Saginaw Planning Commission reviews draft data‑center zoning ordinance, schedules July public hearing

The Saginaw Planning Commission held an informal review of a draft data‑center zoning ordinance, discussing how the city would regulate stand‑alone data centers, reporting requirements for sound and water use, and draft language on developer responsibility for utility upgrades. Commissioners were told a public hearing is being planned for July.

Chairperson opened the meeting and explained public comment rules and the process for special land‑use and site‑plan approvals. Staff described the current draft as a refinement of an earlier version and said it creates a clearer distinction between accessory uses (for example, small server rooms in city IT departments, hospitals or businesses) and principal, stand‑alone data centers that would be the ordinance’s primary focus.

"We're not trying to regulate something like that where a business is operating off of multiple servers and they have their own IT," said Attorney Lusk, describing the draft’s intent to target standalone facilities rather than routine server rooms. Lusk added that the ordinance has been tightened to clarify applicability and operational requirements.

On reporting and operational controls, Lusk said the draft retains an annual sound study requirement under the operational requirements (g.2) and "we added some language ... regarding water usage and adding a requirement for some reporting on water consumption so we can get an understanding of baseline water uses the first 2 years and years thereafter." That reporting would cover both water and wastewater use, staff said.

Commissioners asked about whether the March draft’s language requiring developers to pay for water and wastewater upgrades had been removed. Lusk said the developer responsibility language remains in the draft but "it just got moved around," pointing commissioners to the updated subsection where those requirements are located.

The draft’s definitions and scope were discussed: a commissioner asked whether large research computing facilities at universities might fall under the ordinance. Lusk said such operations could meet the general definition of a data center but that the commission would need to determine whether a specific facility would be treated as an accessory use or a principal use when an application is submitted and reviewed.

A commissioner asked why the current draft added greater technical detail on wastewater, thermal management and water consumption. Lusk said staff had researched best practices, attended webinars, and coordinated with internal water, wastewater and public‑services staff to clarify what burdens larger facilities might place on city systems.

On waivers, staff confirmed one explicit exception: a setback can be waived for solar power facilities developed in conjunction with a data center. Lusk said that exception was added at the request of Commissioner Clark at a prior meeting.

Staff emphasized that capacity questions would be evaluated on an application‑by‑application basis. "It depends on the scale and scope of the data center," Lusk said, noting examples of very large facilities elsewhere (he referenced a roughly "23 megawatts consumption" project in the Lansing area and a controversial Saline Township facility with very high energy use) and saying Water and Wastewater staff would produce reports on capacity as part of any permit review.

The ordinance will be brought back informally in June for further refinement and discussion, with a public hearing tentatively planned in July, staff said. No formal vote was taken during the meeting.