TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Jodi Phelps - Assistant City Manager
Dr. Gerald Newton, AICP - Development Services Director
Jennifer C Baptiste, CZO - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
FROM: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
DATE: August 10, 2026
RE:Title
TA26-01 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendments: Telecommunications and Data Storage Facilities (Data Centers)
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
The FY2025 Strategic Plan frames the City’s efforts around providing quality, sustainable public services that help communities thrive, and businesses grow, while promoting a vision of a city that is safe, prosperous, innovative, and unified. The TA26-01 data center amendments support this framework by establishing clear, manageable rules for an emerging, infrastructure-heavy land use, while maintaining a focus on measurable impacts and predictable, transparent review. The package reduces ambiguity in the UDO, aligns entitlements with suitable locations, and adds standards designed to be enforceable over time - exactly the kind of “forward-thinking” and data-informed governance described in the Strategic Plan.
Under Goal I (Safety & Security), the amendments enhance the City’s ability to prevent and respond to operational issues that could become public safety concerns if unregulated. Data centers can incorporate high-voltage electrical systems, fuel storage, generator equipment, and other specialized components that operate continuously. By clearly defining their use and applying use-specific standards based on actual impacts - especially noise and operational controls - the ordinance package reduces nuisance conditions that lead to complaints and repeated enforcement actions. It also helps ensure the city can hold operators to objective, verifiable requirements. In short, the amendments promote a safer and more secure community by establishing clearer expectations upfront and more dependable compliance tools after construction.
Under Goal II (Diverse & Viable Economy), the amendments promote a stable development environment while protecting the community from unnecessary conflicts. A key economic development concern for any emerging use is certainty: applicants and residents need to understand what the use is, where it may be located, and what performance expectations apply. TA26-01 advances the Strategic Plan’s goals related to maintaining a diverse tax base, leveraging partnerships for job creation and retention, and fostering a positive development climate by (1) defining and clearly naming the use to prevent ad hoc regulation, (2) placing it in the Use Table with explicit approval pathways, and (3) reserving discretionary review for higher-impact external proposals (such as facilities with an on-site Energy Center). This approach enhances predictability for responsible projects in suitable employment zones while allowing the City to address site-specific compatibility concerns where impacts are more likely.
Under Goal III (City Investment Planning), the relationship is straightforward. The Strategic Plan highlights managing future growth and strategic land use, ensuring timely and precise development review, strengthening code enforcement, and expanding “smart city” capabilities. Data centers, being dependent on utilities and infrastructure, can impose substantial demands on electric capacity, water/sewer systems, and transportation logistics during construction. TA26-01 aligns with this goal by combining land use directives (entitlements) with submission and operational standards that encourage early coordination and clearer documentation. This approach helps the City plan infrastructure proactively, minimizes surprises late in the review process, and promotes more consistent enforcement because the required documentation and performance standards are codified in the ordinance rather than negotiated informally.
Under Goal IV (Live, Work, & Recreate), the amendments enhance the Strategic Plan’s focus on improving quality of life by increasing compatibility at neighboring edges and addressing airport-related issues. The use-specific standards aim to reduce common sources of long-term friction - such as noise, outdoor equipment placement, and screening - to ensure that growth in employment areas does not negatively impact nearby residential communities. Additionally, the airport overlay amendment directly supports the Strategic Plan’s objective to maintain high-quality transit and airport services by requiring development features related to large industrial campuses to undergo compatibility reviews. This approach improves safety, minimizes avoidable conflicts with airport operations, and aligns with the City’s broader mobility and connectivity goals.
Under Goal V (Financially Sound City), TA26-01 promotes fiduciary accountability and service excellence by making the development review and enforcement process more efficient and defensible. Clear definitions decrease staff time spent on interpretive disputes. Use-table clarity reduces uncertainty for applicants and the City. Objective, enforceable standards lower repeated complaint cycles and help staff focus on measurable compliance rather than subjective judgement calls. The tailored parking and loading standards also support efficient land use and prevent unnecessary overbuilding, which can lead to long-term maintenance and stormwater issues. Overall, the amendments help the City deliver consistent, high-quality service with fewer avoidable administrative costs.
Under Goal VI (Collaborative Government), the amendments align with the Strategic Plan’s focus on trust, transparency, and productive engagement with residents, businesses, and partner agencies. A key source of public mistrust in land use regulation is inconsistency - when outcomes depend on interpretation rather than clear rules. TA26-01 reduces that risk by clarifying the City’s expectations and structuring decisions around predictable triggers and submittals. Equally important, the package promotes collaborative implementation: it emphasizes clear coordination points with utilities and airport-related reviews, and it reinforces accountability by requiring designated points of contact and documented compliance processes. This approach supports informed public discussion, boosts confidence in City procedures, and makes it easier for stakeholders to understand how and why decisions are made.
Executive Summary:
TA26-01 is a package of UDO text amendments that establishes a clear, enforceable framework for Telecommunications and Data Storage Facilities (data centers). The amendments do three things: define the use precisely (including principal versus accessory forms), place it in the Use Table with clear entitlements by zoning district, and add targeted, use-specific standards that address the impacts most likely to affect nearby properties and City operations. The package also adjusts parking/loading expectations to reflect the operational realities of data centers and updates the Airport Overlay District to ensure early compatibility review where height, lighting, cranes, and related features could impact airport operations.
The overall approach is impact-based and designed to improve predictability, fairness, and enforceability. Lower-impact forms of use have a clearer pathway in suitable employment and industrial districts, while proposals with higher external impact potential - especially those including an on-site Energy Center - are structured for discretionary review and conditions when necessary. By reducing interpretive ambiguity and linking requirements to objective standards (such as compatibility at residential edges, equipment placement and screening, noise compliance and verification, utility coordination documentation, and operational points of contact), TA26-01 promotes responsible economic development, protect neighborhood livability, and enhances the City’s ability to administer and enforce the ordinance over time.
Note: This report and its attachments are unchanged from the materials previously presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. The only substantive update is the revised timeline included in the Background section.
Background:
The City’s data center work has been organized as a deliberate “production-ready” effort: to treat data centers as a distinct land use, to resolve open policy questions (such as their proper placement and applicable entitlement tools), and to convert known operational impacts into enforceable development standards that can be reviewed consistently during site plan and permit reviews. A working group was convened as a cross-department, cross-stakeholder forum - including Planning, Zoning, Airport, PWC Electric, Fire Marshal, Development Services, Public Services, IT, and FCEDC, with Planning Commission representation - to test the framework and identify specific edits that staff could incorporate into the final ordinance package. The goals were practical: confirm the entitlement approach, define what a complete Utility Impact Statement should include and how it should be routed, and establish a unified method for addressing campus scale, phasing, aggregation, and impact-based triggers.
The need for these amendments stems from a simple code gap: “data center” is not currently a clear, defined, enforceable use category in the UDO. Without that clarity, the use can shift into whatever classification is most convenient with each case. This results in inconsistent entitlements, uncertain standards, and weak enforcement power - exactly the conditions that lead to disputes during plan review and complaints after occupancy. Staff’s goal has been to establish a predictable pathway for suitable locations while directly regulating the off-site externalities that actually occur: the placement and screening of large outdoor mechanical and electrical yards, the timing and noise levels of generator testing, utility demand levels, and operational features (like on-site power generation) that significantly alter a project’s impact.
This end product results from an iterative process that started with an initial five-part draft ordinance package presented to the Planning Commission in October 2025. During the January 2026 working group session, staff explicitly referred to that earlier package as the “current draft ordinance package,” noting it had already gone through the Planning Commission and served as the baseline for focused refinement. Instead of proceeding directly on a Council schedule, the approach shifted to deliberate rework - using the October draft as a starting point, then integrating feedback from the working group, departmental review, and enforceability edits to produce a final version that is more streamlined and defensible.
A major theme driving the rewrite is scope discipline: the working group stressed that “data center” covers everything from smaller facilities and adaptive reuse to hyperscale campuses, and warned against regulating every facility as if it were the largest national headline example. This focus led to amendments that emphasize precision - distinguishing incidental IT rooms inside ordinary buildings from data centers as the main use, and further separating the elements that truly create neighborhood impacts (dedicated exterior plant, generator operations, and utility behavior). The definitions were revised to establish clear boundaries so the code regulates externalities without unintentionally including hospitals, offices, or other uses that contain server rooms.
The entitlement structure was also refined to match impact. The Use Table amendment labels the use as “Telecommunications and Data Storage Facility” and divides it into two main variants: a standard principal facility and a principal facility “with Energy Center.” This division reflects a key point from the working group: on-site power generation alters operational aspects such as generator operation frequency, fuel logistics, and the likelihood of nuisance and enforcement issues. Therefore, the “with Energy Center” version is intentionally subject to Special Use Permit review in districts where it is permitted. Meanwhile, the standards package was rewritten to address questions the Use Table cannot answer: where equipment can be located relative to residential edges, what must be demonstrated acoustically (and when), how mitigation becomes part of the approved plan, and how post-construction verification closes the loop between modeling and real-world operations.
Finally, the rewrite included a “no surprises” set of calibration fixes based on operational experience and interdepartmental review. Parking and loading standards were adjusted to suit a use that is infrastructure-heavy but people-light, avoiding oversized parking fields driven solely by floor area while still maintaining adequate visitor and service capacity. The package now also addresses airport-compatibility review more directly through an Airport Overlay amendment, recognizing that modern industrial projects (including data centers) can proceed by right through site plan and permitting processes, even though the aviation risks - such as height/appurtenances, lighting, plume/visibility issues, fuel, and generator components - remain the same whether or not a rezoning takes place. These revisions result in a clearer, more enforceable framework: more precise definitions, a Use Table that prevents classification drift, standards targeting actual impacts, and review mechanisms that ensure the right information reaches the appropriate reviewers early enough to avoid late-stage redesigns and neighborhood conflicts.
Peer Communities
Peer communities are learning the same key lesson: you cannot regulate “data centers” like warehouses or generic industrial tenants because the impacts people actually feel are caused by external plant (cooling equipment, generator yards, substations/switchgear), operating patterns (especially routine generator testing), and the scale and timing of utility commitments. This is the same reason for naming the use and defining its parts - to regulate what creates externalities without affecting typical “server rooms” incidental to hospitals, offices, or other permitted uses. The difference between internal accessory IT rooms and accessory installations with dedicated external plant, as well as the separation between a standard principal facility and a principal facility “with Energy Center,” reflects the clarity that peer jurisdictions have had to adopt after trying to manage modern facilities through broad categories. This approach aligns with national best practices: distinguish data centers from warehouse type uses, keep approvals predictable where impacts are manageable, and apply targeted performance standards near sensitive areas.
Northern Virginia remains the clearest high-growth example of what happens when data centers expand faster than the zoning laws can adapt. Fairfax County’s adopted Data Centers Zoning Ordinance Amendment (approved on September 10, 2024; effective September 11, 2024) emphasizes noise compliance and proximity to residential areas as key concerns. For by-right data centers, Fairfax requires (1) a pre-construction noise study submitted before site plan approval and (2) a post-construction noise study submitted before issuing a Nonresidential Use Permit, both showing compliance with the County Noise Ordinance to the Zoning Administrator’s satisfaction. Fairfax also pairs these noise-study requirements with separation and design standards near residential zones, including minimum setbacks for buildings and certain equipment (with relief available through a special exception process), along with a general requirement that equipment be enclosed or screened. Loudoun County went further in its Phase 1 action (Board approval March 18, 2025): The zoning ordinance amendment mandates Special Exception (SPEX) approval for data center uses in the Industrial Park (IP), General Industry (GI), and Mineral Resources-Heavy Industry (MR-HI) districts, where they had previously been permitted by right. It also includes a grandfathering resolution and a County-issued application pathway guide for projects accepted on or before February 12, 2025, which includes a 500-foot buffer from existing residential structures that plays a role in the grandfathering decision process for certain administrative applications.
That Northern Virginia trajectory aligns closely with the direction of these amendments, even though the mechanisms are customized to Fayetteville’s code structure. Instead of requiring a full acoustical study for every proposal, the ordinance adopts a proportional approach: it applies a uniform noise compliance standard to all facilities and then mandates technical acoustical documentation and post-construction verification when the site context or project features suggest a higher potential for off-site impacts - especially near residential areas and for facilities with an on-site Energy Center. The compatibility framework is the same as Fairfax’s: regulate to the property boundary, require competent modeling and enforceable mitigation, and ensure that real-world operations align with what was promised.
Regionally, Charlotte is a useful comparison because it shows how a major North Carolina peer has already moved to explicitly name and define the use in its UDO instead of regulating it through similar categories. Charlotte defines a “Telecommunications and Data Storage Facility” as an employee-access-only facility that houses computer systems and related components for transmitting and receiving information, including cloud storage systems and server farms. Fayetteville’s approach matches that core idea and terminology, but it goes further by addressing specific enforcement issues flagged during our process: it clearly separates accessory IT functions that remain internal from data-center-like installations that include dedicated exterior equipment. In TA26-01, the ordinance creates two accessory definitions (“Internal Plant Only” versus “with Dedicated Exterior Plant”) and defines “Dedicated Exterior Plant” as the external mechanical and electrical equipment mainly supporting the facility, such as cooling towers, chiller/condenser yards, large fan arrays, generator yards, switchgear yards, and substations. The practical reason for this distinction is simple: neighbors do not experience “server racks”; they notice outdoor equipment-noise, visuals, screening, and placement-so the ordinance makes those components clear to ensure setbacks, screening, and noise requirements are applied consistently and enforced effectively.
Raleigh is useful in a different way. Its UDO is built around broad use categories, and it places the responsibility on the Zoning Administrator to classify uses; if a proposed use is not listed, it can be treated as part of a similar listed category. This structure can work in markets where proposals are smaller, infrequent, or easier to compare. Fayetteville’s approach is intentionally different because the policy issue we are trying to address is not just “what do we call this use,” but “how do we ensure predictable review and enforceable mitigation for the specific externalities the public reacts to.” Naming the use, defining its components, and linking standards to those components reduces classification disputes and avoids case-by-case analogies at the moment when scale, complexity, and public sensitivity make ambiguity costly.
Beyond entitlement and noise, peer research also explains why Fayetteville’s package remains focused on land-use externalities rather than trying to embed broader economic development “asks” within zoning text. Many communities pursue wider public benefits through parallel channels-tax and revenue policies, workforce pipelines, infrastructure agreements, and utility partnerships-rather than through the core zoning ordinance, because zoning is most effective when it regulates siting, compatibility, and measurable impacts. Peer examples often cited include communities using data-center-driven revenues to support schools and public safety, operators pairing investments with job training and clean-energy commitments, and major companies collaborating on water and reuse strategies to reduce demand on potable systems. These examples help clarify a key design choice here: keeping the UDO focused on what it can regulate and enforce (where the use can locate, how it interacts with nearby properties, what standards apply to noise and equipment, and what documentation is required), while utilizing other tools-utility coordination processes, incentives, development agreements, and programmatic partnerships-when the goal is to secure broader community benefits that are better achieved through means other than zoning text.
Finally, two Fayetteville-specific differences are best understood as “local context” rather than a philosophical divergence from peer cities. First is the entitlement map. The Use Table structure-by-right in the primary employment and industrial districts, Special Use Permit in edge districts, and prohibited in neighborhood districts-aligns with a common peer pattern: predictable pathways in areas designed for higher-intensity employment use, with discretionary review reserved for locations where compatibility issues are more likely and where conditions may be needed to protect nearby neighborhoods. The second is the Airport Overlay component. Many peer ordinances do not need to incorporate aviation-safety considerations into the same package, but Fayetteville does because modern data center campuses can include features relevant in an airport approach environment-taller structures and rooftop appurtenances, extensive lighting, temporary cranes, and operational factors that impact visibility or interfere with navigation and communications systems. The overlay amendment is a “no late surprises” strategy: it requires early identification of height and appurtenance limits, mandates timely FAA notice and documentation, and clarifies referral and resolution procedures so compatibility issues are identified early enough to allow redesign without delaying a project late in the site plan review.
Timeline:
• Late Summer-Fall 2025: City of Fayetteville Development Services staff began receiving inquiries regarding data centers within the City. Staff initiated research and began developing possible amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to define data centers and establish appropriate locations and development standards.
• October 21, 2025: City staff presented an initial draft of possible text amendments to the Planning Commission.
• January 2026: A Data Center Working Group was formed. The group included local subject-matter experts, City staff, Fayetteville Public Works Commission representatives, Airport staff, and Planning Commission members.
• January 15, 2026: The Data Center Working Group held its first meeting.
• February 17, 2026: The Planning Commission conducted a legislative public hearing on proposed text amendments to define and regulate data centers as “Telecommunications and Data Storage Facilities” within the UDO Use Table. The proposed amendments differed substantially from the draft presented in October 2025 and reflected additional research and recommendations from the Data Center Working Group. The Commission voted to recommend approval.
• March 2, 2026: During its work session, City Council considered an Agenda Item Request from Council Member McMillan directing the City Manager to research data center policy options and present recommendations. The request did not move forward.
• April 6, 2026: City staff, including Chief Information Officer Willie Henry and Planner II Demetrios Moutos, presented information on data centers during the City Council work session. Council reached consensus for staff to provide the same presentation previously given to the Planning Commission.
• April 13, 2026: Development Services Director Dr. Gerald Newton and Planner II Demetrios Moutos presented the proposed UDO amendments concerning Telecommunications and Data Storage Facilities, as requested by Council on April 6. Council approved a motion by Council Member McMillan directing staff to organize a presentation and discussion regarding a possible moratorium.
• April 27, 2026: Assistant City Attorney Victoria Curtis presented information regarding North Carolina development moratoria. City Council approved a 120-day stay.
• June 1, 2026: City Council considered an Agenda Item Request from Council Member McMillan directing staff to draft a data center moratorium ordinance. The motion failed for lack of a second.
• June 1, 2026: City Council also considered an Agenda Item Request from Council Member Hondros concerning a public hearing on the proposed UDO amendments for Telecommunications and Data Storage Facilities, previously identified as Item 9.01, TA26-01, from the April 13 regular meeting. Council reached consensus to hold a public hearing.
• August 3, 2026: The City Council work session is scheduled to include educational presentations on data centers by Dr. Ben Rachunok of North Carolina State University, David Payne of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and Clarence Briggs of Advanced Internet Technologies, Inc.
• August 10, 2026: The City Council public hearing to be held.
Issues/Analysis:
Taken together, these amendments create a comprehensive regulatory “chain” for a use that the UDO previously did not identify or regulate as its own land use. The package begins by clarifying what the use is (and is not), then designates where it can be located and what entitlements are required. It also establishes the performance and design standards that directly influence the impacts on residents - especially at residential edges. The overall approach is to regulate the actual externalities of data centers (such as outdoor equipment yards, generator operations, noise, lighting, utility coordination, and complaint response) without unintentionally covering regular development that contains IT rooms. This framework offers predictability and protection: a clear pathway for investment in suitable districts, with well-defined, enforceable guardrails where conflicts are most likely to occur.
The Definitions amendment (Ordinance 1) forms the basis for everything that follows because it sets the boundary lines necessary for the rest of the code to be enforceable and fair. It considers “data center” as a spectrum, distinguishing incidental IT rooms within ordinary buildings from a true principal facility. It then further isolates the parts of the facility that generate neighborhood impacts, such as outdoor mechanical yards and generator operations, so the UDO can concentrate on the factors that create land-use externalities. It also establishes a practical distinction between accessory installations that are genuinely internal and those that add dedicated exterior plant, because simply labeling something as “accessory” is too broad to manage impact risk adequately. The goal is to prevent both overreach-such as capturing hospitals, offices, or industrial users with server rooms-and underreach-allowing a data-center-like impact profile to slip through as just “accessory” in name only.
The Use Table amendment (Ordinance 2) fulfills the necessary zoning task of turning those definitions into clear entitlements. It establishes the use rows that show where the principal use can be located and whether it is permitted by right or requires a Special Use Permit. It also separately acknowledges the higher-impact “with Energy Center” configuration by placing it in a more discretionary category. The planning approach is simple: by-right placement is designated for districts meant to handle higher-intensity employment uses, while discretionary review remains for cases where context sensitivity is greater (or where an energy-center operating model increases the likelihood and significance of off-site impacts). This also keeps review focused: once the entitlement is set, the use-specific standards provide the measurable tools that effectively prevent and resolve conflicts.
The Use-Specific Standards amendment (Ordinance 3) marks when the package becomes operational and enforceable, rather than just classificatory. It clearly states its purpose: The Use Table can tell you “where” and “what entitlement,” but it cannot answer the questions that lead to complaints, compliance issues, and daily enforcement-such as equipment placement, separation from homes, which noise limits apply at the property line, when generator testing can happen, what must be shown on the site plan, and what occurs if actual operations differ from modeling. This ordinance addresses those gaps with a tailored framework designed to be enforceable during plan review and after occupancy, with particular focus on residential edges and other noise-sensitive areas.
Substantively, Ordinance 3 adopts a layered compatibility approach instead of relying on a single method. First, it enhances protections along residential edges through separation, buffering, and screening/enclosure requirements that focus on equipment yards and the operational “active side” of the facility. When equipment is close enough to matter, the ordinance mandates a solid, opaque enclosure and rejects “screened chain link” as a substitute for effective screening, while maintaining consistency with the broader fence and screening standards in the UDO.
Second, Ordinance 3 clarifies the City’s noise authority by explicitly defining a noise category and measurement location for data center operations. It mandates all operations and equipment-including generators, cooling systems, transformers, switchgear, and mechanical yards-to adhere to the “Commercial or Business” sound level limits and limited-audibility distance standards in Chapter 17, measured at or beyond the property boundary. Exceedances are assessed under the City’s duration standard. This choice is intentional: it avoids creating a unique noise regulation while applying a standard that offers more protection than typical industrial expectations, which is especially important at mixed-use edges.
Third, the ordinance addresses the most predictable and common disputes by regulating routine generator testing, maintenance, and other high-intrusion outdoor activities. Routine generator testing and maintenance are limited to Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., excluding City-observed holidays (unless a Special Use Permit has been approved), while true emergencies are not restricted. Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited except for emergency life-safety communications, and routine outdoor maintenance with powered equipment is limited to the same weekday hours with a similar emergency exception. The rationale is straightforward and defendable: to prevent the most disruptive recurring events from occurring in early mornings, evenings, weekends, and holidays - when residents are most affected by intrusion - without compromising reliability or emergency response.
Fourth - and this is the enforcement backbone - Ordinance 3 makes acoustical compliance a documented, reviewable, and verifiable requirement rather than an assumption. For higher-risk projects, it mandates an Acoustical Compliance Memorandum at the site plan stage and considers completeness a key factor for plan approval. The triggers are intentionally risk-based: The Memorandum is needed when the use requires SUP approval, when a lot line adjoins a residential base district, when a lot line is within 500 feet of a residential district, or when major equipment yards are proposed within 250 feet of any lot line. The required content is concrete (not vague): source maps, manufacturer data, a site-specific boundary analysis, demonstration of compliance with the adopted noise standard, and identification of mitigation measures that are actually integrated into the site plan. Importantly, the ordinance links mitigation to the approved plans, mandates installation before the Certificate of Occupancy for the relevant phase, and requires ongoing maintenance. Therefore, "mitigation later” is not considered compliant.
The post-construction verification requirement ensures that the acoustical framework remains honest after occupancy. When the Memorandum is required, the owner or operator must submit a boundary sound test report within 60 days after continuous operations start, under representative worst-case conditions, including at least one scheduled generator test event where generator testing is part of routine operations. If noncompliance is documented, mitigation and follow-up testing are necessary. This creates a practical accountability loop: it acknowledges that modeling can be accurate, but field conditions and substitutions happen, and it guarantees that compliance is demonstrated in the environment where neighbors actually experience the impacts.
Beyond noise, Ordinance 3 addresses common operational gaps without attempting to rewrite state or federal regulations. It clarifies that air quality obligations are still governed by applicable federal and state requirements. It links site and security lighting to the City’s exterior lighting standards, including full cut-off fixtures and Fort Bragg light-spill protections where relevant. It mandates documentation of utility coordination with PWC and other utility providers during the site plan stage. It also requires 24-hour contact information for a responsible individual who can respond to operational complaints and serve as a direct enforcement contact. These provisions are not mere formalities; they help the City reduce delays and unclear responsibilities during complaints and prevent late-stage utility conflicts that could lead to public infrastructure costs and service interruptions.
Ordinance 3 also classifies the “with Energy Center” configuration as a higher-risk operating model and indicates this through more stringent acoustical expectations. For this category, an Acoustical Study is required-not just trigger-based-it must be submitted and deemed complete at the site plan stage before approval. The study must include key elements such as source mapping, manufacturer data, boundary predictions, compliance demonstration, and plan-incorporated mitigation, all prepared by a qualified professional. The ordinance then enforces the same “make it real” requirements: mitigation shown on approved plans, installed before the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the relevant phase, maintained throughout the life of the use, and verified through post-construction boundary testing. The planning approach aligns with the broader framework: when the likelihood and impact of an issue increase, the burden of proof becomes universal rather than conditional.
The Parking and Loading amendment (Ordinance 4) aligns the parking code with how these facilities operate instead of treating them like typical industrial buildings. It sets a minimum parking requirement based on the parts of the facility that actually generate parking demand-such as accessory office/support areas and the largest employee shift-and then includes a modest, capped visitor component that reflects real-world visitation patterns without encouraging overbuilding parking. The visitor component is structured as three spaces per site plus one per principal building, capped at ten per site, with the maximum parking set at twice the minimum unless an Alternative Parking Plan is approved. For loading, it requires one loading space per principal building, which meets the steady need for deliveries and service access without requiring an oversized standard.
Finally, the Airport Overlay amendment (Ordinance 5) addresses a key structural weakness in the current functioning of the APO by applying important compatibility requirements to development activities, not just rezonings. The ordinance explicitly extends these requirements in the relevant subsections to all new development within the APO. It also improves the height and obstruction review process by requiring, before site plan approval and, where applicable, before building permit application, a copy of the FAA’s acknowledgment of receipt of FAA Form 7460-1, along with a clear plan if the FAA indicates a hazard (such as written consent from the Airport Director or a variance). Additionally, it mandates that site plans in the APO specify the maximum height above grade for all proposed buildings and structures, including rooftop mechanical equipment, antennas, exhaust stacks, light poles, and similar vertical features that are often part of data center campuses. Furthermore, it strengthens operational restrictions related to lighting hazards, visibility issues (such as smoke, steam, dust, and particulates), electromagnetic interference with airport communications, radar, and navigation aids, and bird or waterfowl attraction that could increase wildlife strike risks. The planning approach is centered on risk management: airport compatibility concerns are not just theoretical “rezoning factors” but real development and operational issues that must be addressed during project design and permitting, when they can truly be prevented.
The common thread among all five ordinances is that each serves a different purpose, and the entire package functions only because these purposes are properly sequenced. Definitions prevent accidental overreach and loopholes; the Use Table provides the entitlement map; the use-specific standards turn “compatibility” into measurable requirements that can be checked on plans and verified after occupancy; parking and loading standards address a common code mismatch; and the APO amendment closes a procedural gap that is crucial in a city where airport protection is a significant public safety and infrastructure issue. The result is not a moratorium or a one-time negotiation process; it is a codified system that reduces ambiguity, directs discretionary review where it is most justified, and provides staff with clear, enforceable standards to handle predictable neighbor complaints.
Future Land Use Plan
At a citywide level, the FLUP aims to accomplish two goals: (1) direct higher-intensity growth to areas capable of supporting it, and (2) protect neighborhood stability and sensitive receptors through clear standards and predictable review processes. This package aligns well with that approach because it considers data centers as an employment/industrial use with infrastructure-focused siting, while tightening regulations around the few impact areas that often cause conflicts: noise, equipment placement and screening, utilities, and airport and airspace compatibility.
LU-1: Growth in areas with infrastructure and services
The FLUP clearly states that growth should occur where public services and infrastructure already exist and can be expanded efficiently, with strong coordination around utilities and capacity. TA26-01 supports this by (a) clarifying the use to make its infrastructure needs clear - including "Dedicated Exterior Plant,” “Energy Center,” and the Utility Impact Statement concept - and (b) locating the use mainly in employment or industrial zones where service planning is practical and scalable.
Just as importantly, the use-specific standards require documented utility coordination as part of the site plan review, so capacity discussions happen early enough to influence design and phasing instead of occurring after the layout is finalized.
LU-2: Strategic economic growth in designated areas
The FLUP emphasizes directing economic growth to specific areas and safeguarding the City’s key employment and industrial prospects through clear policies and coordinated efforts. TA26-01 builds on this by establishing a designated, investment-grade pathway for “Telecommunications and Data Storage Facility” as a main use, while separately identifying the more impactful “with Energy Center” version for discretionary control.
That split is the key to balancing economic development: stable entitlement for the default form in core employment districts, and a stronger review tool for the version more likely to cause complaints and increase operational enforcement workload.
LU-3: Reinvestment and redevelopment while maintaining standards
The FLUP promotes reinvestment and redevelopment while upholding standards that prevent negative spillovers. TA26-01’s primary alignment is the “right-sizing” effect: the parking and loading standards prevent the code from requiring oversized pavement for a use with a large floor area but low daily staffing, while still ensuring enough capacity for actual operational needs.
That matters for redevelopment feasibility (less land used by empty parking), stormwater and heat impacts, and compatibility at the edges of employment areas.
LU-4: Well-planned commercial and mixed-use zones and transitions
The FLUP expects stronger design outcomes, better transitions near neighborhoods, and site design that avoids dumping service functions onto sensitive edges. TA26-01 reinforces that approach by not treating data centers as a general-purpose commercial
corridor use, and by using Special Use Permit review in the more context-sensitive districts.
More importantly, the use-specific standards are based on the “edge conditions” that truly impact people: equipment placement to the side or rear, proper screening (not chain-link with slats), service/loading orientation away from residential edges, and enclosure requirements when equipment is close enough to be a concern.
LU-5: Gateways and Corridor Quality
The FLUP’s primary goal is to achieve incremental corridor improvements and avoid patterns that create visually harsh, auto-centric site layouts. TA26-01 supports this by requiring screening and by ensuring that fuel tanks and major service infrastructure are not placed at the “front-of-site," which typically defines the corridor's character. It also limits over-paving through a parking maximum linked to the minimum required spaces.
LU-6: Quality Neighborhood and Daily Livability
This is where TA26-01 aligns most directly. The FLUP emphasizes neighborhood quality and standards that reduce ongoing nuisances. TA26-01 addresses the most common data center neighborhood complaints by turning them into enforceable standards: it applies the City’s commercial-category noise limits at the property boundary, limits routine generator testing to weekday business hours, prohibits outdoor amplified sound (except for life safety), and requires technical acoustical documentation when risk triggers are present-plus post-verification and corrective actions if operations do not match the modeling.
It also requires 24-hour contact information for complaints, which is a practical neighborhood-protection tool because it reduces the “nobody answers” problem when issues happen at night or on weekends.
LU-7: Housing Diversity and Stability
LU-7 focuses on housing but relies on consistent protection from incompatible industrial impacts in neighborhoods. TA26-01 supports this indirectly by preventing main data centers from being in neighborhood commercial and mixed-use districts, where the City intends these areas to serve neighborhood needs, and by applying strong edge standards when a project is near lawfully established residences.
LU-8/LU-9: Open spaces, greenways, and equitable access
The FLUP’s environmental approach emphasizes preservation, buffers, and connected open space systems. TA26-01 does not revise environmental standards but supports the same goals by minimizing secondary impacts: reducing unnecessary impervious surfaces (such as parking calibration and maximums) and starting utility coordination earlier to prevent last-minute infrastructure decisions that can cause avoidable land disturbance.
LU-10: Resiliency, flooding, and hazard prevention
LU-10 emphasizes stormwater performance and hazard-aware development patterns. Again, TA26-01’s contribution is indirect but significant: it prevents excessive paving
and promotes early disclosure and coordination around power and water demands, allowing the City to evaluate serviceability and site impacts in the correct sequence.
LU-11/LU-12/LU-13: Compatibility with critical operations and intergovernmental coordination
The FLUP emphasizes compatibility with major operational constraints, especially military, and stresses consistent coordination with partner agencies. TA26-01’s Airport Overlay update exemplifies this planning approach: it advances key safety and compatibility checks to an earlier stage and broadens their application to new developments in the overlay, not just rezonings.
It requires height disclosure on site plans, ties in FAA notice documentation, and creates a targeted referral to the Airport Director for project features that often pose aviation risks (including standby generators, large fuel storage, plume-generating cooling systems, tall lighting, and Part 77 notice triggers).
That aligns with the FLUP’s “coordinate early, avoid late surprises, protect critical operations” logic.
Note:
No changes to the proposed ordinances have been made since the Planning Commission held a legislative hearing on these proposed ordinance changes.
Budget Impact:
Adopting these text amendments does not, on its own, require City funds for capital construction or lead to a direct General Fund expenditure. The changes are regulatory: they define and classify “Telecommunications and Data Storage Facility” uses, specify where they are permitted and what entitlement is necessary, and add operational/site-design standards that can be managed through existing development review and enforcement processes.
The short-term fiscal impact is mainly administrative. Staff time will be needed to review and manage: (a) Special Use Permit cases in districts where the use is labeled “S,” including the “with Energy Center” variant that is SUP-only where permitted; (b) acoustical submittals and compliance checks, such as post-construction boundary sound testing and follow-up if noncompliance is found; and (c) utility coordination documentation during site plan review.
Where projects are proposed within the Airport Overlay, additional coordination and review steps may increase staff workload, such as earlier FAA notice documentation and APO-specific site plan information. However, these steps are integrated into the normal site plan and building permit workflow, rather than forming a new City program or cost center.
Finally, the parking and loading amendments mainly affect plan review standards (adjusting parking to match the operational profile of the use), without requiring a separate budget appropriation.
Options:
The City Council, by a majority vote of a quorum present, shall take one of the following actions, based on the standards in Section 30-2.C.2.e, Text Amendment Standards:
1. Adoption of the amendment as proposed;
2. Adoption of a revised amendment;
3. Denial of the amendment; or
4. Remand of the application back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
Plan Consistency Statement: City Council shall also approve a brief statement describing whether its action is consistent or inconsistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. The consistency statement may be adopted in the same motion as the action on the proposed text amendment, or in a separate motion.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
The Planning Commission and Professional Planning Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Option 1, which involves the approval of the amendments as written.
end
Attachments:
1. Consistency and Reasonableness Statements
2. TA26-01 Ordinance 1 - Add Definitions (Article 30-9.D)
3. TA26-01 Ordinance 1 Justification Memo
4. TA26-01 Ordinance 2 - Amend Use Table (Article 30-4.A.2)
5. TA26-01 Ordinance 2 Justification Memo
6. TA26-01 Ordinance 3 - Add Use-Specific Standards for Data Centers (Article 30-4.C.5)
7. TA26-01 Ordinance 3 - Justification Memo
8. TA26-01 Ordinance 4 - Add Parking & Loading Standards (Article 30-5.A)
9. TA26-01 Ordinance 4 - Justification Memo
10. TA26-01 Ordinance 5 - Amend Airport Overlay District (30-3.H.6)
11. TA26-01 Ordinance 5 Justification Memo
12. February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes and Agenda Package