Pine Island council approves preliminary plat and PUD for Project Skyway amid strong resident opposition

PINE ISLAND, Minn. —6 Dec. 16, 2025 —6 The Pine Island City Council voted on Dec. 16 to approve a preliminary plat and a preliminary development plan for "Pine Island Industrial," the 482-acre proposal tied to Ryan Companies'9 Project Skyway, despite a largely critical public comment period in which dozens of residents urged the council to pause the project until questions about power, water, air emissions and traffic routing are resolved.

Residents occupied most of the council chamber during a public-input session that stretched for hours. "You must vote no on the proposal as it violates our city code," said Darcy Simpson, who identified her address and urged councilors to reject the project without details on backup diesel generators and low-frequency noise. "Low frequency noise is also difficult to measure... it can be felt and the human brain constantly processes it even while you sleep," she said.

Why the council'9s decision matters: the preliminary plat (Resolution 2560) clears the way for a staged buildout and requires the developer to return with a final plat and detailed engineering plans; the PUD-like preliminary development plan sets standards for noise (developer proposes MPCA limits), lighting, building setbacks and off-site infrastructure and requires a list of conditions (stormwater, utilities, easements) before final approval. If the developer proceeds, the city will require the developer to construct water and sewer extensions and a looped water main at the developer'9s expense.

Council and staff described the approvals as preliminary and conditional. Stephen (city planning staff) told the council the plat divides the property into one immediate developable lot and three outlots, and that the city and state review processes remain in place for final approvals. City engineer Craig summarized the technical review, saying the developer'9s stormwater modeling shows two main discharge points and that the proposed stormwater system provides 10.8 acre-feet of water-quality volume where 8.09 acre-feet is required.

Councilors heard repeated requests from residents for clear answers on several technical points. "What will be the total power demand of this data center? What's the backup system and how much noise will it generate? How many generators are planned? What fuels them?" asked one speaker during public comment. Residents also raised water-appropriation concerns: staff said the project'9s total water request for full buildout is estimated at roughly 152,000 gallons per day, which staff said would trigger coordination with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and require updates to the city'9s water-supply planning.

The city attorney, Bob, told the council that the city received a petition to require a separate Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) but recommended exemption because the city already completed an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUR) that the Environmental Quality Board accepted; he noted the adequacy of that AUR is currently the subject of litigation. "The existing environmental review is in court," he said, which will be resolved through the court process.

At the council meeting the motions to approve the preliminary plat (Resolution 2560) and to advance the preliminary development plan were moved and seconded. During roll call, council members signaled assent; staff explained the developer will have 120 days to file a final plat and must address technical and legal conditions before final approval.

Opponents asked the council to pause the project while the city collects more detailed data on noise emissions, generator models and fuels, traffic routing during construction and water-permit implications. Supporters said the project presents opportunities for economic development. Jonathan Paul, a former council member, urged councilors not to fear change and described the proposal as a significant development opportunity.

What happens next: preliminary approvals obligate the developer to submit final plats and engineering plans that respond to the city'9s technical comments; staff and state agencies (MnDOT, DNR, MPCA) will continue to review required permits. The project remains subject to pending litigation over the adequacy of the AUR; that litigation could affect the timeline and legal posture of later permitting steps.

Council action recorded: Resolution 2560 (preliminary plat) approved (motion and second; roll-call assent recorded). The preliminary development plan/PUD was advanced with conditions; staff will attach Craig'9s technical report and list of conditions for final review.

The council adjourned the open meeting after additional administrative items and moved to a closed session to discuss pending litigation.