Council introduces annexation for 6.66‑acre industrial parcel as residents warn against nearby data center

Chair called the meeting to order and the council introduced a voluntary annexation petition for roughly 6.66 acres along the I‑65 / 37th Avenue corridor intended to allow M‑1 (industrial) development, the council heard on Wednesday.

Richard Anderson, who introduced the petition, said the parcel is part of a broader CATCO corridor plan and described it as entering the city as M‑1 zoning. “Tonight is only an introduction of the ordinance,” Anderson said, and staff noted a fiscal analysis had been prepared and that the council would set a public hearing to take further comment.

Why this matters: the annexation would clear the path for industrial development on land near residential neighborhoods in Ross Township; residents said that could bring heavy traffic, generator noise and potential groundwater impacts that could affect wells.

At the public comment period, multiple residents urged the council to halt or slow steps toward industrial development until the city requires baseline environmental testing. A longtime resident and frequent speaker (identified in the transcript as Corey of 7203 Colorado Street) said she had researched past park promises and alleged residents felt ignored. “I say absolutely no data center at 61st and 69th Avenue,” the resident said, arguing the site is not appropriate for a hyperscale data center and asking for a park instead.

Several commenters described concerns about emergency response after recounting delayed ambulance visits; the mayor (acting as chair at the meeting) said he would follow up with the fire department and pull call records to investigate. Residents also pressed the council on noise impacts: one speaker cited measurements and asked the city to consider a lower decibel limit for new construction and data‑center operations so residential property lines are protected.

Council and staff response: staff said a Baker Tilly fiscal update adjusted acreage to 6.668 and showed no change to financial projections; staff and council noted traffic mitigation strategies being studied (off‑site parking, bus shuttles and managed gate check‑ins). The chair and staff repeatedly invited residents to submit written reports or evidence, promised follow‑up on ambulance call timing, and said baseline environmental work and additional meetings with developers and utility providers would be appropriate next steps.

What’s next: the council moved to send the annexation petition to a public hearing (dates discussed in the meeting included April 5 and April 15 in the course of discussion). That hearing will be the formal opportunity for more public testimony and for staff to present any environmental or traffic studies the city requires before final action.

Notably, residents asked that the city require groundwater and soil baseline testing before any dewatering or major earthwork; staff said some sampling had been filed as part of the developer’s permitting but took the request for an explicit baseline investigation under advisement.

Ending: The matter is scheduled to return for public hearing and further council consideration. The council indicated it will continue outreach and follow up on staff’s environmental and traffic information prior to final votes.