YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2026 (City of Topeka channel). Live from City Council Chambers. Five commissioners present. Minutes from August 17 approved 4–1–0 (one abstention). No declared conflicts.
This was not a public hearing on a live application. The main discussion item was ACZR26/05: draft zoning-code text amendments for data centers and energy storage systems. Staff presented a framework only. No vote on regulations. Cases that night were tentatively slated for governing-body review the following month. Agendas: topeka.gov / Topeka Speaks.
Context staff laid out
- The City adopted a moratorium (Aug. 11) blocking acceptance, processing, or approval of data-center applications and city water/sewer connections (inside and outside city limits) so staff can study standards before any city application arrives.
- Compass Datacenters filed a conditional use permit with Shawnee County (July 24; later deemed complete). Site is south of Topeka (west of US-75 / SW 77th, ~600 acres, near Walmart DC / South Topeka Economic Growth Corridor). That is a county process, not a city application. Staff repeatedly distinguished the two.
- Compass public materials describe a large campus (order of hundreds of MW IT load; commenters cited later revisions around ~600 MW and large backup-generator inventories). City staff used “hyperscale” language and an early figure around 300 MW as a working example.
Staff showed size examples (small facility in Papillion, NE; mid-size ~176k sf in Shawnee, KS; 1.4M sf hyperscale in Pryor, OK) and noted many “data centers” already exist as small server rooms.
Draft definitions (preliminary)
Staff proposed four categories, using both floor area (building + exterior generators/cooling) and peak energy load:
| Category | Rough draft thresholds |
|---|---|
| Accessory | On the same site as the use it serves; peak load ≤ 5 MW. Allowed where the principal use is allowed. Hundreds of these already exist in Topeka. |
| Type 1 (small) | ≤ ~30,000 sf; peak ≤ 10 MW |
| Type 2 (medium) | ≤ ~200,000 sf; peak ≤ 50 MW (intent: over 10 MW up to 50 MW — wording needed cleanup) |
| Type 3 (hyperscale) | > 200,000 sf and peak > 50 MW |
Policy direction discussed:
- Accessory: permitted with the principal use.
- Types 1–3: conditional use permit in a limited set of districts (same public-hearing / notice process as a rezoning).
- Future standards to address noise (sound attenuation, setbacks), aesthetics (walls, landscaping), water (closed-loop or documented use), fire (especially energy storage), and lighting (city already has a 3 foot-candle property-line standard). Height of generators/cooling equipment was flagged as a possible extra control. Energy-storage definitions were only sketched.
This is an early draft. Staff expected more study over coming months before a formal public-hearing text amendment.
Commissioner discussion
Themes:
- Align Type 3 with Evergy large-load language (comment that Compass-scale talk started around 75 MW).
- Tighten accessory language so it is clearly commercial/industrial, not every home office.
- Use power + water, not just square footage; avoid overlapping or sloppy MW ranges.
- Possible height / ground-mounted cooling limits so equipment can actually be screened.
- Need enforceable water and power numbers in the CUP application (not just promises), plus conditions tied to that case.
- Resource capacity thresholds (when is “enough” water/power?) may be more a governing-body issue than Planning Commission.
Public comment (4-minute limit; discussion item, not a hearing)
Speakers generally supported deliberate standards before any city application, and many opposed treating a ~50 MW facility the same as a 600 MW campus. Recurring points:
- Keep the 50 MW Type 2/3 split; a jump of 15–25 MW is a real utility step-change.
- Require cumulative / social-justice impact analysis (health, housing, existing pollution, nearby school ~1 mile from the county site, Montera/vulnerable neighborhoods).
- Jobs vs. impacts: construction is temporary; permanent on-site jobs were described as modest relative to scale.
- Power: one campus could exceed 1.5× current Shawnee County electric use; large diesel backup fleets (commenters cited hundreds of MW of generators / ~840 MW inventory in a revised CUP).
- Water: closed-loop vs. evaporative tradeoff (less site water, more electricity — and power plants still use water); fire-suppression storage (e.g. 50,000-gallon tank) still draws from city-supplied rural districts; questions about lagoons, trucked wastewater, Wakarusa wells/streams.
- Noise / infrasound / heat: constant low-frequency noise traveling miles; livestock and crop concerns from a neighboring farm family (1860s homestead, hundreds of crop/pasture acres directly across from the proposed county site); heat island effects on pollination.
- Air / KDHE: one speaker said KDHE staff could not locate a Compass air pre-application despite CUP language citing KDHE/Trinity desktop work.
- Decommissioning, ownership, target risk, fire-service cost, “superfund” precedent.
- Leon Graves: potential community benefit if guardrails are real; city should stay deliberative and avoid fights seen elsewhere in Kansas.
- Megan Ryan (Protect Kansas): keep 50 MW threshold; add cumulative impact study.
- Others: Laura Thompson, Carol Marple (adjacent farm), Amy Gillette, Danielle Twimlow, Diane Denham, plus additional speakers on the same themes.
Staff noted commenters had also submitted best-practice lists (including Virginia-based material) that could inform application checklists: certified water/power figures, conditions, etc.
Other business
Agenda also listed ACZR26/04 (broader definition / use-table / specific-use updates). The posted packet framed September as another discussion night, not final action on data-center text. Formal public hearing and governing-body consideration were expected later after more drafting.
Bottom line: The city is writing rules before it has a city-limits application, while a large Compass CUP proceeds separately at the county. Planning Commission heard staff’s size/power typology and a long list of public concerns (power, water, noise, cumulative impacts, verification of applicant claims). No ordinance was adopted that night.
No comments:
Post a Comment