proactive approach to avoid long disputes similar to other Minnesota cases.
Location and buffers were also debated. Staff presented an option that would require a CUP for any data center sited within 500 feet of a dwelling unit or specified residential zones; commissioners split on whether a fixed 500-foot buffer is the best tool or whether site-specific noise modeling and conditional-use conditions are preferable.
Other items under consideration include:
- Hazardous-waste plans and MPCA compliance reviewed by public works, utilities and fire before permit approval. - Screening and siting standards for outdoor mechanical equipment so it is not placed in front of a building. - Public notification procedures (staff currently mails within 350 feet; suggestions included a half-mile radius and applicant-led neighborhood meetings). - Energy or performance standards: one commissioner proposed a renewable-energy offset requirement (Missoula example); staff said Brainerd Public Utilities (BPU) should be consulted before drafting such a requirement, and industry representatives warned renewable-energy credit costs vary and could affect investment decisions.
Multiple industry representatives attended and urged workable, measurable standards. An online representative from BlockMetrics said immersion cooling and building design often make noise manageable and advocated for CUP flexibility; a local resident and another speaker urged equal application of noise requirements across industries.
Staff will prepare draft ordinance options reflecting feedback on permit type, noise testing cadence, buffer/location options, hazardous-waste review and energy considerations and expects to return to the commission in January pending BPU and other departmental input.
