Loading...
Planning Commission Packet - June 23, 2026 with Presentations Planning Commission Regular Meeting & Work Session Agenda Tuesday, June 23, 2026 6:30 PM Elk River City Hall ▪ Regular meeting in Council Chambers ▪ Work Session meeting in Council Chambers immediately following regular meeting 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSIDER AGENDA 4. CONSIDER MINUTES 4.1 DRAFT Minutes - May 26, 2026 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS An opportunity for the public to express their opinions and raise questions pertaining to the agenda item. All comments become part of the official public record. For this reason, all comments must be made at the podium so they can be heard and recorded. Comments may also be provided in writing. There will not be deliberations, discussions, or answers to questions until the hearing is closed. It is important to be courteous and allow each presenter to comment before adding additional testimony. 5.1 Conditional Use Permit: Bluff Impacts within the Shoreland Management District, Randall Tesdahl - 16892 Yale St NW 5.2 Conditional Use Permit: Auto Repair, Uval Butuc - 18332 Joplin St NW 5.3 Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Data Center, Michael Margulies - 19178 Industrial Blvd NW 6. GENERAL BUSINESS Items in which the information is presented by city staff or consultants, then deliberation and action occur. General Business items are not opportunities to receive or provide public input. However, the presiding officer may, at its sole discretion, solicit public feedback. 7. COUNCIL LIAISON UPDATES 8. MOTION TO ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING 9. WORK SESSION Work Sessions are less formal meetings to encourage dialog. Official action or votes are not typically taken. At the conclusion of a discussion, a simple consensus provides staff direction for execution of the item. This portion of the agenda is audio recorded but not video recorded or broadcast. Work Sessions are open to the public; however, visitors who wish to provide input must be invited by the presiding officer, assume a seat at the discussion table and provide their full name and address for the official record. 9.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission 10. MOTION TO ADJOURN Page 1 of 223 Meeting of the Planning Commission Held at the Elk River City Hall Tuesday, May 26, 2026 Members Present: Chair Perry Beise, Commissioner Eric Johnson, Commissioner Robert Rydberg, Commissioner Dornan Bland, Commissioner James Lang, Councilmember Jennifer Wagner Members Absent: Commissioner Dennis Booth, Commissioner Anthony Kaba Staff Present: Community Development Director Zack Carlton, Senior Planner Chris Leeseberg, and Recording Secretary Katie Porath 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. 2. CONSIDER AGENDA Moved by Commissioner Rydberg and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. 3. CONSIDER MINUTES Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Lang to approve the following consent items as outlined in their respective staff reports. Motion carried 5-0. 3.1 DRAFT Minutes - April 28, 2026 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Data Center, Michael Margulies - 19178 Industrial Blvd NW The staff report was presented. Mark Hanson, General Manager of Elk River Municipal Utility (ERMU), reviewed facts from the perspective of the municipal utility company. He stated the proposed project would use existing electric capacity and any additional needs would be funded by the applicant. The applicant would also be required to use closed loop cooling, which, once charged with water would not need additional water. He also noted that 100% of the direct costs to expand electric service must be paid in advance to remove risk to rate payers. Commissioner Rydberg asked if a large increase in electricity could help ERMU move to a new pricing tier with the energy cooperative. Mr. Hanson stated that is not how the provider works. Page 2 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Bland asked Mr. Hanson if, from a utilities perspective, the proposed project would be a benefit. Mr. Hanson responded that it would be a benefit. Commissioner Bland verified whether customers of ERMU would experience no impact to rates. Mr. Hanson responded that is correct, rates would not be impacted. Commissioner Rydberg asked about closed loop cooling technology and if it was a proven technology. Mr. Hanson stated it is not a new technology and has been proven. Mr. Carlton added that ERMU manages the water system as well as electricity. Commissioner Bland asked if ERMU saw any negative impacts to the water system. Mr. Hanson stated he foresaw no impacts and noted that the existing service to the building would not change. Commissioner Johnson asked about the use of water or glycol in the closed loop cooling system. Mr. Hanson stated it was a mix of the two and, once filled, it would not require additional water. Commissioner Lang asked how much additional electrical capacity the city currently has. Mr. Hanson described the interloop system that can redirect power to different substations. Commissioner Lang asked if there was any danger during extreme cold or hot for grid balancing and asked at what capacity the data center would operat. Mr. Hanson stated data centers typically run at 80% and will be required to have 100% backup generation. Commissioner Lang asked if ERMU had any idea of expected revenue. Mr. Hanson described the separation between the city and the municipal utility. Commissioner Bland asked if there might be a strain on water pressure if the system needs to be cleaned or new water added. Mr. Hanson was not concerned about the impact on the water and stated high water users were encouraged to complete projects during off-peak hours. Michael Margulies, representing Elk River Capital, stated he was available to provide additional facts and to listen to questions. He stated a noise study would be completed by the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Ned Abdul, principal, described the data center as an "edge" data center versus a hyperscale data center. He stated that the data center would be a co-location site with multiple clients and that they would never need to flush the system once it was full, short of a major leak. Typically, issues with the water would be fixed with chemicals rather than flushed. Commissioner Johnson asked if the noise resulted from the chillers. Mr. Abdul said that was correct. He explained the difference between air-cooled and water-cooled chillers and pointed out the location of the chillers in an area as far away from residential areas as possible, blocked by the building, and surrounded by a wall with acoustical treatments added. Commissioner Bland asked about the noise impact to the local business patio shown on the map. Mr. Abdul stated there would be noise on the patio similar to a commercial air handling unit. The noise study should give more information. Page 3 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Lang stated that 33 megawatts seems like a lot. He asked if AI clients would use the building. Mr. Abdul stated his company is the "landlord" of the building and their target market is not AI users. He added that AI clients typically want larger data centers. Commissioner Bland asked what the 40 proposed employees would be doing. Mr. Abdul stated they would work in shifts 24/7 in roles such as security, engineering, and maintenance. Commissioner Johnson stated that the proposed project was capped at 33 megawatts. If someone wanted to put AI servers in there, they would be limited by this size. Mr. Abdul agreed, adding that some of the 33 megawatts were used for the cooling load and that the site would likely run at 70-80% capacity. Commissioner Lang asked if generators would be installed. Mr. Abdul responded that diesel generators would be located inside. Commissioner Lang asked if the location of the railroad tracks was a problem. Mr. Abdul clarified that a nearby railroad track may be an issue for vibrations, and stated it was not necessarily something a data center would want on their doorstep. Chair Beise opened the public hearing. Nathan Schlief, 12380 193rd Ln NW, expressed concern that allowing one data center would encourage more to locate to Elk River. Mr. Schlief asked questions about power capacity. Mr. Hanson responded that ERMU has underutilized electricity capacity which the proposed data center would draw from. Mr. Schlief asked if the power provider had the capacity to provide extra power. Mr. Hanson responded that they did. Jesse Lang, 19371 Upland St NW, asked for transparency regarding the company, Elk River Capital. He expressed concern about the density of the data center. He is interested in the results of the noise study being performed and asked that it be a full-spectrum noise study of all frequencies and include both the chillers and the generators. Mr. Lang asked about the definition of an "edge" data center. Sophia Kruger, 2222 Monroe St NW, raised concerns regarding a data center's potential to harm human health as well as the environment and wildlife. Ms. Kruger asked if the cooling system would need to perform a periodic "blow down" which may release harmful chemicals into the water. Bonnie Orzechowski, 19100 Johnson St NW, asked questions about the water used in the cooling system as well as the potential for a major leak. She also questioned the number of jobs being listed. She expressed concern about the potential for AI servers in the data center. Peter Seabloom, 18829 Waco St NW, stated he was a retired machinist who built the parts used in cooling units. He was concerned about the use of rust inhibitors, glycol, and the potential for PFAS. Becky Spence, 13454 182nd Ave NW, was concerned about the hiring practices of the data center and asked if they performed background checks since the location will be near a school. Mandy Kauphusman, 20047 Ulysses St NW, asked how the proposed data center compared to Page 4 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 4 of 8 the other two data centers in Elk River. She also expressed concern that the site may be used for AI in the future. Tim Jones, AEGIR Brewing, 19050 Industrial Blvd, stated his brewery's patio is located within 30–40 feet of the chillers and the noise may deter his customers. Estelle Gunkel, 17155 Quincy St NW, asked for more information on the business behind the application. Mr. Abdul stated that Elk River Capital is a single-purpose entity of the parent company Swervo Development. Commissioner Lang asked if Iron Gate in Woodbury was affiliated with Swervo Development. Mr. Abdul responded that Iron Gate is a brand of the company. Rochelle Muellenberg, 13432 Meadowvale Rd, was concerned about the impact on property value. Vicki Stevenson, 19850 Watson Cir NW, asked for more information on the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) program mentioned earlier. Mr. Hanson explained the program and noted it is similar to revenue. He confirmed that the data center would be paying taxes. Ms. Stevenson expressed concern about the data center location near schools, sports facilities, and parks. She added concern about the degradation of the metals used in the chillers. Amy Brallier, 925 Angel St NW, expressed concern about the impact on water. Troy Ives, 13163 196th Ave NW, opposed the idea of an ordinance that would modify all I-1 and I-2 zoning districts as that would not give the ability to scrutinize future projects. He was also concerned that the company was operating under different LLCs. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to continue the hearing to June 23, 2026. Motion carried 5-0. 4.2 Conditional Use Permit: Habitat for Humanity build site, ISD 728 - 900 School St NW The Commission recessed at 8:04 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 8:06 p.m. The staff report was presented. Commissioner Bland expressed concern about vandalism and theft. Mr. Carlton explained that the fencing would be permanent. Commissioner Lang asked if the proposed location interfered with Driver's Ed. Mr. Carlton stated the Driver's Ed practice location may need to be adjusted. Commissioner Lang asked if the school district would own the building being constructed. Mr. Carlton believes that the school district would own the building until it was completed and transferred from the high school property, but that would be determined by the two parties. Page 5 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 5 of 8 Chair Beise opened the public hearing. There being no one to speak to this matter, Chair Beise closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Rydberg and seconded by Commissioner Bland to recommend approval of the CUP allowing construction of an outdoor classroom space at Elk River High school, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit documentation describing the standards against which the state is reviewing the space. 2. Commercial building permits will be required for the improvements. 3. The fencing along the north, east, and south faces must be 100% opaque. 4. The applicant must submit an updated site plan showing how the parking lot will be updated (striped) to address the changes to parking and circulation. 5. Staff approval of all updated plans, ensuring full compliance with state building and fire codes. Motion carried 5-0. 4.3 Ordinance Amendment: Oakwater Ridge PUD Standards Related to Signage, Capstone Homes The staff report was presented. The applicant is requesting two signs up to 192 square feet and four signs up to 64 square feet. The signs would be removed after the development was completed. The applicant is also requesting a large entrance monument of 36 feet long by 4 feet tall surrounded by landscaping and located in the applicant's outlot. Commissioner Johnson asked about the size of the previous billboards on the site. Mr. Carlton stated the ordinance allows billboards to be 35 feet tall and 400 square feet. Commissioner Lang asked if the applicant had provided a mock-up of the entrance monument. Mr. Carlton stated they had not. Chair Beise opened the public hearing. Matt Barker, representing Capstone, stated the landscaping would represent coming through the Mississippi bluff area. Chair Beise closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson was not in favor of additional signs but felt this was acceptable due to the temporary nature and that the requested signs are smaller than the billboards previously located on the site. Commissioner Bland asked that the applicant maintain the appearance of the signs. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to recommend approval of an Ordinance Amendment establishing standards for marketing and development signage within the Oakwater Ridge development. Motion carried 5-0. 4.4 Ordinance Amendment: Business Park Zoning, Onyx Strategic Partners Page 6 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 6 of 8 The staff report was presented. Chair Beise opened the public hearing. Jessie Houlihan, representing Onyx Strategic Partners, gave an overview of her company and the building they have recently purchased in Elk River. She stated she believes the Elk River city code "fights with users". Chair Beise closed the public hearing. Commissioner Rydberg asked where the building was located. Ms. Houlihan gave the address as 18332 Joplin Ave NW. Commissioner Bland asked about the intent of warehouse limitations. Mr. Leeseberg responded that the business park district is a step above industrial. Mr. Carlton added that the limitation is to help with job generation and a higher class of industrial space, not just warehouse space. Moved by Commissioner Bland and seconded by Commissioner Lang to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment allowing Outpatient Medical Facilities in the Business Park (BP) zoning district. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Johnson stated the applicant can adjust the warehouse percentage through a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Carlton stated that retail space is an accessory use in the Business Park zone. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to recommend denial of the Ordinance Amendment allowing Physical Recreation or Training and removing limitations on Warehouse Space in the Business Park (BP) zoning district. Motion carried 5-0. 4.5 Ordinance Amendment: Business Park Zone, Lift PT The staff report was presented. Chair Beise opened the public hearing. Kelsey Fransen, applicant, owner of Lift PT, stated that she has some clients who are over seven feet tall, therefore having taller ceiling height allows them to perform more actions. Chair Beise closed the public hearing. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment allowing Outpatient Medical Facilities in the Business Park (BP) zoning district. Motion carried 5-0. 5. GENERAL BUSINESS 5.1 Resolution 26-01: Approving the Sale of Public Property to O'Brien Holdings, LLC Page 7 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 7 of 8 Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to approve Resolution 26-01 finding the sale of a portion of Lot 1, Block 1, Northstar Business Park to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried 5-0. 6. COUNCIL LIAISON UPDATES Councilmember Wagner reviewed which of the items will go to the June 1 versus June 15 City Council meeting. She stated she was more in favor of allowing physical recreation in the Business Park zoning district and felt the city may need to adapt for the community as a whole. 7. MOTION TO ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Lang to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The regular meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Chair Beise called the work session to order at 8:53 p.m. 8. WORK SESSION 8.1 Concept Review: Subdivision and Commercial Development along Highway 10 The staff report was presented. The Commission discussed the visibility of a potential building on the site behind the billboards. Craig Hardie, attorney at Larkin Hoffman, discussed the practical difficulties with developing the site due to its dimensions and the location of the billboards. Mr. Hardie stated that the billboards on the sites are nearly impossible to take down and subject to permanent easements. Commissioner Bland asked if the billboards could be purchased. Commissioner Johnson asked if Power Lodge was still interested in the site. Mr. Hardie responded that the applicant is still interested. Mr. Hardie reiterated that creating separate parcels for billboards would not be the best use of land. If the Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowed billboards as accessory uses it would provide more flexibility to the site. Mr. Carlton stated the concept, which included separate lots for the billboards, would require a private road easement to access each billboard lot. Chair Beise asked if the access road could be taken out of the billboard lots. Mr. Carlton stated the road would need to come from the remaining parcel as that zoning district requires minimum 1 acre lot sizes. Commissioner Rydberg asked if the plans would need to be approved by MnDOT. Mr. Carlton responded that the site would be accessed by 165th Ave NW rather than onto Highway 10. Commissioner Bland questioned who is getting the money from the billboards. The Specht trust sold the land for the billboards and now can't sell the surrounding land. Commissioner Bland was opposed to making exceptions for this project. Page 8 of 223 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2026 --------- Page 8 of 8 Chair Beise added he would be more in favor if a business which created jobs wanted to be located there. Mr. Hardie pointed out that, once the land is developed, it is a benefit to the city, both as a tax base and investment in the community. Commissioner Johnson was not in favor of one-acre parcels for each billboard unless there was an application that felt they could work around it. Councilmember Wagner added that she didn't see billboards as evil and saw their purpose to convey marketing messaging. Mark Hoffmann, Security Bank and Trust Company, stated the billboard leases that were in place were going to continue for decades and he is asking for direction on making the land usable. Commissioner Johnson stated a prospective purchaser of the lot would not want to be limited on where they could place their building signage due to the billboards. Mr. Leeseberg added that the PUD could be written to allow a building sign by the road and stated that the billboards on the site have limited visual impact. Mr. Carlton reviewed that the Commission was in favor of a PUD aligned with a specific project. 9. MOTION TO ADJOURN Commissioner Lang asked why an item is put on work session. Mr. Carlton stated that the Commission cannot make a final decision on work session items, formal action would need to come to another meeting. Moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Bland to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Minutes prepared by Katie Porath. __________________ Perry Beise, Chair ______________________ Justin Dunford, City Clerk Page 9 of 223 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To Planning Commission Item Number 5.1 Meeting Date June 23, 2026 Prepared By Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner Item Description Conditional Use Permit: Bluff Impacts within the Shoreland Management District, Randall Tesdahl - 16892 Yale St NW Reviewed by Zack Carlton Action Requested Recommend, by motion, approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions to satisfy the standards set forth in Section 30-654: 1. The pathway shall be professionally engineered and designed to ensure long-term slope stability and minimize erosion potential. 2. The pathway width shall be limited to the minimum width necessary to accommodate safe access and mobility needs. 3. The pathway shall be designed with the flattest practical grade to reduce erosion and improve accessibility. 4. Existing vegetation shall be preserved to the greatest extent practicable, with only selective removal permitted as necessary for construction. 5. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained during construction. 6. A grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any land-disturbing activities. 7. Any retaining wall exceeding four (4) feet in height shall require a separate building permit and shall be designed by a Minnesota-licensed structural engineer. 8. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations and requirements of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, if applicable. 9. Any modifications to the approved plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City. 10. The Conditional Use Permit shall remain subject to all applicable City Code requirements and permit conditions. Background/Discussion The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow construction of an access pathway within bluff area of the Mississippi River to provide access from the upper portion of the property to the lower portion of the site. Page 10 of 223 The subject property is approximately 1.65 acres in size, zoned Focus Area Study (FAST), and is guided as Mixed Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. The Mixed Residential land use designation consists of neighborhoods with multiple housing types, including single-family detached homes, townhomes, duplexes, and small-scale multifamily buildings. Mixed Residential areas include existing residential neighborhoods where a gentle increase in density is appropriate, as well as new neighborhood subdivisions. The applicant has resided at the property since 2014 and would like to construct a pathway to improve access to the lower portion of the property. He has indicated that he is a 100 percent service-connected disabled veteran through the Department of Veterans Affairs and that their condition is progressing to the point where an electric mobility device may be necessary. The proposed pathway is intended to provide safe and practical access to portions of the property that may otherwise become inaccessible. The properties immediately north and south of the subject site currently utilize a cross-access easement over the subject property to access lower portions of their respective properties. The proposed pathway will be located within a sensitive bluff area subject to Shoreland Ordinance regulations. Because bluff areas are susceptible to erosion and instability, special consideration must be given to the design, construction, and long-term maintenance of the pathway. Environmental Review The Shoreland Ordinance generally prohibits fill and excavation within bluff areas due to their sensitivity and susceptibility to erosion. The proposed pathway must be engineered to ensure long-term slope stability and minimize future maintenance requirements. Existing vegetation should be preserved to the greatest extent practical, with only selective removals permitted as necessary for construction. Preservation of vegetation will provide natural screening from the water and assist in maintaining bluff stability. The pathway should be limited to the minimum width necessary to accommodate safe access and be designed with the flattest practical grade to reduce erosion potential and improve accessibility. At the time of this report, comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources had not yet been received. Any recommendations or requirements provided by the DNR must be incorporated into the final design and construction plans. Building Department Review A separate grading permit will be required prior to commencement of any land-disturbing activities. Any retaining wall exceeding four (4) feet in height shall require a building permit and must be designed and certified by a Minnesota-licensed structural engineer. Applicable Regulations The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit can be ordered only if the use at the proposed location: 1. Will not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed pathway is intended to improve accessibility and safe movement within the applicant's property. The use is accessory in nature and will not introduce increased activity or operational impacts to neighboring Page 11 of 223 properties. Subject to engineering review and implementation of erosion control measures, the pathway will not create adverse impacts to neighboring properties or public welfare. 2. Will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is guided as Mixed Residential, which supports continued residential use of the property and associated residential improvements. The pathway is an accessory improvement that supports the continued residential use and enjoyment of the property and does not conflict with the goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 3. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property. The pathway is limited in scope and will not alter surrounding land use patterns, development opportunities, or access to adjacent properties. The existing cross-access easement serving neighboring properties will remain available. The proposal will not impede future development of nearby properties. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 4. Will be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. The proposed pathway will not generate additional traffic, demand for public services, or impacts to public infrastructure. Access to the site will remain unchanged, and no adverse effects on utilities, emergency services, or transportation systems are anticipated. With the proposed conditions, there should be no adverse effects on drainage. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. The pathway is a passive residential improvement and will not generate ongoing noise, traffic, emissions, odors, or other nuisances. Temporary construction-related impacts can be managed through standard permit requirements and erosion control measures. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The bluff area is a significant natural feature. However, the proposed pathway can be designed to minimize impacts through careful engineering, preservation of existing vegetation, limited grading, and implementation of erosion control measures. Approval conditions requiring preservation of vegetation, minimal disturbance, and compliance with agency recommendations will help protect the scenic and environmental qualities of the bluff area. The pathway shall be professionally engineered and designed with the flattest practical grade, with only selective removal of vegetation to ensure long-term slope stability and minimize erosion potential. 7. Will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and Standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. Page 12 of 223 Compliance with all applicable City Code requirements will be achieved through the CUP process, grading permit review, engineering review, and any required building permits. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height must be designed by a Minnesota-licensed structural engineer and permitted separately. Any recommendations received from the Minnesota DNR shall also be incorporated into the project. If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in Section 30-654. In the review of the standards for CUP as outlined, it appears that the request is consistent with all of these standards. Financial Impact None Mission/Policy/Goal Ethical, efficient, and responsible. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Narrative 3. Submitted Plans 4. Aerial-Contours 5. Presentation Page 13 of 223 Page 14 of 223 Legal Description of Property The narrative is your opportunity to describe, promote, and sell your proposal to the Planning Commission and/or City Council before the meeting(s). Please fill in the following information explaining your request in detail (type N/A if not applicable). Describe the scope of your project (what is being proposed)? For example: we are proposing the construction of a new daycare facility or, to allow for a motor vehicle sales office with motor vehicle repairs in X-square feet of the existing building. Pathway down side of hill to accommodate access to the lower one half of my personal property. My name is Randall D Tesdahl, my wife Margaret R Tesdahl live at 16892 Yale St. NW Elk River MN. I served 20 plus years in the United states Marine Corps having retired September 30th 1997. I am 100% service connected disabled via the VA . As well as Social Security Disability. One of the main issues of my disability is that I have Parkinson's a disease that has no cure and is progressive in nature . My entire life I have been very involved with the outdoors hunting fishing trapping photographing wildlife. In fact in my work prior to retiring as the State Adjuant/E.D. of The American Legion, I helped establish several outdoor programs in the state of Minnesota for disabled veterans . My wife and I once owned 10 acres in crowing county that was wooded as well as 10 acres in Anoka County which again was wooded. We sold both of those properties in 2014 when we found this property. When we moved in, residents in this neighborhood were allowed to archery hunt deer turkey, small game, as well as duck hunt on the Mississippi. Those activities have now been reduced to turkey by archery only. When we bought, we were made aware of and researched an easement that is on file with sherburne county. The easement when drafted was done so by the people that owned my lot. The Easement Includes the two properties to my south and the two properties to my north, crossing my property. We all used that easement Rd. I recently went through a long court battle with my new neighbor to the immediate South that did not want me to use the easement. It was discovered in court that my property was not specifically listed on that easement. The court could not reliably say that the people that owned my lot, whom drafted and created and paid for the easement Rd. Did not list their own lot number because why, they owned it ? That court finding clearly limits my access to 1/2 of my property. It also reinforced the fact that property owners to my North and South have the full legal right to cross my property on that easement to access the lower sections of their properties, yet I cannot access mine. In 2019I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease related to my years of service at Camp Lejuern and the use of contaminated water there. I had to retire on LT Disability. In the time since, my condition has worsened. I have used a cane as well as a walker since my Page 15 of 223 2019 diagnosis. And in my recent visits with my Parkinson's team at the VA it was noted that my condition is progressing to the point they are considering me for an electric form of mobility. I have lost my deer hunting, my small-game hunting, my duck hunting, and now my access. Hours of Operation N/A Number of Employees N/A Number of parking stalls required by ordinance: City Ordinance Section 30- 903 outlines these requirements. 0 Number of existing and proposed parking stalls 0 If screening, not associated with outdoor storage, is being proposed, what will it consist of? None. What are the proposed building materials? The required building materials vary from zoning district to zoning district. See project plans. Is outdoor storage being proposed? If yes, detail what is being stored, how much/many, and what is the proposed screening? City Ordinance Section 30- 807 outlines these requirements. No. Page 16 of 223 Page 17 of 223 Page 18 of 223 Page 19 of 223 Page 20 of 223 Conditional Use Permit Tesdahl Page 21 of 223 Page 22 of 223 Background §CUP to allow construction of a pathway within bluff area of the Mississippi River §Provide safe and practical access – disabled veteran §1.65 acres §Zoned FAST §Mixed Residential §Applicant lived there since 2014 Page 23 of 223 Page 24 of 223 Page 25 of 223 Page 26 of 223 Page 27 of 223 Environmental §CUP required through bluff ordinance §Due to sensitivity to the bluff §Professionally designed §Minimize erosion §Minimize width §Flattest practical grade §Selective vegetation removal Page 28 of 223 Applicable Regulations §Staff’s analysis of the application shows compliance with 3 of the 7 standards required for approval of the CUP §With the recommended conditions, the other standards should be complied with Page 29 of 223 Action Requested §Recommend, by motion, approval of a CUP with the 10 conditions outlined in the memo to satisfy the standards set forth in Section 30-654 Page 30 of 223 City Council Meeting §If acted on, this item will go to the July 20, 2026, City Council meeting Page 31 of 223 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To Planning Commission Item Number 5.2 Meeting Date June 23, 2026 Prepared By Chris Leeseberg, Senior Planner Item Description Conditional Use Permit: Auto Repair, Uval Butuc - 18332 Joplin St NW Reviewed by Zack Carlton Action Requested Recommend, by motion, approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions to satisfy the standards set forth in Section 30-654: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall authorize only vehicle body work and no mechanical repair work, including engine, transmission, drivetrain, exhaust, or similar vehicle repairs, shall be conducted on the property. 2. All repair activities shall occur entirely within the enclosed building. 3. The entire back parking lot shall be screened by a six-foot high 100 percent opaque fence constructed of factory-finished metal or vinyl material. 4. The outdoor storage of operable vehicles shall be allowed only in the screened in area. 5. The outdoor storage of inoperable or abandoned vehicles, vehicle parts, equipment, materials, or repair-related items is prohibited. 6. This approval does not authorize motor vehicle sales, vehicle display for sale, or any other use not specifically approved herein. 7. The parking lots shall be striped. 8. The applicant and/or property owner must apply for all required commercial building, electrical, plumbing, and/or mechanical permits before any associated activities can occur. Background/Discussion Motor vehicle repair facilities are allowed within the Business Park zoning district subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The applicant is requesting approval of a CUP to operate a motor vehicle repair business within an existing building located in the Business Park (BP) zoning district. The proposed use consists exclusively of body work and restoration activities involving vehicle body panels and exterior finishes. The applicant has indicated that no mechanical repairs, including engine, transmission, drivetrain, or similar work, will occur on the property. The applicant is also proposing outdoor storage of vehicles which will need to be screened in accordance with city code. Page 32 of 223 The business will employ approximately five employees and operate between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Vehicle repair and maintenance activities will occur entirely within the building. The property has 43 parking stalls in front of the building with additional parking spaces behind the building. Public Comment Staff received a phone call from the management company of the building/property directly to the south. They indicated that Kepner Cleaning, on the subject parcel, was utilizing parking on the neighboring parcel, with permission, but wanted to make sure that future parking demand was not created where their parcel would be utilized. Applicable Regulations The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit can be ordered only if the use at the proposed location: 1. Will not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed use is limited to body work repair activities conducted entirely within an enclosed building. The applicant has stated that no mechanical repairs will occur on-site, reducing the potential for noise, odors, hazardous materials, and other impacts commonly associated with full-service automotive repair facilities. No outdoor storage of parts, equipment, or materials is proposed. Subject to compliance with all conditions of approval, staff find that the proposed use will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the general welfare of the area. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 2. Will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is guided Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. The Industrial land use category is intended to accommodate both light and heavy industrial businesses, including manufacturing, warehousing, and similar employment-generating activities located near major transportation corridors. The proposed operation functions as a light industrial-type business involving vehicle restoration and repair activities within an enclosed building. The use supports employment opportunities and is compatible with the industrial character envisioned for the area. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 3. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property. There is no vacant land adjacent to the subject parcel and the proposed use will occupy an existing building and does not require significant site modifications. The operation is compatible with other commercial and industrial uses anticipated within the Business Park district. Staff find that the proposed use will not impede the orderly development of surrounding land. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 4. Will be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, parks and schools; and Page 33 of 223 will not, in particular, create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares. The property is served by existing public streets and municipal utilities. The proposed operation includes five employees and a limited number of customer and business vehicles. Six parking stalls are provided, exceeding the minimum parking requirement of five stalls. Due to the limited scale of the operation and the absence of retail vehicle sales, significant traffic generation is not anticipated. Staff find that the proposed use can be adequately served by existing public facilities and services and will not create traffic congestion or interfere with surrounding roadways. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations. All repair activities are proposed to occur indoors within an enclosed structure. The applicant has indicated that only body work will occur and that no mechanical repair work will be performed. The limited operational scope and indoor nature of the use are expected to minimize noise and other potential nuisances. If the applicant proposes the installation of a paint booth or similar facility, a building permit will be required, and the operation will need to meet all standards to ensure odors do not impact adjacent tenant spaces. As motor vehicle sales are not permitted within the Business Park zoning district, approval of this CUP does not authorize the display, marketing, or sale of vehicles from the property. Any vehicle present on-site shall be associated solely with the approved repair business. Additionally, all vehicles stored on-site shall be operable, currently registered, or otherwise legally authorized for repair and restoration activities as permitted by City Code. 6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The request involves occupancy of an existing developed site and building. No natural, scenic, or historic features have been identified that would be impacted by the proposed use. Staff do not see a need to impose specific conditions to satisfy this standard. 7. Will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and Standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city. Motor vehicle repair facilities are permitted within the Business Park zoning district through the Conditional Use Permit process. Subject to compliance with all applicable City Code provisions, building and fire code requirements, and the conditions of approval contained herein, the proposed use can comply with all applicable regulations. Staff recommend the entire back parking lot be screened to address all the outdoor storage occurring on site, which is required in the BP district. If denial of such a permit should occur, it shall accompany recommendations or determinations by findings or a report stating how the proposed use does not comply with the standards set forth in Section 30-654. Financial Impact None. Page 34 of 223 Mission/Policy/Goal Ethical, efficient, and responsible. Attachments 1. CU 26-07 Location Map 2. Narrative 3. Building Plan 4. Staff Exhibit 5. Handout 6. Presentation Page 35 of 223 Page 36 of 223 The narrative is your opportunity to describe, promote, and sell your proposal to the Planning Commission and/or City Council before the meeting(s). Please fill in the following information explaining your request in detail (type N/A if not applicable). Describe the scope of your project (what is being proposed)? For example: we are proposing the construction of a new daycare facility or, to allow for a motor vehicle sales office with motor vehicle repairs in X-square feet of the existing building. We would like to use this property as a cosmetic repair shop (cosmetic meaning the shell of a vehicle). All said vehicles will be and are owned by us. We will not perform mechanical repairs of any kind, including but not limited to engines, transmissions, or drivetrain components whatsoever. Thank you. Hours of Operation 9 am-5 pm may differ on some days* Number of Employees 5 Number of parking stalls required by ordinance: City Ordinance Section 30- 903 outlines these requirements. 5 Number of existing and proposed parking stalls 6 If screening, not associated with outdoor storage, is being proposed, what will it consist of? N/A What are the proposed building materials? The required building materials vary from zoning district to zoning district. N/A Is outdoor storage being proposed? If yes, detail what is being stored, how much/many, and what is the proposed screening? City Ordinance Section 30- 807 outlines these requirements. N/A Page 37 of 223 18332 JOPLIN ST 18332 Joplin St NW | Elk River, MN 55330 This plan is for informational purposes only and is not a warranty, representation or agreement that the Shopping Center or the parking areas, roadways, access points, sidewalks, buildings or other improvements will be as shown hereon, or that the occupants shown hereon will be in the Shopping Center.SITE PLANBoulder Creek Construction Suite #18336 Northface Construction Suite #18334 Sky Light Express Suite #18332 Kepner Cleaning Suite #18330 Lorex Marketing Suite #18324 Ideal Health Suite #18322 Page 38 of 223 Page 39 of 223 From: Billy Brey Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:26 AM To: Chris Leeseberg <CLeeseberg@ElkRiverMN.gov> Subject: Re: Conditional use documentation Chris, I appreciate your follow-up on this matter. Aside from the parking concerns, myself and several of the neighboring tenants are concerned about the potential impact this business could have on the surrounding office spaces. Based on our understanding of the proposed use, we expect there may be frequent use of power tools, air tools, and other equipment that could create signiffcant noise throughout the day. Many of us operate professional office environments where phone calls, meetings, and client interactions are a regular part of business. We are concerned that the noise generated by this type of operation could be disruptive to our ability to conduct business efiectively. I'm not sure how much weight the city gives to these types of concerns during the approval process, but I felt it was important to bring them to your attention, as they may afiect whether this use is a good fft alongside the existing office tenants. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Thanks, Page 40 of 223 Conditional Use Permit Vibe Auto Motors Page 41 of 223 Page 42 of 223 Background §Zoned BP §Motor vehicle repair = CUP §Body work §22,680 sqft multi-tenant building §Utilizing ~3,500 sqft §All vehicles are owned by the applicant §No mechanical repairs, including but not limited to engines, transmissions, or drivetrain components Page 43 of 223 Page 44 of 223 Page 45 of 223 Page 46 of 223 Parking §Parking requirements are met §Two tenants have designated space behind the building §Neighboring property owner concerned with overflow parking Page 47 of 223 Page 48 of 223 Outdoor Storage §Various outdoor storage occurring on site §Screening required by BP district §Staff recommend the north side of the back parking lot be screened Page 49 of 223 Page 50 of 223 Page 51 of 223 Page 52 of 223 Public Comment §One tenant expressed concerns with noise possibly being disruptive to professional office/business uses in the building Page 53 of 223 Applicable Regulations §Staff’s analysis of the application shows compliance with 5 of the 7 standards required for approval of the CUP §With the recommended conditions, the other standard should be complied with Page 54 of 223 Action Requested §Recommend, by motion, approval of a CUP with the 8 conditions outlined in the memo to satisfy the standards set forth in Section 30-654 §#3 - The north side of the back parking lot shall be screened with a six-foot high 100 percent opaque fence constructed of factory-finished metal or vinyl material. Page 55 of 223 City Council Meeting §If acted on, this item will go to the July 20, 2026, City Council meeting Page 56 of 223 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To Planning Commission Item Number 5.3 Meeting Date June 23, 2026 Prepared By Zack Carlton, Community Development Director Item Description Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Data Center, Michael Margulies - 19178 Industrial Blvd NW Reviewed by Katie Porath Action Requested The public hearing was opened, and continued, to June 23, 2026. After receiving the presentation from city staff and asking questions of staff, the commission should receive public comments related to the ordinance amendment application. After receiving public comments, the commission will close the public hearing for the ordinance amendment and continue the hearing for the Conditional Use Permit Application to July 28, 2026. The Planning Commission has two options: 1. Make changes or modifications to the draft ordinance and recommend approval of the ordinance to be considered by the City Council on July 6, 2026. 2. Recommend denial of the requested ordinance amendment. The denial must include specific reasons for the recommendation. Background/Discussion The Planning Commission and City Council have both held a public hearing regarding an ordinance amendment to allow data centers in the I-1 zoning district, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a new data center facility at 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW. The public hearings generated a significant number of questions and comments about the applicant, project, data centers in general, and how the city would regulate or monitor these facilities. At both meetings, staff stated that they would complete additional research and coordinate with the appropriate entity to provide written responses at the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Responses to those questions are included with this staff report. Page 57 of 223 The applicant also stated that a noise study, specific to their proposed facility at 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW, would be available for review by June 23, 2026. The completed study is attached to this staff report. The city has also received a number of written comments from the public, and all the letters received as of June 18, 2026, are included for review. City Review As the applicant submitted both an ordinance amendment to add a new use to an existing zoning district, and a CUP to utilize a new facility at the same time, the two conversations have largely been discussed as one topic. However, these are two very different land use requests and should be discussed separately to ensure each is reviewed on their own merits. With that in mind, staff has notified the applicant that the Planning Commission will only be asked to make a recommendation on the ordinance amendment during the June 23, 2026, meeting. The city council will also be asked to review a draft ordinance on July 6, 2026. Action on the CUP application is scheduled for a later meeting on July 28, 2026, and will be evaluated based on an adopted ordinance. If the City Council does not adopt an ordinance allowing data centers in the I-1 district, the Planning Commission is still required to review the CUP application. However, the recommendation would be to deny, as the use is not allowed. The remainder of this memo will focus on the draft ordinance included with this staff report. Ordinance Amendment City staff have been working closely with the city attorney to draft an ordinance that attempts to address concerns raised during the public hearing. Specifically, distance from residential areas, water use and contamination, noise - from both the cooling equipment and backup generators, air pollution, and ongoing monitoring. First, the draft ordinance requires the data center facility to be at least 750 feet from any residential structure and at least 500-feet from the nearest residentially zoned property. These setbacks were established by reviewing the current data center setbacks from residential properties and peer community ordinances. The two existing data centers have more than 50 homes within 750 feet of their boundaries and are located across the road from residential zoning districts. The city receives very few complaints regarding their operation. Additionally, the proposed limits on data center size (35 MW) also limit the scope of impacts that a data center will have on the surrounding communities. Much of the concern regarding data centers has come from the very large 100 MW+ facilities that require significantly more cooling, power, and backup generation. As an example, Monticello’s ordinance has the same 500-foot setback from residential properties but could allow a facility of 500+ acres without a cap on energy uses. The energy cap would also be memorialized with an agreement with the city’s power provider, ERMU, to ensure both entities are in agreement. Second, cooling systems are required to be air-based systems that require zero consumption of water. Closed loop systems that require a cooling tower and “blow down” procedure to extract heat from the facility would not meet this standard. The draft ordinance limits the total water usage to 250,000 gallons per year. This limit serves as a check to ensure water is not used for cooling needs. Staff identified this limit by reviewing typical water usage for industrial facilities and annual water usage per employee. Page 58 of 223 Third, noise generated by a data center, or any industrial operation in the city, must comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) noise standards established in Minn. Rules Ch. 7030. The draft ordinance requires a noise analysis to be completed by a third-party engineer prior to submitting the application. The specific noise study requirements described in the draft ordinance include: baseline noise levels around the facility, daytime and nighttime noise levels expected upon project completion, A-weighted(dBA) and C- weighted (dBC) comparisons, sound level monitoring and projections for multiple distances from the facility, specific noise mitigation recommendations, a post construction compliance evaluation, and annual noise monitoring. The MPCA sets noise standards that preempt local government regulations. This means that the city cannot establish standards that are more restrictive than those established under Minn. Rules Ch. 7030. Fourth, backup generators are restricted to emergency use and may only be used when the primary source of power has been interrupted or is unavailable. The draft ordinance allows routine generator testing and requires all testing to occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The ordinance also grants the city authority to impose additional restrictions when testing creates unexpected impacts on adjacent communities. Most back-up generators are powered by diesel and, under the parameters of the draft ordinance, would be the most likely source for air pollution from a data center. The developer is required to work with the MPCA to verify whether an environmental review will be required. If one is required, it must be completed prior to submitting an application for approval. Documentation of the MPCA’s decision will need to be provided. Finally, the draft ordinance requires a decommissioning plan to ensure the city is not left with a facility that cannot be used for a different use in the future. This plan would need to be prepared by a qualified professional and would be binding on any future operators. Planning Commission Action In considering adoption of an ordinance to allow data centers in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts, the Commission should consider all verbal and written testimony. Topics for the commission to review include: whether this is the appropriate zoning district, could the standards of the draft ordinance be modified to better address concerns from the public, are there any standards that have not been included but should, and does the ordinance protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. When considering changes to the standards, please note that the requirements must be measurable and must not conflict with state and federal rules or laws. Financial Impact None. Mission/Policy/Goal Appropriately govern in an ever-changing environment. Attachments 1. Data Center Questions and Answers 2. Updated - Draft Ordinance 6-22-2026 3. Prior Version - Draft Ordinance 6-18-2026 4. Map of I-1 and I-2 Zoning Districts 5. Swervo Development Company Bio 6. Summary Report for Data Center Noise dated Jun 16, 2026 7. Public Comments as of 6-18-2026 Page 59 of 223 8. City Council Staff Report dated June 15, 2026 9. Handout - Jesse Lang 10. Presentation Page 60 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard The following questions and comments were gathered during the public hearings held by the Planning Commission on May 26, 2026, and the City Council on June 15, 2026. The responses are from research and analysis completed by city and ERMU staff and, when noted, from the applicant. 1. Who is Elk River Capital, and are they related to the proposed facilities in Monticello or Elk River Technologies, LLC (Becker)? Applicant response - Elk River Capital is a single purpose Minnesota limited liability company that will own and operate the Elk River facility. The facility will be operated under the tradename "Irongate Data Center"--which is a business name, not an entity. Elk River Capital LLC is wholly owned by Swervo Development Corporation, of which Mr. Abdul is the principal. Swervo is a Minnesota corporation based in Minneapolis and is the owner of various commercial, industrial, retail and residential projects. A short resume of recent representative Swervo projects is attached. Applicant Response - There is no connection with their organization and the proposed facilities in Monticello or Becker, and they have no connection with Elk River Technologies, LLC. Applicant Response – Those projects are in a completely different class than what is being proposed for Elk River. Becker is a 600-Megawatt facility. Monticello is 400+ megawatts. Elk River is 23—eventually, at most, 33 megawatts. It's easy to throw all these projects into the same bucket but there is virtually nothing the same about them. It's really important to make that distinction. 2. Why are multiple companies/LLCs used for the application and operation? Applicant’s response - Michael Margulies is a consultant hired by Swervo and his company is Newton RES LLC. Mr. Margulies often submits applications for Swervo under his company name to ensure he receives all notices and staff responses related to the application. Newton RES LLC is not involved beyond assisting the owner (Swervo) with the entitlements. 3. Why is Elk River Capital interested in this site? Applicant’s response - Elk River Capital is interested in the site because; (a) the building is located in an industrial area that is most appropriate to the operation of a data center; (b) the building is of a type and size that can be effectively and economically repurposed for data center purposes; (c) the current owners are going out of business and repurposing the site would result in the site continuing to be put to good use as opposed to the building being abandoned; (d) ERMU encouraged Elk River Capital to consider the site because the city has power availability and the project would benefit both the operator and the city. Page 61 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard 4. If an ordinance allowing data centers passes, what would this mean for future data center construction in the city? A future data center would need to comply with the standards of the ordinance. The proposed ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit, which requires a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council, along with multiple design and performance standards. A public hearing notice is required to notify property owners within 500 feet of the subject parcel. In addition to the ordinance standards, the developer is required to work with Elk River Municipal Utilities ERMU to ensure their power needs can be met. 5. What is the difference between a cloud computing data center, an edge data center, and an AI data center? Cloud computing and AI data centers generally differ in the hardware that is installed within the facility. Cloud computing facilities don’t rely on specialized computer chips. They share server space with multiple tenants and act as a digital warehouse for data. They are operated by large corporations, such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta as well as other companies that require the storage of electronic information data. These facilities host compute, storage, and networking resources for enterprises and consumers worldwide. An edge data center is generally smaller in both size and energy needs (typically under 50 MW), located closer to end users and network hubs to reduce latency. They require less power, less transmission infrastructure, and have a smaller footprint that large cloud or AI facilities. Developer Note - A Colocation Edge Data Center refers to a data center that enables you to rent out space for your own hardware. For example, instead of using your own on-premises space for your servers, cables, networking devices, and other computing equipment, you can rent out space in a data center. A colocation edge data center involves including the servers and other equipment from numerous companies in a single data center. The hardware is often owned by the business renting the space, and the data center staff only houses it or may assist in its operation. Enterprise customers use colocation edge data centers to store their servers and other gear required for regular business operations. Colocation ensures adequate bandwidth while providing shared, secure areas in cool, controlled surroundings suited for servers. AI data centers are a purpose-built, high-density facility, and power needs generally exceed 100 MW. They are built for a single purpose and utilize specialized computer chips to process massive amounts of data. All data centers require large amounts of energy and specialized cooling systems, but AI data centers are larger, use more resources, and incorporate specialized equipment. Page 62 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard The draft ordinance does not differentiate between these two types of facilities. The draft ordinance addresses the external impacts of the facility, regardless of the data processed inside. Standards limiting energy use (in coordination with ERMU), cooling equipment, footprint, and noise are applied equally to any data center application. Together, these limitations limit the size of facilities that could be developed in the city. 6. How does the proposal compare to the existing data centers in the community? The existing data centers were constructed in 2006 and 2007 with design capacities of 10 MW and 20 MW. The facilities are cloud/data storage facilities. They are approximately160,000 SF and 240,000 SF in size. The nearest residential structure is approximately 330 feet away and there are 50+ homes within 1,000 feet. The proposed facility is approximately 60,000 SF in size and has a design capacity for 33 MW of power. The nearest home is 930 feet away. 7. How does the electricity for the facility get here, how is it paid for, how will it impact the rates? will the city or ERMU need more substations? Electricity in Elk River is delivered over the Mid-continent Independent System Operator (MISO) Transmission Grid through the Great River Energy Regional Transmission Grid, to ERMU’s local distribution grid, and to the customer. MISO is one of seven independently operated, but interconnected, transmission grids across the nation. MISO buys electricity from numerous generation sources within the MISO Transmission Grid to meet the demand it receives from the electric utilities within the MISO energy market. ERMU purchases electricity from Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA), a wholesale power provider, who in turn purchases the electricity for its members through the MISO energy market. ERMU receives a monthly invoice from MMPA for its energy usage. ERMU pays the invoice using funds received from rate payers. Customer bills are based on energy usage and rate class (e.g. residential, commercial, industrial). A single large energy customer, such as a data center, has a stabilizing effect on rates. Data centers use large amounts of electricity and require a relatively small amount of infrastructure and minimal operational costs. High revenues with minimal cost stabilizes rates because overhead and operating expenses are spread across a larger volume of energy sales, reducing the cost burden on other customers. If the requested data center were to be approved, ERMU would expand an existing substation to enable the installation of a third transformer. The data center developer would be required to pay for all costs associated with the expansion and the new transformer. Page 63 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard 8. What are the results of the noise study? The noise study reviewed existing ambient noise levels near the facility, the expected noise generated by the proposed chillers and generators and made recommendations for on-site noise mitigation. The study evaluated both high and low-frequency noise as well as C-weighted noise levels. The results show that with the recommended noise mitigation measures, the expected noise levels will not exceed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards for residential or industrial areas. The full noise study is attached to the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission packet, and will be provided upon request. Additionally, to ensure compliance with the state noise standards, the draft ordinance includes post-construction verification and annual verification for continued compliance. 9. Were any of the noise study tests done from the AEGIR patio? The independent third-party noise study included a receiver (spot at which noise levels are calculated) along the property line between AEGIR Brewing and the proposed data center site – location G. This is between the chillers and AEGIR. The study found that with the recommended noise mitigation, the site meets MPCA limits for commercial property. This is a higher standard than what would be required of an industrial property, which is where both operations are located. 10. What are the specifications of the diesel generators? Model, capacity, and expected annual use? How can this impact the air quality in the area? The noise study includes this information and identifies the specific generator as a 2,500 KW Cummins Diesel Generator – model DQKAN. The proposed facility would include 10 generators. The annual use would be limited to emergency/backup use only. This includes up to 100 hours for annual testing, and 400 hours for backup use. The regular testing of these generators would be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The developer is also required to verify with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that the use of these generators does not require an environmental review. 11. How much water are you going to be using? The proposed system, and the requirements of the draft ordinance, limit the facility to standard office/business water usage. The existing facility had previously used nearly one million gallons of water at its peak operation. The draft ordinance caps water usage at 200,000 gallons per year. Water usage will be monitored annually and must be reported to the city along with the annual noise monitoring. Page 64 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard 12. How does the closed loop cooling system work? What chemicals are in the system? How are potential leaks contained? How will these be filled initially and will the cooling towers require any water from the city’s water system? Is there any physical connection between the cooling towers and the municipal water system? What is a blowdown? The developer has proposed, and the draft ordinance requires closed loop cooling equipment. The specific model proposed by the developer, identified in the noise study, is a York model YVFA0459, 550 nominal ton air-cooled screw chiller. A chiller has a mechanical compression device that converts energy into compressed refrigerant by using a compressor. The compressed refrigerant is piped to a condenser that rejects the heat from the refrigerant to the atmosphere or some type of liquid coolant. The compressed refrigerant changes from a gas to a liquid in the condenser and is piped to an evaporator where it is metered or expanded in the evaporator. The expansion of the high-pressure liquid refrigeration reduces the temperature of the evaporator. The liquid to be cooled is pumped through the evaporator heat exchanger and heat is transferred to the refrigerant. The low-pressure vapor is carried back to the compressor, and the cycle begins again for the refrigerant. The coolant flows from the evaporator heat exchanger to the load where the heat is transferred to the coolant in the load heat exchanger and then returns to the evaporator to repeat the cycle. https://www.airbestpractices.com/technology/cooling-systems/six-basic-types-liquid-cooling- systems These chillers use a water-glycol mixture (similar to an automobile cooling system) that cycles through the facility to absorb heat from the servers and an R-134a refrigerant to absorb and remove heat from the water mixture. This proposed equipment does not use a cooling tower where water (from the municipal system or a well) is used to remove heat from the internal closed loop system. The glycol mix along with the refrigerant will be delivered to the site in tankers or other containers. The draft ordinance also prohibits any physical connection between the cooling/chiller equipment and the municipal water service. A “blowdown” is not utilized for a chiller but can be used for other cooling systems that rely on cooling towers and external water sources. The proposal does not include this type of equipment. 13. Will there be ongoing monitoring and enforcement if noise or environmental impacts are exceeded? The draft ordinance requires post-construction noise verification and ongoing noise monitoring. If noise levels exceed state standards, they are required to construct the necessary mitigation measures or risk losing their approval. Page 65 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard 14. Are the construction jobs to build the data center going to be local? This will be up to the developer. The city does not have the legal authority to regulate the companies hired to complete the work beyond ensuring they are licensed to do the work. 15. Who is responsible for data center updates as they are supposed to last 10 years? The developer would update and maintain their facility to ensure continued operation within approved standards. Nearly every business has an uncertain life expectancy, including the business which formerly utilized the proposed site. 16. How did this get on the schedule? The applicant submitted a land use application to the city. Upon acceptance of a complete land use application, the city is required to process the request in accordance with city codes and state law. This includes required public notices and established meeting timelines. It would be illegal to ignore or refuse to process a legal application. State law mandates that the city acts and makes a formal decision to approve or deny the application within 60 days or, when additional time is needed for a complete review, the timeline can be extended to 120 days. Due to the extended review period required for the current applications, the review timeline has been extended to the full 120 days, and the city must make a formal decision by August 25, 2026. If the city did not process the applications within the required timeline, by law, they are automatically approved. 17. Which council members have been paid off? No Councilmember has received remuneration to support this application. The City of Elk River has a Conflict-of-Interest Ordinance that is more strict than state law. 18. Have the city council members signed an NDA? No member of the Elk River City Council or city staff has signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement. 19. What are the benefits to the city? As with any new commercial or industrial development, projects can contribute to the local economy through the addition of employment opportunities and an increase in the tax base. This type of development may also provide services or products that support the needs of residents and businesses. The specific benefits of each project vary depending on its size, nature, and long- term viability. Jobs created by a facility vary by industry and type. The applicant states the proposed 60,000 SF facility will create 40 jobs. A similarly sized warehouse would create between 30 and 40 jobs. Warehouses are allowed in the same zoning district. Page 66 of 223 Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard Additionally, the revenue sharing program between the city and ERMU, which is in addition to property taxes, will generate a significant amount of revenue for the city. 20. What will the city do with the money? Data center operations are required to pay property taxes, the same as any other business. ERMU, as a public entity, does not pay property taxes. Instead, they pay the city an annual Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), which by mutual agreement is 5% of the revenue generated from electric use in the City of Elk River. The city uses the annual PILOT to fund portions of the General Fund, park improvements, and equipment/vehicle replacement. The current PILOT reduces the city property tax burden by approximately $1.7 million. The projected new revenue is based on estimated electric usage and the final rate. The rate has not yet been established by ERMU, but early estimates show a potential increase of $600,000 - $800,000 annually. If a data center is approved, the City Council will decide how to use the funds during the budget process. 21. Will this impact property values? Property values are determined by the Sherburne County Assessor’s Office and based on comparable land sales in the area. Residential property values near the existing data centers, which are closer than the proposed data center, have followed similar market trends that have been observed throughout the community. Page 67 of 223 Data Center means a facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data, which houses computer or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations. The facility may also include air handlers, power generators, cooling or temperature-control systems, utility substations, and other associated infrastructure necessary for sustained operations. (d) Conditional Uses. Conditional Uses in the I-1 district are as follows: (5) Data Center, provided they meet the following standards: a. The proposed Data Center facility and any accessory use or structure is at least 750-feet from any residential structure, and at least 500-feet from the property line of any residentially zoned property. b. The total energy use of the Data Center facility shall not exceed 35 MW of power. c. The proposed Data Center facility is no larger than 75,000 SF in total size. d. Water Use - Data Center facilities shall not utilize water for cooling systems. Cooling systems shall utilize air‑based systems or advanced technology that requires zero consumptive water use, and all liquid cooled equipment must be designed to utilize a closed-loop system. 1. Annual domestic water use shall not exceed 200,000 gallons unless approved by the City following verification that water is not used for cooling. 2. Facilities shall install dedicated water meters and submit annual water consumption reports. 3. Cooling systems shall not have any physical connection to a municipal water system or a well. e. Noise - Noise from the operation of the proposed Data Center facility or any accessory use must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise standards as established in Minn. Rules Ch. 7030. 1. Prior to approval, a noise study completed by a third-party engineer must be submitted demonstrating that the operations of the Data Center facility will comply with MPCA noise standards. The noise study must include sufficient information to show: (a) Baseline noise levels in the area of the proposed Data Center, including noise levels measured at all external perimeter property lines. Page 68 of 223 (b) Expected daytime and nighttime noise levels upon operation, including generator noise and other equipment noise, indoors and outdoors at multiple distances and at the external perimeter property lines. (c) Sound level projections and modeling for multiple distances from the Data Center facility. (d) Specific recommended mitigation measures to be incorporated to ensure compliance with the MPCA noise standards, and to minimize disturbance caused by low-frequency noise and vibrations. (e) The study must include A-weighted (dBA), C-weighted (dBC) and Z-weighted (dBZ) measurements, with full frequency spectra to identify low-frequency and tonal components. (f) A post construction compliance test, during operation, within six months of beginning operation must be completed to verify the actual sound levels and the effectiveness of constructed mitigation measures. The test must utilize the same methodology used for the initial noise study. If the review finds that post construction noise exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels at any external perimeter property boundaries or the locations used during the initial noise study testing or mitigation measures to address low-frequency noise or vibrations are inadequate, the applicant shall be required to develop and submit for review and approval, mitigation measures to bring noise levels within acceptable limits. (g) The City may order an additional noise study once per year during peak operation of the Data Center facility. The Data Center operator must provide the results of the noise study, conducted by a third-party engineer, to the City within 30 days of the request by the City or show proof that they have contracted with a third- party engineer, and the results will be available in a reasonable amount of time. i. Where any noise study identifies greater than maximum permissible sound levels at any external perimeter property boundary, the City may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure the conditions contributing to the exceedance, suspend or revoke the conditional use permit. Page 69 of 223 f. Backup Generators - Backup generators are restricted to only emergency use when the primary source of electricity is interrupted or unavailable and routine maintenance or readiness testing. 1. Routine testing must only occur during the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 2. The City may require additional restrictions where testing creates noise impacts on adjacent properties. 3. All generator systems must comply with applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards. 4. On-site fuel storage for back-up power generators shall be subject to the accessory structure setback and height limitations of the zoning district and must be completely screened from view within the public right-of-way. Such storage shall comply with all MPCA and State Fire Marshal requirements, all other permits, testing and listing requirements, and all applicable codes and standards such as NFPA 58. g. Decommissioning - The applicant submits a decommissioning plan, prepared by a qualified professional, outlining the estimated decommissioning timeframe, costs, and procedures for safe shutdown, removal of equipment, disposal or recycling of materials, and site restoration. Page 70 of 223 Data Center means a facility used primarily for the storage, management, processing, and transmission of digital data, which houses computer or network equipment, systems, servers, appliances, and other associated components related to digital data operations. The facility may also include air handlers, power generators, cooling or temperature-control systems, utility substations, and other associated infrastructure necessary for sustained operations. (d) Conditional Uses. Conditional Uses in the I-1 district are as follows: (5) Data Center, provided they meet the following standards: a. The proposed Data Center facility and any accessory use or structure is at least 750-feet from any residential structure, and at least 500-feet from the property line of any residentially zoned property. b. The total energy use of the Data Center facility shall not exceed 35 MW of power. c. The proposed Data Center facility is no larger than 75,000 SF in total size. d. Water Use - Data Center facilities shall not utilize water for cooling systems. Cooling systems shall utilize air‑based systems or advanced technology that requires zero consumptive water use, and all liquid cooled equipment must be designed to utilize a closed-loop system. 1. Annual domestic water use shall not exceed 200,000 gallons unless approved by the City following verification that water is not used for cooling. 2. Facilities shall install dedicated water meters and submit annual water consumption reports. 3. Cooling systems shall not have any physical connection to a municipal water system or a well. 4. The developer must provide an annual report showing the total water used over the past year. e. Noise - Noise from the operation of the proposed Data Center facility or any accessory use must comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) noise standards as established in Minn. Rules Ch. 7030. 1. Prior to application, a noise study completed by a third-party engineer must be submitted demonstrating that the operations of the Data Center facility will comply with MPCA noise standards. The noise study must include sufficient information to show: Page 71 of 223 (a) Baseline noise levels in the area of the proposed Data Center, including noise levels measured at all external perimeter property lines. (b) Expected daytime and nighttime noise levels upon operation, including generator noise and other equipment noise, indoors and outdoors at multiple distances and at the external perimeter property lines. (c) The study must include both A-weighted (dBA) and C-weighted (dBC) measurements, with full frequency spectra to identify low- frequency and tonal components. (d) Sound level projections and modeling for multiple distances from the Data Center facility, with measurements taken both outdoors and indoors of nearby dwellings. (e) Specific recommended mitigation measures to be incorporated to ensure compliance with the MPCA noise standards. (f) A post construction compliance test, during operation, within six months of beginning operation must be completed to verify the actual sound levels and the effectiveness of constructed mitigation measures. The test must utilize the same methodology used for the initial review. If the review finds that post construction noise exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels at any external perimeter property boundaries or the locations used during the initial testing, the applicant shall be required to develop and submit for review and approval, mitigation measures to bring noise levels below acceptable limits. The work must be completed within 6 months of the date of review. (g) The City may order an additional noise study once per year during peak operation of the data center facility. The data center operator must provide the results of the noise study, conducted by a third- party engineer, to the City within 30 days of the request by the City or show proof that they have contracted with a third-party engineer, and the results will be available in a reasonable amount of time. i. Where any noise study identifies greater than maximum permissible sound levels at any external perimeter property boundary, the city may, after reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure the conditions contributing to the exceedance, suspend or revoke the conditional use permit. Page 72 of 223 f. Backup Generators - Backup generators are restricted to only emergency use when the primary source of electricity is interrupted or unavailable and routine maintenance or readiness testing. 1. Routine testing must only occur during the hours of 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday. 2. The City may require additional restrictions where testing creates noise impacts on adjacent properties. 3. All generator systems must comply with applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards. Documentation of the review must be submitted with the application. 4. If the MPCA or EPA determine that an environmental review is necessary, it must be completed prior to submittal of a Conditional Use Permit Application. 5. On-site fuel storage for back-up power generators shall be subject to the accessory structure setback and height limitations of the zoning district and must be completely screened from view within the public right-of-way. Such storage shall comply with all MPCA and State Fire Marshal requirements, all other permits, testing and listing requirements, and all applicable codes and standards such as NFPA 58. g. Decommissioning - The applicant submits a decommissioning plan, prepared by a qualified professional, outlining the estimated decommissioning timeframe, costs, and procedures for safe shutdown, removal of equipment, disposal or recycling of materials, and site restoration. Page 73 of 223 Page 74 of 223 Swervo Development Corporation is a Minneapolis based real estate development company specializing in new developments in all sectors of the real estate market including commercial, high-rise office and mixed-use projects, industrial, multifamily and tech sectors. Since 1999 the Company has been actively engaged in all stages of the development process, including planning, design, construction and property management. It is known for its ability to develop or convert special use properties. The Company currently owns and manages several million square feet of commercial, multifamily, industrial and tech space both in the Twin Cities area and nationally. Swervo Development is known for tackling challenging and historic properties, converting them into new, functional spaces such as office buildings, event venues, and residential units while maintaining the historic character of the buildings. It has also successfully developed and constructed significant new buildings and projects in historic neighborhoods. Recent significant Swervo projects in the Twin Cities include: • Steelman Exchange—241 5th Avenue North, Minneapolis : Swervo Development developed this new ten story office development in the Minneapolis historic North Loop District. • Western Container Building—500 North 3rd Street, Minneapolis, The Company’s conversion of the 1908 55,000 square foot office and creative space development in the Minneapolis North Loop neighborhood. • Internet Exchange Building --419 North Washington, Minneapolis. Swervo Development converted this 1913 five story building located in the Minneapolis Warehouse District to 85,000 square feet of commercial office space. • The Minneapolis Armory: Swervo Development converted the historic Armory building into an 8,400 person capacity concert and event venue. • 510 Marquette Ave: The Company renovated the former Federal Reserve Bank building into a modern office space. • Shakopee Amphitheater: Swervo developed and, commencing in summer of 2026, will operate in partnership with Live Nation a 19,000-seat outdoor event venue at Canterbury Park in Shakopee. Page 75 of 223 • Former YMCA building: The Company performed a major renovation, transforming the six-story, 140,000-square-foot building into modern office and retail space, creating state-of-the-art office space attracting tech startups, marketing firms, and other creative businesses. • Woodbury Gold Line Development: Swervo recently developed a 56-acre commercial and entertainment project at the intersection of Highways 494 and 94 in Woodbury. The project features a newly opened Topgolf facility, a Main Event entertainment venue, along with a residential and fitness center properties currently in development. • Uptown Theater: The Company redeveloped the vintage theater into a 1,600-seat entertainment venue, successfully preserving a historic designated property. • The Penhurst Collective: Swervo converted a former 1950s Bryn Mawr neighborhood office building into a 109-unit apartment complex by adding three stories, all as part of multi-phase residential project including senior living, apartment, and townhome units. • The Max: Swervo’s conversion of The Max Minneapolis, located in the Prospect Park neighborhood of Minneapolis, involved transforming the original 1917 Maxwell Car factory into a 166-unit residential loft building. The project restored original features like brickwork and cement beams while adding modern amenities, resulting in a historic warehouse loft conversion that offers studio apartments and a modern living experience. • Woodbury Gold Line Data Center. In 2024, the Company acquired and repurposed the Hartford Building at 500 Bielenberg Drive in Woodbury into a 17.5 Mw data center. Page 76 of 223 Supporting Innovative Design Structures | Vibration | Noise | Monitoring 7831 Glenroy Road, Suite 218 | Minneapolis, MN 55439 o: +1 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Summary Report on Data Center Equipment Outdoor Noise Control 19178 Industrial Blvd Data Center Site Elk River, Minnesota Site Acquisition Phase June 16, 2026 Prepared for Elk River Capital, LLC 510 First Avenue North, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55403 ESI Project 3205 Prepared by: Ryan L. Skoug, P.E. (OR), INCE Bd. Cert. Page 77 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ iv Noise Control and Terminology ...................................................................................................... v Project Requirements and Conditions A. Noise Level Requirements .............................................................................................. A-1 B. Project Site Conditions ................................................................................................... B-1 Noise Analysis C. Ambient Noise Study ...................................................................................................... C-1 D. Equipment Noise Analysis .............................................................................................. D-1 Attachments A. Location 1 – Ambient Noise Monitoring Data Plots B. Location 2 – Ambient Noise Monitoring Data Plots Page 78 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control iii INTRODUCTION We understand Elk River Capital is developing the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center project in Elk River, Minnesota. Ten chillers and ten emergency power generators will be installed at the existing building (see Figure 1). All the chillers may run continuously during daytime and nighttime hours. Only one generator will ever run at a time for maintenance, and only during daytime hours. Figure 1: Rendering of the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center site with the current chiller mechanical yard and the generator intake and discharge air openings clouded. Noise from the new equipment must meet the City of Elk River and State of Minnesota (MPCA) requirements at neighboring properties. The City of Elk River is requiring the project team to provide a sound study as part of the Conditional Use Permit application. The study must include monitoring of the existing noise levels near the project site, evaluation of the new data center equipment outdoor noise levels at nearby properties, a comparison of the results to MPCA noise requirements, and a comparison of the results at residential receivers to additional low- frequency noise design goals. The following report sections provide a summary of our findings. Page 79 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following is a summary of the findings provided in this report: 1. Noise Requirements: Minnesota Rule 7030: Noise Pollution Control, establishes maximum allowable L10 (10th percentile, louder levels) and L50 (50th percentile, median levels) noise levels during daytime and nighttime hours based on the receiver type. The more stringent L50 requirements are 50 dBA nighttime / 60 dBA daytime at residential receivers, 60 dBA at educational receivers, 65 dBA at commercial receivers, and 75 dBA at industrial receivers. 2. Site Conditions: The 19178 Industrial Blvd data center site in Elk River is within an industrial park. There are residential receivers over 700’ to the northeast, educational receivers over 500’ to the north, the nearest commercial receiver is along the south property line, and industrial (manufacturing and street-right-of-way) properties are around the remainder of the project site. The terrain around the site is relatively flat, with only some increase in elevation to the northeast. The dominant noise sources at the data center will be the new chillers that run all the time, and the generators that only run for maintenance quarterly. 3. Ambient Noise Study and Observations: Ambient noise levels were monitored at the project site and close to nearby residential properties. The noise levels were evaluated between the 7:00 AM hours of Sunday, June 14th to Monday, June 15th. This period had low wind speeds (especially at night) and reduced traffic quantities. The measurements yielded hourly L10 and L50 sound pressure levels which were then compared to the MPCA requirements. The dominant noise source during the monitoring period was traffic noise on the adjacent County Road 1. While the traffic noise levels at the residential location did not exceed the MPCA limits during the daytime hours and most of the nighttime hours, noise from trains and vehicular traffic did exceed the limits during the 4:00 AM, 5:00 AM, and 6:00 AM nighttime hours. 4. Equipment Noise Analysis: Using site layouts, site topography, and manufacturer provided sound power data for the new equipment, calculations were prepared to evaluate outdoor radiated noise from the new chillers and an emergency power generator. Noise mitigation components included barrier walls around the chillers, and sound attenuators at the generator intake air, discharge air, and combustion exhaust paths. Noise contour plots were created to show the noise levels at receiver locations within 1,000’ of the site. The analysis results show that the MPCA requirements are met at all nearby receivers. Page 80 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control v NOISE CONTROL AND TERMINOLOGY In the United States, there is particular concern lately regarding enforcement of noise emanating from data center sites. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) provides outdoor noise control guidance in their document “A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota” (MPCA Guide). However, many municipalities and residents have questions that are beyond the scope of the MPCA Guide. The following provide answers to noise questions commonly asked by the public from the perspective of ESI noise control engineers who have experience evaluating data center sites. Noise Level Evaluation Noise levels are commonly measured with a sound level meter, which detects acoustic pressure variations in air and quantifies the variations as decibels (unit symbol dB). A young, healthy human ear can sense acoustic pressure variations between 20 Hz (very low frequency or pitch) and 20,000 Hz (very high frequency). Humans are most sensitive to sounds between 1,000 and 5,000 Hz, and less sensitive to sounds at lower and higher frequencies. To simulate the response of the human ear, sound level meters can filter the low and high frequencies of the measured pressure variations. The most common filter is called the A-weighted filter (unit symbol dBA), which adjusts levels at various frequencies to roughly match how the human ear perceives loudness (see Figure 2). Figure 2: Comparison of human hearing to common filters (MPCA Guide, Figure 4). Low-Frequency Noise Research has shown that A-weighted sound levels best match how humans typically perceive loudness. However, C-weighting (unit symbol dBC) is a second common method, which does not filter as much sound at low-frequencies (also shown in Figure 2). Since people tend to be more accepting of continuous low-frequency sound, we usually only see C-weighted levels evaluated when dealing with music bass noise transmission into sensitive living spaces. Page 81 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control vi In recent months, many residents around the country have issued complaints about data center “low-frequency” noise and vibration concerns. While airborne, low-frequency sound does have the ability to produce noise-induced vibration if the amplitudes exceed minimum thresholds, we are unaware of any documented cases of data centers producing this issue at neighboring properties, and this has not been an issue for any of our other similar projects. Distance Effects Think of sound radiating away from a source near the ground as an ever-growing hemisphere into the open air. As noise travels away from a sound emitter, the sound level decreases with distance because the hemisphere is growing larger and the sound is being spread over a greater area. For every doubling of distance from the source, the noise levels are reduced by 6 dBA, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of sound reduction with doubling of distance (MPCA Guide, Figure 6). Noise Source Addition One common factor for noise amplification is increasing the number of noise units or sources. Sound levels from multiple sources add logarithmically. Figure 5 illustrates who every doubling in the number of sources with the same sound level increases noise by 3 dBA (e.g., 70 dBA + 70 dBA = 73 dBA). However, sources with levels that are more than 10 dBA different do not cause an increase in the combined level (e.g., 70 dBA + 60 dBA = 70 dBA). Therefore, the combined sound from two sources will increase the total noise level by 0 and 3 dBA. Figure 4: Illustration of sound level increase with doubling in the number of sources (MPCA Guide, Figure 7). Page 82 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control vii Atmosphere / Meteorological Effects Wind speeds and direction, and temperature gradients (changes in temperature with elevation) both increase and decrease noise propagation to distant receiver locations. Within 300’ of a noise source, environmental effects like wind and temperature inversion can be ignored. At distances greater than 300’, these factors can increase or decrease sound levels. • When temperatures are cooler near the ground, and/or winds are in the direction from the noise source toward the receiver, sound is refracted1 down toward the receiver, which increases source noise levels at the receiver position (see example in Figure 5). • When temperatures are warmer near the ground, and/or winds are in the direction from the receiver toward the noise source, sound is refracted up into the atmosphere, resulting in quieter source noise levels at the receiver position. Figure 5: Acoustics Today image showing sound refraction due to temperature. Our analysis uses ANSI S12.622 standardized methods to evaluate noise attenuation with distance, which includes a conservative assumption of “meteorological conditions which are favorable for propagation from the source to that receiver [under evaluation].” However, we also include an additional 2 dB meteorological factor with our calculations, with an understanding that, “values in excess of 2 dB are exceptional.” 1 According to the Oxford dictionary, refraction is the “change in direction of propagation of any wave as a result of its traveling at different speeds at different points along the wave front.” 2 ANSI-ASA S12.62 Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2; General method of calculation. Page 83 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control viii Barrier and Forest Effects An engineering noise analysis should consider reflections from large flat surfaces and the barrier effect caused by walls, buildings, berms, and hills. Conversely, barrier effects produced by trees can be ignored unless there is a well-maintained, dense, evergreen forest that is more than 150’ deep. For example, per ANSI S12.62, 150’ of dense foliage reduces noise by only 2.3 dB at the 500 Hz frequency. Ambient Noise Effects Figure 6 shows how humans typically perceive changes in sound pressure levels. The MPCA requirements do not include criteria for how much change from the ambient noise levels (the background noise level that exists without the source level) is permissible. Unfortunately, because ambient noise levels are constantly changing over the course of a day, and the degree of change that is perceived as bothersome to people varies greatly, it is very complicated to develop and regulate requirements around the difference between ambient and source noise levels. Rather, the MPCA requirements provide maximum noise limits for varying receiver types, which sets an objective measure for what receivers may expect at their properties, and what producers must meet at neighboring properties. Figure 6: Comparisons between decibel and perceived changes (MPCA Guide, Figure 5). Figure 7 provides a comparison of sound pressure levels for common noises. It is especially helpful that the chart shows that “Quiet” suburban and rural nighttime levels may be around 35 dBA and 20 dBA, respectively. In ambient noise studies that we perform, these are the quietest levels that are measured. Nighttime levels typically range from 25 to 60 dBA, with average hourly levels in the 40’s and 50’s. These average levels are near the MPCA 50 dBA nighttime requirement for an L50 level at a residential receiver. In our opinion, based on project experience in many municipalities, the MPCA requirements are reasonable, and exceeding these limits would be too loud for many people. Page 84 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control ix Figure 7: Noise level comparison chart (MPCA Guide, Figure 3). Because the MPCA requirements are more stringent during nighttime hours, our analysis includes a comparison of calculated data center equipment noise levels to the nighttime noise limits. However, in general, time of day does not affect the propagation of sound. Data center equipment noise only tends to be more noticeable during nighttime hours because other sources of ambient noise are quieter and are not providing as much masking of the data center noise. Page 85 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control A-1 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS The following sections provide information on noise requirements and site conditions at the existing 19178 Industrial Blvd site in Elk River, Minnesota. A. NOISE LEVEL REQUIREMENTS The following is a review of outdoor noise level requirements that apply to the 19178 Industrial Blvd site in Elk River, Minnesota based on our review of the City of Elk River Code, the State of Minnesota Rules, and other published guidelines. City of Elk River Code The Code of Ordinances for the City of Elk River has noise requirements in Chapter 46 – Nuisances. Section 46-38 – Excessive Noise, states the following: “It is declared to be a public nuisance for any person to make or assist in the making of any nuisance noise or any loud, unnecessary or unusual sound or any sound which annoys, disturbs or affects the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others in the city.” Unfortunately, the City Code does not include objective limits for noise at neighboring properties. Because opinions on what noise levels are annoying will vary from person to person, it is very difficult to enforce this requirement in and of itself. State of Minnesota Rules The State of Minnesota has requirements for maximum allowable noise levels per receiving land use in Minnesota Rule 7030: Noise Pollution Control, which was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Table A-1 shows the L103 and L504 noise limits per noise area classification (NAC). In general, NAC 1 is residential and educational land use, NAC 2 is commercial, NAC 3 is industrial, and NAC 4 is undeveloped. The requirements apply to all sources of noise with few exceptions. Daytime is defined as being from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, and nighttime is from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The requirements are to be evaluated at the point of the nearest receiver over 1 hour periods, the sound level meter must use a ‘Fast’ time- weighting response, and the sound levels must be A-weighted. 3 L10 is the sound level that is exceeded 10% of the time during a measurement period, which are the louder levels. 4 L50 is the sound level that is exceeded 50% of the time during a measurement period, or the median level. Page 86 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control A-2 Table A-1: Minnesota Rule 7030 Maximum Noise Level Requirements The State of Minnesota defines what authority the MPCA has in Minnesota Statute 116.07 Powers and Duties. Subd. 2.c of this statute states the following: “The Pollution Control Agency shall also adopt standards describing the maximum levels of noise in terms of sound pressure level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere, recognizing that due to variable factors no single standard of sound pressure is app licable to all areas of the state. … No local governing unit shall set standards describing the maximum levels of sound pressure which are more stringent than those set by the Pollution Control Agency.” Project Requirements Based on our review of the City of Elk River, State of Minnesota, and MPCA noise requirements, the following are requirements for noise that apply to the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center site: 1. The chillers will run continuously for more than 30 minutes of an hour. Therefore, the equipment must meet the more stringent L50 limits in Table A-1. 2. The chillers will operate during both daytime and nighttime hours. Therefore, noise from the chillers cannot exceed the nighttime noise level limits. 3. The generators will not be used for peak-shaving. They will only operate individually during daytime hours for maintenance runs and must meet the more stringent daytime L50 criteria. We assume emergency operation of the generators is exempt from the noise requirements. 4. The requirements cannot be any more stringent than the limits in Table A-1. 5. Noise shall be evaluated at the nearest receiver positions on the neighboring properties. 6. The following provides a summary of the land use activities that are located within 1,000’ of the data center site per the specific NAC that apply to each: a. NAC 1 – Household Units. L10 L50 L10 L50 1 Residential 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 50 dBA 2 Commercial 70 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 3 Industrial 80 dBA 75 dBA 80 dBA 75 dBA 4 Undeveloped Noise Area Classification Receiver Type Daytime (7AM - 10PM)Nighttime (10PM - 7AM) No Limits Page 87 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control A-3 b. NAC 1 Daytime Only – Educational Services (the Meadowvale Elementary School and Creative Kids Academy nighttime limits are the same as the daytime requirements because they are not occupied, nor have people sleeping within them, during nighttime hours). c. NAC 2 – Recreational Trails, Business Services, and Restaurant (Aegir Brewery). d. NAC 3 – Manufacturing, Utilities, Transportation, and Street Right-Of-Way. e. NAC 4 – Undeveloped / Unused Land Areas. Additional Design Goals We understand the City of Elk River has asked for our evaluation to include specific and unique analysis findings for nearby residential receivers. The following is a list of the requests, along with our recommended design goals for this project. However, it should be understood that there are no MPCA requirements regarding these findings, and Minnesota Statute 116.07 does not allow for the enforcement of more stringent noise level limits than those set by the MPCA. C-Weighted Limits To evaluate the presence of loud low-frequency noise levels for this project, we will include a summary of the measured and calculated overall “dBC – dBA” levels at receiver positions. According to ASHRAE5, “When the quantity dBC – dBA is large (e.g., greater than 25 dB), significant low-frequency sound is present. It is recommended that when specifying background sound levels in dBA, the dBC is also included in the specification and does not exceed the dBA reading by more than 20 dB.” Therefore, the residential receiver low-frequency noise design goal for this project is a maximum dBC – dBA of 20 dB. The metric for measurements should be the hourly average (equivalent continuous, Leq) sound pressure level. Noise-Induced Vibration Limits Airborne, low-frequency sound inside buildings can produce noise-induced vibration if the amplitudes exceed minimum thresholds. According to ASHRAE6, indoor noise levels of more than 65 dB at 31.5 Hz, and 69 dB at 63 Hz, “are likely to generate vibration that may be perceptible. There is a slight possibility of rattles in light fixtures, doors, windows, etc.” Therefore, because residential buildings provide about 15 dB of noise reduction at these frequencies, the residential receiver 31.5 Hz and 63 Hz maximum outdoor design goals for this project are 80 dB and 84 dB, respectively, measured as hourly Leq sound pressure levels. 5 2023 ASHRAE Handbook of HVAC Applications, Chapter 49: Noise and Vibration Control, Section 2: Acoustical Design of HVAC Systems, Subsection 2.1: Receiver Considerations – Criteria Descriptions – dBA and dBC: A- and C-Weighted Sound Level. 6 2023 ASHRAE Handbook of HVAC Applications, Chapter 49: Noise and Vibration Control, Section 2: Acoustical Design of HVAC Systems, Subsection 2.1: Receiver Considerations – Criteria Descriptions, Fig. 6: Room Criterion Curves, Mark II. Page 88 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control B-1 B. PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS The data center project site is located at 19178 Industrial Blvd in Elk River, Minnesota. The existing site is zoned ‘Industrial’ and has been used for manufacturing. As shown in Figure B-1, most of the neighboring properties are type NAC 3. There are also some NAC 1 properties to the north, NAC 2 properties to the north and south, and NAC 4 properties to the west and south. While the topography in this area is relatively flat, the terrain lines in Figure B-2 show that the ground elevations slope somewhat upward to the northeast. Figure B-1: Sherburne County property map image showing the 19178 Industrial Blvd site (yellow border) with the neighboring NAC 1 (green), NAC 1 Daytime (yellow), NAC 2 (blue), NAC 3 (red), and NAC 4 (magenta) receivers highlighted. Page 89 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control B-2 Figure B-2: MNTopo aerial image showing the topography around the 19178 Industrial Blvd site. The project includes the installation of ten chillers and ten emergency power generators. As shown in Figure B-3, the chillers will be located either on the existing west rooftop or in a new mechanical yard on the south side of the building, and the generators will be housed in a room on the east side of the building. The generator room will have outdoor air intake openings through the rooftop, and cooling air discharge openings through the south wall. The generator combustion exhaust pipes will penetrate the rooftop and point straight up. Page 90 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control B-3 Figure B-3: 19178 Industrial Blvd equipment plan showing the locations of the proposed generators (red) and the chillers (yellows) at either the rooftop level or ground level. Page 91 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control C-1 NOISE ANALYSIS ESI Engineering was asked by Elk River Capital to assist with the following equipment noise control services: 1. Monitor ambient noise levels at two locations near the project site. 2. Calculate the chiller and generator noise levels at properties within 1,000’ of the 19178 Industrial Blvd site based on manufacturer provided sound data and the site conditions. The following sections summarize our findings. C. AMBIENT NOISE STUDY Noise was monitored for 24 hours at the two locations around the 19178 Industrial Blvd project site that are shown in Figure C-1. Figure C-1: Aerial image showing the noise monitoring locations. Page 92 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control C-2 The following items detail the monitoring conditions: 1. Existing HVAC – The existing building at the 19178 Industrial Blvd site has outdoor air handling units, which were operational during the noise monitoring period. 2. Location 1 – One monitoring system was located near the southeast corner of the 19178 Industrial Blvd site (Location 1 in Figure C-1, above). The monitoring equipment set up at Location 1 is shown in Figure C-2. The dominant noise source was traffic on County Road 1. Figure C-2: Photo looking south toward the Location 1 monitoring equipment. 3. Location 2 – A second monitoring system was located near the south property line of nearby residential receivers to the northeast (Location 2 in Figure C-1). While there are closer residential receiver locations to the project site, these locations were also closer to nearby roadways. We did not want to manipulate the sound data with louder traffic noise levels, and therefore selected a position that was farther from the roads to better represent ambient noise levels in nearby residential backyards. The equipment was placed along a public trail (see Figure C-2), and the microphone had direct line of site to both County Road 1 and Upland St NW. The dominant noise source was traffic on County Road 1. Page 93 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control C-3 Figure C-3: Photo looking north toward the Location 2 monitoring equipment. 4. Equipment Setup – The noise monitoring systems captured continuous noise levels between the 7:00 AM hours from Sunday, June 14 to Monday, June 15, 2026. The noise monitoring followed the State of Minnesota requirements and the MPCA guidelines. The equipment logged hourly and one-second noise levels over a 24-hour period. The system also made audio recordings at the beginning of each hour and whenever the instantaneous level exceeded a set threshold. The measured hourly noise level results at Locations 1 and 2 are provided in Tables C-1 and C-2, respectively (see Attachments A and B, respectively, for additional data plots). Each table allows for comparison of the noise level results to the applicable criteria from Section A, above, and includes the weather conditions. For any measured hourly result that exceeded the criteria, that value is shown in bold red text. Table C-1 compares the measured noise levels at the NAC 3 receiver position to the applicable MPCA requirements. Table C-2 compares the results to the criteria for an NAC 1 residential receiver, which includes the following for this project: • Overall L10 (dBA) compared to the 65 dBA daytime and 55 dBA nighttime MPCA requirements. • Overall L50 (dBA) compared to the 60 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime MPCA requirements. • Overall L90 (dBA) for information purposes only. • Leq at 31.5 Hz (dB) compared to the 80 dB maximum design goal (not a requirement). • Leq at 63 Hz (dB) compared to the 84 dB maximum design goal (not a requirement). • Overall LCeq Minus Overall LAeq (dB) compared to the 20 dB maximum design goal (not a requirement). Page 94 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control C-4 Table C-1: Loc. 1 Measurement Results Compared to NAC 3 Criteria and Weather Table C-2: Loc. 2 Measurement Results Compared to NAC 1 Criteria and Weather Temp Speed Dir Condition 7:00 AM 53 49 54 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 8:00 AM 51 48 55 °F 18 mph NNW Fair 9:00 AM 53 50 59 °F 18 mph N Fair 10:00 AM 55 51 63 °F 15 mph NNW Fair 11:00 AM 56 51 64 °F 16 mph NNW Fair 12:00 PM 56 52 66 °F 17 mph NW Fair 1:00 PM 56 51 68 °F 20 mph NNW Fair 2:00 PM 55 51 68 °F 10 mph NW Fair 3:00 PM 53 49 70 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 4:00 PM 53 50 72 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 5:00 PM 53 50 72 °F 17 mph NNW Fair 6:00 PM 53 49 72 °F 9 mph WNW Fair 7:00 PM 52 47 70 °F 14 mph WNW Fair 8:00 PM 52 47 68 °F 9 mph WNW Fair 9:00 PM 52 45 64 °F 6 mph WNW Fair 10:00 PM 50 43 59 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 11:00 PM 50 40 57 °F 5 mph WSW Mostly Cloudy 12:00 AM 48 37 57 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 1:00 AM 41 35 50 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 2:00 AM 45 36 50 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 3:00 AM 48 38 46 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 4:00 AM 62 49 48 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 5:00 AM 56 52 48 °F 0 mph CALM Fair 6:00 AM 58 54 50 °F 5 mph SSW Fair Date Hour L10 Noise Level, dBA L50 Noise Level, dBA Weather Conditions Measured Criterion Criterion Wind 80 75 Measured 80 75 80 75 Sunday, June 14, 2026 Monday, June 15, 2026 Temp Speed Dir Condition 7:00 AM 53 49 44 49 48 8 54 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 8:00 AM 51 48 45 47 47 9 55 °F 18 mph NNW Fair 9:00 AM 53 50 46 53 51 11 59 °F 18 mph N Fair 10:00 AM 55 51 48 56 51 12 63 °F 15 mph NNW Fair 11:00 AM 56 51 48 54 51 10 64 °F 16 mph NNW Fair 12:00 PM 56 52 49 56 55 11 66 °F 17 mph NW Fair 1:00 PM 56 51 48 53 52 10 68 °F 20 mph NNW Fair 2:00 PM 55 51 47 53 53 12 68 °F 10 mph NW Fair 3:00 PM 53 49 46 51 51 11 70 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 4:00 PM 53 50 46 51 51 10 72 °F 14 mph NNW Fair 5:00 PM 53 50 46 48 51 10 72 °F 17 mph NNW Fair 6:00 PM 53 49 45 49 51 10 72 °F 9 mph WNW Fair 7:00 PM 52 47 41 46 51 11 70 °F 14 mph WNW Fair 8:00 PM 52 47 40 44 51 10 68 °F 9 mph WNW Fair 9:00 PM 52 45 39 46 50 10 64 °F 6 mph WNW Fair 10:00 PM 50 43 36 43 44 8 59 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 11:00 PM 50 40 34 46 47 10 57 °F 5 mph WSW Mostly Cloudy 12:00 AM 48 37 33 39 44 4 57 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 1:00 AM 41 35 34 37 38 8 50 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 2:00 AM 45 36 34 46 46 10 50 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 3:00 AM 48 38 35 43 45 9 46 °F 0 mph CALM Partly Cloudy 4:00 AM 62 49 41 53 56 10 48 °F 0 mph CALM Mostly Cloudy 5:00 AM 56 52 47 51 53 8 48 °F 0 mph CALM Fair 6:00 AM 58 54 50 52 55 8 50 °F 5 mph SSW Fair Date Hour L10, dBA L50, dBA Weather Conditions Meas- ured L90, dBA Meas- ured Crit- erion 55 50 Crit- erion Meas- ured Crit- erion Wind - - - 63 Hz Leq, dB Meas- ured Crit- erion 84 84 31.5 Hz Leq, dB Meas- ured Crit- erion 80 80 84 20 dBC-dBA, dB Meas- ured Crit- erion 20 20 Sunday, June 14, 2026 Monday, June 15, 2026 806065 55 50 Page 95 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control C-5 The following summarize the measurement results: 1. Based on a review of the audio recordings, the loudest noise events were caused by traffic on County Road 1 and trains on the railroad tracks to the south of the project site. 2. Based on a review of the hourly noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies, traffic produced the loudest levels in the 400 Hz to 2,000 Hz range. This noise was dominant during both daytime and nighttime hours. There was also wind noise in the 2,000 Hz to 5,000 Hz range during most of the daytime hours. Other noise sources that had less effect on the overall noise levels were bird and insect chirps. 3. Location 1 had L10 and L50 results that were all less than the limits for an NAC 3 receiver. 4. Location 2 had L10 and L50 results that were less than the limits for an NAC 1 residential receiver during all daytime hours and most nighttime hours. However, the levels exceeded the limits during the 4:00 AM, 5:00 AM, and 6:00 AM hours. Based on a review of the weather conditions, the audio recordings, and the noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies, the L10 exceedance during the 4:00 AM hour was caused by trains. The L10 and L50 exceedances during the 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM hours were caused by a combination of traffic on County Road 1 and trains. In summary, the dominant noise source at the project site is traffic on County Road 1, with train noise having more effect on the hourly levels during early morning hours. While most hours had L10 and L50 noise levels that were less than the MPCA limits, the levels during early morning hours at the residential receiver exceeded the limits due to increased train and traffic noise. Page 96 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-1 D. EQUIPMENT NOISE ANALYSIS Calculations were prepared to evaluate the new equipment noise levels within 1,000’ of the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center site. The following is a summary of design conditions used in the calculations and the calculated results. Design Conditions The following were used as baseline conditions to evaluate new equipment noise at nearby receivers: 1. MPCA noise requirements as listed in Table A-1 above. The primary limits that apply to this project are the nighttime L50 limit of 50 dBA for NAC 1 residential receivers, and the daytime/nighttime L50 limits of 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 75 dBA for all other NAC 1, 2, and 3 receivers, respectively. 2. Maximum project design goals for NAC 1 residential receivers of 80 dB at 31.5 Hz and 84 dB at 63 Hz, as well as maximum dBC – dBA levels of 20 dB. 3. Sherburne County GIS aerial images showing the relative locations of the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center site and neighboring receiver locations. 4. Topography lines from the MNTopo website aerial images. 5. Equipment site plan received May 21, 2026. 6. York performance report for the ten model YVFA0459, 550 nominal ton air-cooled screw chillers (see Figure D-1). The top of the chillers are at 7’-11” above the ground. The York report provided unit sound power levels at each octave band frequency from 63 Hz to 8,000 Hz, which sum to an overall level of 105 dBA for the 100 % load, 101.4 °F ambient temperature condition. Based on measurement data we have for similar chillers, we assumed the chiller sound level at the 31.5 Hz octave band was equal to the level at 63 Hz. Figure D-1: York image of a model YVFA air-cooled screw chiller. Page 97 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-2 7. Cummins specification sheet for the ten 2,500 kW model DQKAN diesel generator sets (see Figure D-2). Based on the sound data in the submittal from 31.5 Hz to 8,000 Hz, each genset produces overall sound power levels of 128 dBA radiated from the unit, and 133 dBA at the open exhaust. Generator noise will radiate from the outdoor air intake openings in the rooftop, the cooling air discharge openings on the east side of the building, and the combustion exhaust pipes that penetrate the rooftop and point upward. Figure D-2: Cummins image of a DQKAN diesel generator set. 8. Nine receiver locations (Locations A through I, as shown in Figure D-3) were positioned around the site to evaluate noise levels. Three locations were placed on the nearby NAC 1 residential properties, two were on NAC 1 daytime educational properties, another two were on NAC 2 business and restaurant properties, and the last two were at the nearest NAC 3 industrial and street right-of-way properties. Figure D-3: Aerial image showing the nine receiver locations for the analysis. Page 98 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-3 9. The noise model calculations include the following settings: a. Calculations use ANSI S12.627 standardized methods. b. Buildings are acoustically reflective with only a 0.5 dB attenuation setting. c. Ground is acoustically reflective with a 0 dB attenuation setting. d. The meteorological factor is set at +2 dB. e. Barriers (e.g., walls, buildings, topography, etc.) only provide noise reduction if they block the line of site between the source and receiver positions. f. Noise evaluated at each octave band frequency from 31.5 Hz to 8,000 Hz. g. Maximum order of reflection set at 3 reflections. The 3D rendering in Figure D-4 shows the source, building, and receiver inputs that were included in the model. Individual sources were used for the generator intake and combustion exhaust at the rooftop, and discharge at the east wall. Two sources were used for each chiller to better represent sound across the long length of these units. Figure D-4: 3D rendering of the baseline conditions noise model showing the positions of the equipment sources (red), buildings (gray blocks), and neighboring receivers (spheres). 7 ANSI-ASA S12.62 Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2; General method of calculation. Page 99 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-4 Noise Mitigation The following provides a summary of the noise control components that will be included within the data center design documents to reduce chiller and generator noise levels at neighboring properties. Ground-Level Chillers Option If the chillers will be located in a new ground-level mechanical yard on the south side of the existing building, a U-shaped barrier will be installed around the chillers to reduce noise levels at neighboring properties. The following provide details about the barrier walls: 1. Height – The barrier walls will have a top elevation of 17’ relative to the ground (about 9’ taller than the chillers, which are about 8’ tall). 2. Air Gaps – There will not be any air gaps between the barrier walls and each other, the existing building walls, or the ground, which would allow for sound leakage. Figure D-5 shows three-sided, U-shaped barrier walls around the chillers. Figure D-5: Partial equipment plan showing the barrier wall locations. 3. Barrier Material – The barrier walls will have a minimum sound isolation rating (sound transmission class, or STC8) of STC 25. A few material options that are typically acceptable for outdoor use and can meet the STC 25 criterion are: a. Minimum 22 gauge sheet metal. b. Minimum ½” thick treated plywood or glulam wood panels. c. Precast concrete panels, masonry units (CMU), or other masonry materials. d. Minimum 4” thick foam-filled insulated metal panels. 8 Sound transmission class, or STC, is defined in ASTM standard C634-13 as, “a single-number rating calculated in accordance with Classification E413 using values of sound transmission loss. It provides an estimate of the performance of a partition in certain common sound insulation problems.” It is based on laboratory tests of wall and floor/ceiling assemblies that serve as acoustical barriers, with higher values representing better insulation. Page 100 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-5 4. Sound Absorption – The sides of the three barrier walls that face the chiller yard will be covered with a sound absorption treatment to reduce reflections toward the northeast residences. The absorption treatment will not be installed on the exterior face s of the existing building walls. The selected treatment will have a minimum sound absorption rating (noise reduction coefficient, or NRC9) of NRC 0.90. The following are a few product options that can be used to meet the criteria: a. Manufactured exterior grade acoustical treatments can be applied to the hard barrier wall surfaces, such as those available from MBI, Kinetics, and Sound Seal. b. Minimum 2” thick mineral wool boards (such as those available from Thermafiber, Rockwool, Johns Manville, and others) can be pinned to the hard barrier wall surfaces. Mineral wool is regularly used for exterior applications because it allows moisture to drain, is mostly unaffected by UV light, and is mold- resistant. It will be covered with a protective facing (e.g., woven wire mesh, welded wire mesh, expanded metal, or perforated metal) with a minimum 20% open area to reduce damage and help hold the insulation in place. Rooftop-Level Chillers Option If the chillers will be located on the west rooftop of the existing building, barrier walls will be installed on all four sides of the chillers to reduce noise levels at neighboring properties. The following provide details about the barrier walls: 1. Height – The barrier walls on the north and east sides will have a top elevation of 12’ relative to the rooftop (about 4’ taller than the chillers, which are about 8’ tall) to reduce noise at the more sensitive NAC 1 receivers to the northeast. The walls on the south and west sides will have a top elevation of only 9’ relative to the rooftop to reduce noise to the nearby NAC 2 and 3 receivers in these directions without increasing reflected noise to the northeast. 2. Air Gaps – There will not be any air gaps between the barrier walls and each other, or the rooftop, that would allow for direct line-of-sight between the chillers and neighboring receiver locations. 3. Barrier Material – The barrier walls will have a minimum sound isolation rating of STC 25. Generator Noise Attenuators. 4. Sound Absorption – This option does not require the application of sound absorption treatments to reduce reflected noise from the barrier walls and meet the MPCA limits. 9 As defined in ASTM C634, “noise reduction coefficient, NRC [dimensionless], a single -number rating, the average, rounded to the nearest 0.05, of the sound absorption coefficients of a material for the four one -third octave bands at 250 Hz, 500 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 2000 Hz, inclusive, measured according to the test method described in Test Method C423.” Higher NRC values represent better sound absorption. Page 101 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-6 Generator Noise Attenuators The following provide details for the sound attenuators that will be installed at each generator outdoor air intake, cooling air discharge, and combustion exhaust outlet to reduce noise transmission through these paths: 1. Intake and Discharge Path Silencers – Silencers will be installed at all outdoor air intake and cooling air discharge openings. Figure D-6 shows silencers by Commercial Acoustics that were built for generator noise control. Table D-1 shows the minimum sound insertion loss that will be provided by the intake / discharge silencers. Silencers by other manufacturers (e.g., IAC Acoustics, Kinetics Noise Control, VAW Systems, Vibro-Acoustics, etc.) can also be considered. Figure D-6: Commercial Acoustics photos showing generator noise control silencers. Table D-1: Minimum Silencer Sound Insertion Loss 2. Combustion Exhaust Silencers – Each generator will have a combustion exhaust silencer. The selected silencer will provide the minimum sound insertion loss values that are shown in Table D-1. The ‘Critical grade exhaust silencer’ that is listed under the ‘Generator set options and accessories’ section of the “Cummins specification sheet” may provide the minimum sound insertion loss. Silencers by other manufacturers (e.g., GT Silex, Harco, Miratech, etc.) can also be considered. 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Intake/Discharge 0 7 12 17 20 20 20 15 10 Exhaust 10 20 30 30 30 25 25 20 10 Path Minimum Sound Insertion Loss (dB) per 1/1 Octave Band Frequency (Hz) Page 102 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-7 Calculation Results Based on these conditions, calculations were prepared to evaluate the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center equipment noise at neighboring receivers. Table D-2 provides a summary of the overall calculation results at each receiver location compared to the MPCA requirements. The results show the maximum levels that were calculated with the chillers either located on the rooftop or at the ground-level mechanical yard. Figures D-7 through D-10 show noise contour plots for the chillers only and chillers with one generator conditions. Each figure provides the analysis results at all properties within 1000’ of the project site. The results show that both the chiller and generator noise levels meet the MPCA limits at all neighboring properties. Table D-2: Maximum Equipment Outdoor Noise Analysis Results vs. MPCA Requirements Calculated Noise Nighttime Limit Calculated Noise Daytime Limit Location A 47 dBA 49 dBA Location B 46 dBA 53 dBA Location C 47 dBA 56 dBA Location D 51 dBA 60 dBA Location E 50 dBA 56 dBA Location F 53 dBA 57 dBA Location G 63 dBA 63 dBA Location H 58 dBA 65 dBA Location I 49 dBA 72 dBA Notes: Green - Meets Noise Requirement Red - Exceeds Noise Requirement 75 dBA 75 dBANAC 3 Reciever Receiver Type Chillers Only Chillers and One Genset NAC 1 NAC 1 Day Only NAC 2 50 dBA 60 dBA 60 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA 65 dBA Page 103 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-8 Figure D-7: Noise contour plot showing the chillers only (ground-level option) noise levels at neighboring properties. NOISE LEVEL KEY dBA < 85 dBA < 80 dBA < 75 dBA < 70 dBA < 65 dBA < 60 dBA < 55 dBA < 50 dBA < 45 dBA < 40 dBA < 35 dBA U-Shaped 17' Tall Barrier Wall Location with Absorption on Interior (Chiller) Side Page 104 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-9 Figure D-8: Noise contour plot showing the chillers only (rooftop-level option) noise levels at neighboring properties. NOISE LEVEL KEY dBA < 85 dBA < 80 dBA < 75 dBA < 70 dBA < 65 dBA < 60 dBA < 55 dBA < 50 dBA < 45 dBA < 40 dBA < 35 dBA 12' Tall Barrier Walls on North & East Sides of Rooftop 9' Tall Barrier Walls on West & South Sides of Rooftop Page 105 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-10 Figure D-9: Noise contour plot showing the combined chillers (ground-level option) and one emergency generator noise levels at neighboring receiver locations. NOISE LEVEL KEY dBA < 85 dBA < 80 dBA < 75 dBA < 70 dBA < 65 dBA < 60 dBA < 55 dBA < 50 dBA < 45 dBA < 40 dBA < 35 dBA U-Shaped 17' Tall Barrier Wall Location with Absorption on Interior (Chiller) Side Page 106 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-11 Figure D-10: Noise contour plot showing the combined chillers (rooftop-level option) and one emergency generator noise levels at neighboring receiver locations. NOISE LEVEL KEY dBA < 85 dBA < 80 dBA < 75 dBA < 70 dBA < 65 dBA < 60 dBA < 55 dBA < 50 dBA < 45 dBA < 40 dBA < 35 dBA 12' Tall Barrier Walls on North & East Sides of Rooftop 9' Tall Barrier Walls on West & South Sides of Rooftop Page 107 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control D-12 Table D-3 provides a summary of the maximum calculated low-frequency noise level results at each of the evaluated residential receiver locations compared to the extra project design goals. Table D-3: Equipment Outdoor Low-Frequency Noise Analysis Results vs. Design Goals The results show that the 19178 Industrial Blvd data center equipment noise levels meet the MPCA requirements, and the extra project design goals, at all nearby receiver positions. No additional mitigation is necessary. 31.5 Hz 63 Hz dBC - dBA 31.5 Hz 63 Hz dBC - dBA Location A 46 dB 45 dB 5 dB 63 dB 62 dB 16 dB Location B 46 dB 45 dB 5 dB 67 dB 68 dB 18 dB Location C 48 dB 48 dB 5 dB 70 dB 71 dB 17 dB Max. Design Goal 80 dB 84 dB 20 dB 80 dB 84 dB 20 dB Notes: Green - Meets Noise Design Goal Red - Exceeds Noise Design Goal Chillers and One Genset Reciever Chillers Only Page 108 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control ATTACHMENTS A. LOCATION 1 – AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING DATA PLOTS JUNE 14 TO 15, 2026 19178 INDUSTRIAL BLVD DATA CENTER NOISE CONTROL Page 109 of 223 Calibration Frequency: 1 kHz Initial Calibration: 93.9 dB Final Calibration: 93.9 dB Last Cal. Check: 6/15/26 @ 9:43 AM Temperature: 46 - 72 °F Wind Speed / Dir.: 0 - 20 MPH / Varies Humidity: 29 - 93% Location: Measurements: Meteorology: Preamplifier: Location: Project: Engineer: Microphone: Last Calibrated: Analyzer: Calibrator: Start Time: End Time: Run Time: Elk River Capital - Data Center Noise P3205 Elk River, Minnesota R.L. Skoug & A.A.J. Schmitt Project No: Date: Calibration Check: Acoustic Test Results Minneapolis, Minnesota | o: 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Figure A1 Larson Davis PRM2103 s/n 002165 Larson Davis 377B02 s/n 346652 Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 18980 March 20, 2026 Larson Davis 831C s/n 10668 7:00:00 AM 86400.0 seconds 7:00:00 AM 6/14/2026 to 6/15/2026 Sunday the 14th 7AM to Monday the 15th 7AM One Second and Hourly Ambient Noise Levels A-Weighted Results 7:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 1:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 1:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM Time, h.m.s AM/PM 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA re. 20 µPa26061400.LD0.s - LAF 26061400.LD0.s - LN10 26061400.LD0.s - LN50 4:00:00 AM 67.5 dBA 61.3 dBA 51.4 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly L50 Data Time L50 Time L50 Time L50 Time L50 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 47 dBA 47 dBA 49 dBA 51 dBA 50 dBA 50 dBA 49 dBA 48 dBA 47 dBA 48 dBA 47 dBA 46 dBA 44 dBA 42 dBA 41 dBA 40 dBA 39 dBA 36 dBA 35 dBA 36 dBA 39 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA Location 1 Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly L10 Data Time L10 Time L10 Time L10 Time L10 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 51 dBA 51 dBA 52 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 54 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 52 dBA 53 dBA 51 dBA 52 dBA 51 dBA 46 dBA 47 dBA 45 dBA 47 dBA 44 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA 46 dBA 61 dBA 57 dBA 57 dBA Page 110 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control B. LOCATION 2 – AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING DATA PLOTS JUNE 14 TO 15, 2026 19178 INDUSTRIAL BLVD DATA CENTER NOISE CONTROL Page 111 of 223 Calibration Frequency: 1 kHz Initial Calibration: 94.0 dB Final Calibration: 94.0 dB Last Cal. Check: 6/15/26 @ 9:58 AM Temperature: 46 - 72 °F Wind Speed / Dir.: 0 - 20 MPH / Varies Humidity: 29 - 93% Location: Measurements: Meteorology: Preamplifier: Location: Project: Engineer: Microphone: Last Calibrated: Analyzer: Calibrator: Start Time: End Time: Run Time: Elk River Capital - Data Center Noise P3205 Elk River, Minnesota R.L. Skoug & A.A.J. Schmitt Project No: Date: Calibration Check: Acoustic Test Results Minneapolis, Minnesota | o: 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Figure B1 Larson Davis PRM2103 s/n 002227 Larson Davis 377B02 s/n 353605 Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 18980 March 10, 2026 Larson Davis 831C s/n 12346 7:00:00 AM 86402.0 seconds 7:00:02 AM 6/14/2026 Sunday the 14th to Monday the 15th One Second and Hourly Ambient Noise Levels A-Weighted Results 7:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 1:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 1:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM Time, h.m.s AM/PM 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA re. 20 µPa26061400.LD0.s - LAF 26061400.LD0.s - LN10 26061400.LD0.s - LN50 4:00:00 AM 66.7 dBA 61.9 dBA 48.8 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly L50 Data Time L50 Time L50 Time L50 Time L50 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 49 dBA 48 dBA 50 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 52 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 49 dBA 50 dBA 50 dBA 49 dBA 47 dBA 47 dBA 45 dBA 43 dBA 40 dBA 37 dBA 35 dBA 36 dBA 38 dBA 49 dBA 52 dBA 54 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly L10 Data Time L10 Time L10 Time L10 Time L10 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 53 dBA 51 dBA 53 dBA 55 dBA 56 dBA 56 dBA 56 dBA 55 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 52 dBA 52 dBA 52 dBA 50 dBA 50 dBA 48 dBA 41 dBA 45 dBA 48 dBA 62 dBA 56 dBA 58 dBA Location 2 Page 112 of 223 Calibration Frequency: 1 kHz Initial Calibration: 94.0 dB Final Calibration: 94.0 dB Last Cal. Check: 6/15/26 @ 9:58 AM Temperature: 46 - 72 °F Wind Speed / Dir.: 0 - 20 MPH / Varies Humidity: 29 - 93% Location: Measurements: Meteorology: Preamplifier: Location: Project: Engineer: Microphone: Last Calibrated: Analyzer: Calibrator: Start Time: End Time: Run Time: Elk River Capital - Data Center Noise P3205 Elk River, Minnesota R.L. Skoug & A.A.J. Schmitt Project No: Date: Calibration Check: Acoustic Test Results Minneapolis, Minnesota | o: 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Figure B2 Larson Davis PRM2103 s/n 002227 Larson Davis 377B02 s/n 353605 Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 18980 March 10, 2026 Larson Davis 831C s/n 12346 7:00:00 AM 86402.0 seconds 7:00:02 AM 6/14/2026 7:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 1:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 1:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM Time, h.m.s AM/PM 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA re. 20 µPa26061400.LD0.s - LAF 26061400.LD0.s - LN90 4:00:00 AM 66.7 dBA 40.5 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly L90 Data Time L90 Time L90 Time L90 Time L90 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 44 dBA 45 dBA 46 dBA 48 dBA 48 dBA 49 dBA 48 dBA 47 dBA 46 dBA 46 dBA 46 dBA 45 dBA 41 dBA 40 dBA 39 dBA 36 dBA 34 dBA 33 dBA 34 dBA 34 dBA 35 dBA 41 dBA 47 dBA 50 dBA Location 2 Sunday the 14th to Monday the 15th One Second and Hourly Ambient Noise Levels A-Weighted Results Page 113 of 223 Calibration Frequency: 1 kHz Initial Calibration: 94.0 dB Final Calibration: 94.0 dB Last Cal. Check: 6/15/26 @ 9:58 AM Temperature: 46 - 72 °F Wind Speed / Dir.: 0 - 20 MPH / Varies Humidity: 29 - 93% Location: Measurements: Meteorology: Preamplifier: Location: Project: Engineer: Microphone: Last Calibrated: Analyzer: Calibrator: Start Time: End Time: Run Time: Elk River Capital - Data Center Noise P3205 Elk River, Minnesota R.L. Skoug & A.A.J. Schmitt Project No: Date: Calibration Check: Acoustic Test Results Minneapolis, Minnesota | o: 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Figure B3 Larson Davis PRM2103 s/n 002227 Larson Davis 377B02 s/n 353605 Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 18980 March 10, 2026 Larson Davis 831C s/n 12346 7:00:00 AM 86402.0 seconds 7:00:02 AM 6/14/2026 7:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 1:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 1:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM Time, h.m.s AM/PM 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA re. 20 µPa26061400.LD0.s - LAeq 26061400.LD0.s - 31.5 Hz - Linear 26061400.LD0.s - 63 Hz - Linear 4:00:00 AM 66.5 dBA 53.1 dBA 55.7 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly 63 Hz Data Time 63 Hz Time 63 Hz Time 63 Hz Time 63 Hz 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 48 dB 47 dB 51 dB 51 dB 51 dB 55 dB 52 dB 53 dB 51 dB 51 dB 51 dB 51 dB 51 dB 51 dB 50 dB 44 dB 47 dB 44 dB 38 dB 46 dB 45 dB 56 dB 53 dB 55 dB Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly 31.5 Hz Data Time 31.5 Hz Time 31.5 Hz Time 31.5 Hz Time 31.5 Hz 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 49 dB 47 dB 53 dB 56 dB 54 dB 56 dB 53 dB 53 dB 51 dB 51 dB 48 dB 49 dB 46 dB 44 dB 46 dB 43 dB 46 dB 39 dB 37 dB 46 dB 43 dB 53 dB 51 dB 52 dB Location 2 Sunday the 14th to Monday the 15th One Second and Hourly Ambient Noise Levels A-Weighted, and Linear Octave Band, Results Page 114 of 223 Calibration Frequency: 1 kHz Initial Calibration: 94.0 dB Final Calibration: 94.0 dB Last Cal. Check: 6/15/26 @ 9:58 AM Temperature: 46 - 72 °F Wind Speed / Dir.: 0 - 20 MPH / Varies Humidity: 29 - 93% Location: Measurements: Meteorology: Preamplifier: Location: Project: Engineer: Microphone: Last Calibrated: Analyzer: Calibrator: Start Time: End Time: Run Time: Elk River Capital - Data Center Noise P3205 Elk River, Minnesota R.L. Skoug & A.A.J. Schmitt Project No: Date: Calibration Check: Acoustic Test Results Minneapolis, Minnesota | o: 952.831.4646 | esi-engineering.com Figure B4 Larson Davis PRM2103 s/n 002227 Larson Davis 377B02 s/n 353605 Larson Davis CAL200 s/n 18980 March 10, 2026 Larson Davis 831C s/n 12346 7:00:00 AM 86402.0 seconds 7:00:02 AM 6/14/2026 7:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 1:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 1:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 7:00:00 AM Time, h.m.s AM/PM 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 dB Sound Pressure Level, dBA re. 20 µPa26061400.LD0.s - LAeq 26061400.LD0.s - LCeq 26061400.LD0.s - LAeq 4:00:00 AM 66.5 dBA 65.5 dBA 56.1 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly LAeq Data Time LAeq Time LAeq Time LAeq Time LAeq 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 50 dBA 49 dBA 51 dBA 52 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 53 dBA 52 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 51 dBA 49 dBA 49 dBA 49 dBA 46 dBA 48 dBA 50 dBA 39 dBA 48 dBA 49 dBA 56 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Noise Monitoring Measured Hourly LCeq Data Time LCeq Time LCeq Time LCeq Time LCeq 7:00:00 AM 8:00:00 AM 9:00:00 AM 10:00:00 AM 11:00:00 AM 12:00:00 PM 1:00:00 PM 2:00:00 PM 3:00:00 PM 4:00:00 PM 5:00:00 PM 6:00:00 PM 7:00:00 PM 8:00:00 PM 9:00:00 PM 10:00:00 PM 11:00:00 PM 12:00:00 AM 1:00:00 AM 2:00:00 AM 3:00:00 AM 4:00:00 AM 5:00:00 AM 6:00:00 AM 58 dBC 58 dBC 62 dBC 64 dBC 63 dBC 64 dBC 63 dBC 64 dBC 62 dBC 61 dBC 61 dBC 61 dBC 60 dBC 59 dBC 59 dBC 54 dBC 58 dBC 54 dBC 47 dBC 58 dBC 58 dBC 66 dBC 63 dBC 63 dBC Location 2 Sunday the 14th to Monday the 15th One Second and Hourly Ambient Noise Levels A- and C-Weighted Results Page 115 of 223 ESI Engineering Elk River Capital Data Center Noise Control end File: P3205 Elk River Capital - Summary Report for Data Center Noise Control, Jun 16, 2026 ver 2 Page 116 of 223 Outlook NO data center From Hannah Lubinski Date Wed 6/3/2026 9:53 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Zack, I’m emailing in reference to the data center proposal in Elk River. I urge you to NOT move it forward. It will bring zero net positive benefit to the community, in fact it will harm the community.  No one wants data centers in their community. We vote for people who listen to those in the community. This should be an easy NO to scrap the data center proposal and put in something else that would actually benefit the community.  Please research negative impacts of data centers, including increased land temperatures around the data centers, childhood cancer rates increasing, obnoxious sound levels, bright lights, and other factors. No one wants data centers in their neighborhood or places they visit frequently. I understand this isn’t a hyperscale data center and maybe some of what I mentioned above isn’t as aggressively applicable but it’s applicable enough to make this an easy decision to say NO DATA CENTER. Especially since it’s by an elementary school. Children and their health and safety are important.  Thanks for your time, Hannah Lubinski Page 117 of 223 Outlook Online Form Submittal: Send Zack Carlton an Email From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Tue 6/9/2026 6:38 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> Send Zack Carlton an Email TO: Zack Carlton First Name Julie Last Name Lawrence Reply Email Address Subject Data Center (Section Break) Comments I am not okay with a data center coming to my community. It is in no way good for us - the amount of energy and water they use, the probability of pollution to the Mississippi, the ramifications of our wildlife, the noise of pollution and the costs to all of us tax payers living here (increased energy/water costs) How could the city think this is a good idea? This gives the vibe that pockets are being lined and the health of the community is for sale. Disclaimer Information submitted is considered public data. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 118 of 223 Outlook FW: NO DATA CENTER From: Jody S Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 5:46:19 PM To: Justin Dunford <JDunford@ElkRiverMN.gov> Subject: NO DATA CENTER You don't often get email from Learn why this is important I'm a concerned paying taxpayer, that lives in Elk River and I am completely against the data center. Has there been any thought about the resources that will be taken from the community, not just the quick high you will receive for the tiny bit of time it's constructed? We have lived here almost 13 years and in that time, have seen the taxes continue to climb, very, very high. We already have no choice for garbage or Internet. I'm not sure what the point of this data center would be. This city used to a place I was excited about, and unfortunately now, we are counting down the months until we can leave Elk River has changed so much, it's no longer the Elk River that used to be. I'm also fighting to help save the Boundary Waters. So please, unless you have something outside of the quick high of a financial kickback, stop this madness. Very concerned resident, Jody Shenkle Page 119 of 223 Outlook Elk river data center From Kate A Date Thu 5/28/2026 6:57 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> [You don't often get email from Hello Elk river I strongly appeal you to block development of data centers - for the environmental impacts including water, energy, and biodiversity. The land belongs to people not allowing large corporates to come in and use all resources and forever change the land I work in the environmental industry and while they do siting and tests and comply with legal requirements there is still too much unknown impact and negative impact that comes into the community. It does not bring more jobs or enough positive value to allow this. Thanks Kate Sent from my iPhone Page 120 of 223 Outlook Data Center case OA 26-02 & CU 26-05 From Zose Date Mon 5/25/2026 3:00 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> You don't often get email from Learn why this is important To Zack Carlton, I read with much dismay and horror that there is a planned data center to be put at19178 Industrial Blvd. NW. This is beyond unacceptable for many reasons : 1.Known excess water usage by these unnecessary facilities which unfairly depletes the local ground water supplies. There are many households who rely on well water. Water pressure already dips during spring and summer due to local farms need for water. Contrary to some reports, the groundwater in the area is not aok fine and dandy. The water pressure is already an issue due to the continued greed driven massive overdevelopment projects. What do we do when our wells run dry? At this point, I am looking for an attorney to sue the City of Elk River, Sherburne County and anyone else responsible for this problem when the inevitable does happen as did in the Coon Rapids/Blaine area. 2.The well known drain on power sources by data centers. Across the board it always raises electricity bills. I do not think that the rightful, legal constituents of Elk River can afford this. Nor, should they. 3.The pollution that data centers release as well as the constant drone that has been scientifically linked to health issues for the victims in the surrounding areas. Another source of a large lawsuit. No, they do not ultimately provide enough jobs to legitimize the massive problems and destruction of quality of life that they always cause. So, please, for once, put the rightful constituents of Elk River before any more greed driven unnecessities such as this. Thank You, Kathee Page 121 of 223 Outlook Online Form Submittal: Send Zack Carlton an Email From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Sat 6/6/2026 5:02 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> Send Zack Carlton an Email TO: Zack Carlton First Name karlaronnebaum Last Name karlaronnebaum Reply Email Address Subject Data center (Section Break) Comments I do not want a data center in elk river. Costs are very high in sherburne county already. This noisy air pollution data center will suck up to 100,000 houses worth of energy a month. You might get $ up front but seems to be the consensus that the city after awhile gets stuck with the cost. Do just a fraction of research and you will see that this is a bad thing. Environmentally, with noise and air pollution. That should be a big NO right there. Plus not like it will bring in jobs once building is built they only staff around 20 people. Very few local. I know I’m not the only one. I’m saying NO to data centers Thanks and remember to use your conscious. If it feels wrong it probably is wrong. Disclaimer Information submitted is considered public data. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 122 of 223 Outlook FW: Proposed data center From: Stephanie Wallace Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:51:59 PM To: Justin Dunford <JDunford@ElkRiverMN.gov> Subject: Proposed data center You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello, My name is Stephanie Schultz and I’ve had the pleasure of living in Elk River for three years now. My husband and two daughters have enjoyed our neighborhood, amenities the city has to offer, and the smaller town feel while still having necessities close by. It will be of great disappointment that the city would be allowing data centers into our community. A simple google search demonstrates the negative effects of them to towns, cities, and states. As someone with two small children, I genuinely fear for the state of our planet as these are becoming more popular . We are currently paying astronomical fees in property taxes and utilities to live in ER and the guarantee for them to increase is unacceptable. Data centers have been shown to increase local taxes/utilities cost, deplete water sources, and are giving off emissions (electromagnetic) that have been shown to have harmful affects on people and animals. As someone who is employed and works remotely, my concern for them also depleting our energy grid is also of great concern. Our environment is already at such a risk for warming and seasons changing, adding these centers to our state and our cities would only increase that as they have been shown to increase temperatures, creating “heat islands”. Our community is not the only one who is against these centers. Monticello is also against having them and as a citizen of Minnesota, I stand with them fully. The value these centers will add to our community is minimal if none. I do not support the building of data centers into Elk River and will not be supportive of any government official who is supporting this change. The negative impacts it will have on water supply, power grids, health of people/animals, environmental impacts (heating, pollution, carbon emissions, etc) as well as noise and thermal pollution would be devastating to our community for generations to come. Let’s not think about the current state of the world, but think about our future generations and doing better for them. Ai is convenient and easy, but it’s not the solution or answer. We are against these data centers. We will not welcome them into our community. And anyone who does so is incredibly foolish and ignorant. Sources: Page 123 of 223 AI Data Centers: Big Tech's Impact on Electric Bills, Water, and More consumerreports.org environmentalhealthproject Please take my opinion into consideration and block this from happening. Listen to the citizens of your city and do not allow this travesty to happen. Thank you for your time. Stephanie Schultz Sent from my iPhone Page 124 of 223 Outlook Online Form Submittal: Send Zack Carlton an Email From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Date Sat 6/6/2026 4:25 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> Send Zack Carlton an Email TO: Zack Carlton First Name Teresa Last Name Dill Reply Email Address Subject Data center (Section Break) Comments No Way on a data center. Please make decisions on behalf of the people. Do not line the pockets of billionaires and perhaps, “yourself.” Do not fall for the community investment they will promise. They do not care about people or the environment. I am 55 years old and have lived in elk river for over 50 of those years. If this is proposal is entertained, time to move. This city and state used to be a good place to live but for over a decade working people are over taxed to subsidize nonsense initiatives… in the name of what? Poor decision making is degrading common folk quality of living. Do the right thing. It’s not hard to be honest and work on behalf of the community and constituents. Disclaimer Information submitted is considered public data. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 125 of 223 Outlook FW: Proposed Data Center From: Tabetha Kallsen Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2026 1:01:55 PM To: Justin Dunford <JDunford@ElkRiverMN.gov> Subject: Proposed Data Center You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important I'd like to go on record stating I am strongly opposed to a data center in Elk River. The effects on the environment as well as the surrounding area is horrible as well as for the folks near the center. I vote NO data center! Page 126 of 223 Page 127 of 223 Page 128 of 223 Page 129 of 223 Page 130 of 223 Page 131 of 223 Page 132 of 223 Page 133 of 223 Page 134 of 223 Page 135 of 223 Page 136 of 223 Page 137 of 223 Page 138 of 223 Page 139 of 223 Page 140 of 223 Page 141 of 223 Page 142 of 223 Page 143 of 223 Page 144 of 223 Via Email June 12, 2026 Elk River Planning Department Elk River City Council 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 RE: Written Public Comment — Proposed Data Center, 19178 Industrial Boulevard, Elk River Capital LLC — June 15, 2026 Public Hearing Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members, I am a 34-year Elk River resident and nature photographer submitting this written public comment for the official record regarding the proposed data center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard by Elk River Capital LLC. I respectfully request that the following concerns be addressed before any vote is taken. 1. The Zoning Amendment Sets a Permanent Precedent This proposal requires permanently amending Elk River's zoning ordinance to add data centers as an officially allowed use under Light Industrial (L-1) zoning. This is not a decision about one building - it is a decision that would open every Light Industrial parcel in Elk River to data center development, permanently. A 33-megawatt AI data center operating 24 hours a day, consuming the power of a small city, and generating continuous industrial noise at a river confluence does not meet any reasonable definition of light industrial use. The city should establish specific, enforceable standards for data centers before amending its zoning ordinance - not after. 2. Minnesota Law May Apply — Has It Been Evaluated? Minnesota HF 16, passed in 2025, specifically addresses data center water impacts and prohibits permit approval if a facility will cause adverse impacts to watershed health. The Elk River watershed is located within the Source Water Protection Area for both Minneapolis and St. Paul - our river flows into the Mississippi approximately 25 miles upstream from the drinking water intakes for both cities. I respectfully ask: has HF 16 been formally evaluated in relation to this proposal? Has the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency been notified? 3. Required Agency Consultations Page 145 of 223 Friends of the Mississippi River has an active state-funded habitat restoration project at Bailey Point Nature Preserve - directly at our confluence. The Mississippi River Islands Scientific and Natural Area, designated by the Minnesota DNR in 1979, sits directly downstream. Within 30 miles of Elk River there are an estimated 40 to 60 active bald eagle nests, including up to 22 at the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge alone. Research published in March 2026 documents that chronic industrial noise - the kind generated 24/7 by data center cooling systems - can shrink a hunting eagle's listening area by 90 percent, causing raptors to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Have the Friends of the Mississippi River, the Sherburne Soil and Water Conservation District, and the Minnesota DNR been formally consulted regarding the environmental impacts of this proposal? 4. Existing Non-Compliance Must Be Addressed City staff have confirmed that Elk River's existing data centers are not in compliance with current city zoning - they operate as grandfathered legal non- conforming uses. Before expanding data center use through a permanent zoning amendment, the city should address this existing non-compliance and establish clear, enforceable standards that protect residents, wildlife, and our watershed. 5. An Unanswered Question Public comments have raised questions regarding reports of an additional data center project in Elk River. I respectfully request that the city clarify whether any additional data center facilities are currently under construction or under review, where they are located, and what public review process was followed. Residents deserve a transparent answer before July 6. In Conclusion I am not opposed to responsible development. I am asking that this decision be made with full transparency, full legal compliance, and full consideration of the environmental and community impacts - including those that extend beyond Elk River's city limits to our shared watershed and wildlife corridor. The Elk River motto is "Powered by Nature." I ask the city to govern accordingly. Page 146 of 223 Respectfully submitted, Sheila Skogen 151 5th St. Elk River, MN 55330 Sources available upon request. This comment is submitted for the official public record. Page 147 of 223 Outlook Data Center From Mary Knapp Date Sun 6/14/2026 7:23 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Information I have found is that residents in Minnesota and around the country tend to raise the same concerns when data centers are proposed: Electrical demand and whether large facilities could affect future power costs or require new transmission infrastructure. Noise from cooling equipment, rooftop chillers, and backup generators. Water consumption for cooling systems   Limited permanent employment compared with the size of the facility. Lack of transparency about who the ultimate operator or customer is. Questions about tax benefits versus community benefits.   At a minimum, let's put a moratorium on this data center until we have more concrete facts and the taxpayers are comfortable with the idea. There shouldn't be a rush to push this action through the process. Let's take our time and get this done right. Thank you for your time, see you Monday night! -- Mary Knapp Page 148 of 223 Outlook Public Comment: Data Center Ordinance Request From Sophia Kruger Date Mon 6/15/2026 6:38 PM To Zachary Carlton <zcarlton@ElkRiverMN.gov> You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Hello, Please see below my comment that I wish to submit regarding Item 7.4 on the agenda for the City Council meeting on 6/15/2026. Thank you, Sophia --------- Elk River City Council Meeting June 15th, 2026 6:00pm CT Public comment in response to: Item 7.4: Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Data Center, Michael Margulies, 19178 Industrial Blvd NW Dear City Council Members, My name is Sophia Kruger; I reside at 22220 Monroe Street NW, Elk River, 55330. I am writing in opposition to the proposal requested by Michael Margulies to change the city ordinance to allow for a proposed data center at 19178 Industrial Blvd NW. I ask that the Council take this request seriously and oppose this ordinance amendment as well. As a public health professional, I'm opposed to this proposed ordinance change because data centers introduce air, water, and noise pollution that will harm the environment and the health of Elk River residents, let alone increase financial strain on residents as electricity rates increase to meet the demand of these buildings. Page 149 of 223 While it's true that there is not enough empirical research yet on the direct adverse health effects of data centers--that is to say, we don't know if building a data center 58,000 square feet in size near residences and schools will directly cause a spike in the rate of new asthma cases or new anxiety diagnoses -- we can certainly paint ourselves a picture based on what we do know so far. We know that data centers emit noise at levels around 96 decibels, which is above the 85 decibel threshold considered harmful for our hearing. Persistent noise levels below that threshold have even been shown to cause disturbances among wildlife (and in humans). That noise is emitted constantly, day in, day out, and people who live nearby data centers have reported increased anxiety, headaches/migraines, and sleep disturbances. While it looks good on paper to build a data center with a closed loop cooling system as it's said to draw in less water than other evaporative cooling systems, the reality is that that water consumption is just moved off site. Sure, the building doesn't draw in as much water, but data centers that use this mechanism for cooling require 10-40% more electricity than traditional evaporative cooling systems, meaning that thermoelectric and/or natural gas plants that generate the power our grid needs will consume even more freshwater to meet the data center's demand. As that demand increases, residents can expect their electricity prices to increase as utilities have to contend with increased strain on their grid too. We also know that this cooling technology has the potential to introduce chemicals--like antifreeze, antimicrobials, and nitrates--at concentrations above their regulated limits into surface water, potentially reaching drinking water sources. This is because while the cooling technology uses less water, it cycles through that water with the occasional release of some used water to make way for new water. That released water, that had been cycling through the cooling systems building up the concentration of chemicals applied to prevent harm to the server equipment, is released as surface water that can run off into ground water sources. Depending on the amount of released water and the concentration of these contaminants, we could be negatively affecting aquatic species downstream of this data center and potentially polluting drinking water sources. We also know that data centers often use diesel or natural gas generators on-site. These generators emit nitrogen dioxide and other fine particulate matter that can negatively affect the air quality and have been linked with increases in asthma diagnoses and other respiratory and cardiovascular health conditions. This data center is proposed right across the road from Meadowvale Elementary and within earshot of surrounding neighborhoods - I am not okay with exposing children and families to more greenhouse gases that may harm their respiratory health. With what we do know right now about the harmful impacts of data centers, we should not take lightly the request by applicants to approve zoning for data centers - and this data center specifically - in our city. Approving this ordinance would open the floodgates - who's to say how many more data centers could be developed in our town? And how will those health effects compound? How much strain on local water sources will there be if future data centers are built? Can our electrical grid keep up if more centers come to town? There are far too many questions that we as constituents deserve answers and not only this, Michael Margulies and Ned Abdul are questionable characters. I would not trust a disbarred, formerly imprisoned, lawyer (Margulies) and a developer who has been investigated by the FBI and faced fraud convictions (Abdul); they certainly do not seem like business persons the City and its residents should trust with the development of a project that is so controversial. In the City's Planning Commission Page 150 of 223 meeting on May 26th, neither could guarantee that this proposed data center would not be used for AI in the future, and neither could say what company they'd seek to lease their building. I ask the planning commission to seriously take these concerns into consideration before making a decision on the applicant's request to amend city zoning ordinances to allow for inclusion of data centers. Thank you. Sophia Kruger Page 151 of 223 June 17, 2026 Elk River Planning Commission Elk River City Council 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Ordinance Amendment OA 26-02 — Data Centers as a Conditional Use in I-1 and I-2 Districts Dear Chair, Commissioners, Mayor, and Council Members, I've spoken at every public hearing on this application since it was introduced, and I'm writing now because OA 26-02 is being given attention in its own right, separate from the site-specific CUP request. I appreciate that the city separated the two on the schedule, with the ordinance amendment taking up first — that gives this body room to focus on OA 26-02 without the pressure of a concurrent site decision, and I think that's the right way to handle it. The ordinance amendment will outlive this particular project. Whatever happens with 19178 Industrial Boulevard, OA 26-02 sets the standard for every data center that comes to Elk River after it — in any I-1 or I-2 zone citywide. I want to be upfront about what I'm asking for: a moratorium on OA 26-02, paired with a task force charged with producing comprehensive, specific conditions before any ordinance amendment is adopted. I don't think that's an extreme position. As of this spring, roughly 70 cities, counties, and states across the country had active data center moratoriums in place — most lasting six months to a year, a few longer — specifically to let local policy catch up with this technology before locking in a standard. I'd rather Elk River take that same approach now than discover the gaps later, after the standard is adopted. Why I think this request is premature To be clear about what's actually in front of you: OA 26-02 is a request to add data centers as a conditional use to the I-1 and I-2 use tables. It is not draft ordinance language with specific standards attached. That distinction matters. Adding the use category now and leaving the conditions — noise limits, water and discharge standards, infrastructure cost allocation, setbacks — to be worked out later, case by case, is itself the gap I'm asking you to close before adoption, not after. It also matters because a modern AI-era data center is not the same animal as the data centers most existing zoning frameworks were written to anticipate. Power density per square foot has increased substantially. Cooling methods have shifted from simple air handling toward closed-loop and liquid systems with their own lifecycle and discharge characteristics. And the pace at which these projects move from application to construction has consistently outrun the pace at which cities can write standards to govern them. Elk River is being asked to create a Page 152 of 223 permanent, citywide use category at the same time it's processing a live application under that category — not the sequence I'd expect a new, unfamiliar use type to be handled: standards first, then applications, not concurrently. I'd ask the Commission and Council to think comprehensively about the full range of inputs and outputs a facility like this brings, not just the ones that happen to be the loudest at this stage of the process: - Noise. Not just whether a peak decibel level clears a threshold, but the chronic, continuous, often tonal character of mechanical noise from a facility that runs nights, weekends, and holidays indefinitely. The kind we’re hearing about frequently in the news. The kind the attached research will address in some detail. - Water. Cooling water consumption, and — separately — the full lifecycle of closed-loop systems: makeup water needs, blowdown discharge, water treatment chemistry, and what happens to that water over the life of the system, not just at startup. - Thermal plume. Waste heat rejected to the atmosphere or to surface water, and what that does to the immediate microclimate or receiving water body over time. - Electrical grid demand and cost-shifting. Who pays for the infrastructure a large new load requires, and whether those costs land on the developer or get distributed across the existing ratepayer base. I think ERMU has put some effort into this, but it deserves detailed review and explicit conditions. - Backup generator emissions. Diesel generators sized for 100% generation in a 10-megawatt or larger facility, and what their testing and emergency run schedules mean for nearby air quality. - Construction and truck traffic. The volume and duration of heavy truck traffic during build-out, separate from the comparatively low traffic the facility generates once operational. - Property value effects. What happens to home and business values for immediate neighbors when an industrial use of this scale and duration moves in next door. None of these are exotic concerns. They're the ordinary list of questions any conditional use ordinance should answer before, not after, it's adopted. Right now, OA 26-02 doesn't answer them. Why I think a moratorium and task force is the right tool I went looking for examples of cities that have done this well — that captured the economic benefit of hosting a data center without adversely affecting the quality of life of their neighbors and nearby businesses. I didn't find one I could point to with confidence. What I found instead was a substantial body of forward-looking guidance from planners, consultants, and developers about what a city should do, and a separate, growing body of reporting from residents currently living next to data centers describing dust, noise, and disrupted sleep that the "should do" literature hadn't prevented. I also looked specifically for community benefit agreements with documented, post-construction outcomes — proof that the commitments made on paper held up Page 153 of 223 once the facility was running — and didn't find that either. What exists are recently signed agreements and unproven frameworks, not track records. I raise that not to suggest this can't be done well, but to suggest that nobody — including Elk River — currently has a reliable model to copy. That argues for slowing down and building the standard deliberately, with the right people in the room, rather than adopting language now and hoping it holds up against the next application. Can we confidently say at what distance neighbors are not adversely impacted by noise, emissions, and thermal plume? I haven't found clear answers yet, and I don't think that question should remain unanswered when the ordinance is adopted. A task force with broad representation — residents, industrial-zone business owners and workers, ERMU, city staff, and an outside consultant familiar with the specific demands and effects of modern data center equipment — could do the work the current timeline doesn't allow: specific, measurable conditions on noise, water, thermal discharge, infrastructure cost allocation, and emissions, instead of general language that leaves those questions to be litigated case by case. I'd also ask the task force to study whether OA 26-02 should include a citywide cap on total data center load or on the number of facilities permitted, rather than treating each application as if it were the only one the grid, water system, and neighbors will ever have to absorb. I'd tie the moratorium to that task force's work product, not to a fixed calendar date — it lifts when the report is in hand, not before. It's also worth noting that the city is not a passive party here. Elk River's own economic development website lists data centers as a target industry, citing reliable electrical power, water capacity, and electrical reliability as reasons the city is a desirable location for them. By observation, the city is actively recruiting for this industry. What that page doesn't address — and what OA 26-02 in its current form doesn't address either — is where within the city these facilities belong, under what conditions, and with what protections for the people who will live and work next to them. If Elk River is going to market itself for this industry, it owes its residents the comprehensive standard that marketing implies, not just the invitation. I want to be clear that none of this is a position on whether Elk River should host more data centers at all. I think the goal is straightforward: capture the economic benefit this industry can offer without exporting the cost of doing so to the neighbors of the site. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask the ordinance to guarantee before it's adopted, rather than after. I’m including a list of questions that remain unanswered about the Elk River Capital LLC project. I would appreciate these questions being addressed in preparation for the CUP proceedings. Page 154 of 223 I've also enclosed printed research on noise and vibration impacts that I'd ask the Commission and Council to review as part of this record. For additional background and documentation related to this application, I maintain elkriverdatacenter.com as a public-interest resource; it's referenced here only as a source, not as an extension of this letter's argument, which is mine alone. Thank you for the time and attention you've given this process. I'm glad to discuss any of this further and look forward to the continued hearing on June 23. Respectfully, Jesse Lang 19371 Upland St NW Page 155 of 223 Unanswered questions about the Elk River Capital LLC project Operator Identity 1. Who will operate this facility? 2. What are their qualifications and operational and compliance track record? Nearby School & Day Care 1. The applicant’s narrative identifies no schools or day care centers near the site. Meadowvale Elementary is 732 feet from the site parcel boundary; Creative Kids Academy is 440 feet from the site parcel boundary, per Sherburne County GIS measurements. 2. The application record contains no proximity analysis addressing either facility. Elk River City Code § 30-654(4) requires that a conditional use permit applicant demonstrate the proposed use will not adversely affect parks and schools. 3. Has the city evaluated whether the ordinance amendment or CUP conditions should address proximity to schools and day care centers? Electricity 1. What is the design PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) for this facility? 2. What is the target kW per rack (or per cabinet) for this facility's design? 3. Is any liquid-to-chip or immersion cooling planned, or is this exclusively air-cooled at the rack level? Closed Loop Cooling 1. What is the total system volume (gallons) for the closed loop at full 33 MW build-out, separated by Phase One (initial) and Phase Two? 2. What manufacturer/model chiller units are specified, and does the spec sheet confirm an air-cooled (no adiabatic pre-cooling) configuration, or does it include an adiabatic-assist mode that would add a separate evaporative water draw? 3. What is the basis for Mr. Hanson's representation that the system will "require no additional water" — is that engineering-verified for this specific chiller spec, or a general characterization of closed-loop technology as a category? 4. What is the disposal/discharge protocol for any blowdown or partial-drain event, given the glycol and corrosion-inhibitor chemical content? 5. Is there a contractual leak-detection requirement, monitoring threshold, or reporting obligation to ERMU/the City? 6. What is the City's enforcement mechanism if a leak occurs and is not major enough to trigger flushing, but the system is taking in makeup water over an extended period — at what point does that cross from "an initial fill" into a use ERMU's water rules weren't written to anticipate? Page 156 of 223 7. What chemicals or compounds will be used as part of the closed loop system? 8. What concentration of each chemical will be used? 9. What is the purpose of each chemical? 10. Has the developer built-out and used this type of cooling system before? Generators: Capacity & Use 1. What is the nameplate capacity (kW or hp) of each generator unit? 2. How many units will be installed? 3. What is total installed generation capacity across all units? 4. Are these generators intended for any non-emergency use outside of testing and maintenance (demand capacity, peak shaving, etc.)? Generators: Emissions 1. Has the applicant prepared a potential-to-emit (PTE) calculation for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)? 2. What EPA emission tier are the generator engines? 3. What fuel grade will these generators use? 4. Will any emissions control devices (diesel oxidation catalysts, particulate filters) installed? 5. Has any air dispersion modeling been performed to characterize ground-level concentrations at the property line and at the nearest receptor? Page 157 of 223 Home Research & Analysis Data Center Noise: What It Is and Why the Standard Does Not Capture It June 15, 2026 · updated June 15, 2026 · 23 min TL;DR Data centers emit constant low-frequency noise that is structurally different from other industrial sources — tonal, continuous, and resistant to conventional barrier mitigation. Minnesota’s applicable noise standard measures sound in a way that systematically underweights the frequency range most associated with data center complaints: in documented cases, facilities measured at 40 to 59 dB(A) on residential property — within applicable limits — while neighbors reported sleep disruption, difficulty concentrating, and avoidance of outdoor spaces. What Data Center Noise Is and Why It Differs from Other Industrial Sources Primary noise sources Data center noise originates from three systems. Their acoustic character differs significantly. Air-cooled chillers are the dominant external noise source for data centers that use air-cooled heat rejection — one common approach for facilities that do not use cooling towers or water-side economizers. Air-cooled chillers require large axial fans to reject heat continuously.1 Those fans produce tonal noise — sound concentrated at specific frequencies — driven by blade-pass frequency: the rate at which each blade passes a fixed point. According to INVC, a commercial noise remediation consultancy, the blade- pass tones generated by chiller fans are caused by aerodynamic interactions of the fan impellers and concentrate in the low-frequency range, typically propagating substantial distances from the site.1 Analysis: The degree of tonal character depends on equipment specifications. Variable-frequency drive (VFD) fans spread blade-pass energy across a band of frequencies rather than concentrating it at a fixed tone, reducing tonal character relative to fixed-speed fans. Whether specific equipment will produce problematic tonal noise varies by specification, which is why spectral analysis of the actual equipment Page 158 of 223 specified is more informative than dB(A) measurement alone for evaluating tonal character. The World Health Organization has concluded that A-weighted measurement systematically underweights low- frequency noise content where it is prominent, recommending C-weighting for health effects assessment in such cases.2 This tonal character is what distinguishes chiller noise from broadband industrial noise. Diesel generators are standard equipment in data centers as backup power for critical load. Diesel generators produce low-frequency noise at their engine firing frequency during both routine load testing, which is required under National Fire Protection Association Standard 110 (NFPA 110), and during actual power outages.3 Generator exhaust systems dominate low-frequency noise output in the range of approximately 31.5 to 250 Hz, with tonal components at the engine firing frequency and its harmonics — typically in the range of 75 to 90 Hz for standard 4-stroke diesel generators operating at 1500 to 1800 RPM.4 NFPA 110 requires monthly 30-minute operational tests at a minimum of 30% of nameplate kW rating; if a generator does not reach that threshold during monthly testing, an annual supplemental load bank test is triggered, and Level 1 systems require a comprehensive test every 36 months.3 Whether generator test events comply with applicable noise limits at nearby receivers, and whether a conditional use permit addresses the timing and frequency of such testing, are questions a noise study scope should explicitly cover. Server and rack cooling fans operate internally; though internal noise levels in operational data centers commonly reach 90 dB(A) near server areas,5 the building envelope attenuates this substantially before it reaches any external receiver, making server fans less relevant to external community noise than chiller and generator sources. What makes this noise different Two properties of data center noise distinguish it from most other industrial sources that zoning and noise regulations were designed to address. Tonal character. Most regulated industrial noise — manufacturing equipment, aggregate operations, truck traffic — is broadband: acoustic energy spread across many frequencies. Chiller fans and diesel generators produce tonal noise: energy concentrated at discrete frequencies. The noise concern from low- frequency tonal sources is not primarily peak annoyance in the way measured by short-duration listening tests.6 The concern is instead chronic exposure: research on low-frequency noise exposure indicates that because tonal noise is predictable and repetitive, habituation is incomplete, and sleep disturbance and related effects may persist at exposure levels that would not produce acute complaints — though the epidemiological evidence on this point remains limited in scope.7 2 Low-frequency tones also penetrate building walls and conventional acoustic barriers more effectively than higher-frequency sound. Beginning in April 2023, Williams County, North Dakota officials began receiving noise complaints from residents surrounding the Atlas Power Data Center west of Williston — a high-performance computing and cryptocurrency mining facility — shortly after it became operational.8 The company installed an acoustic barrier as mitigation; complaints continued, and in 2023 residents filed a civil lawsuit citing excessive Page 159 of 223 noise, property value impacts, and quality-of-life harms.9 A monetary settlement was reached in 2026.9 According to INVC’s account of the case — a vendor source — the barrier cost approximately $5 million.10 Analysis: INVC attributes the barrier ’s failure to the physics of low-frequency tonal noise from cooling fans, which cannot be effectively attenuated by conventional barriers; the Atlas Power facility differs from a colocation data center in operational profile and scale, but the acoustic mechanism implicated — low- frequency blade-pass tones from air-cooled cooling fans — is common to facilities relying on air-cooled heat rejection regardless of workload type. The frequency-dependence of barrier insertion loss is well established in acoustic engineering: barriers provide substantially less attenuation at low frequencies where sound wavelengths are long relative to barrier dimensions.11 Continuous operation. Unlike manufacturing, construction, or most other industrial uses, data centers have no operating hours, no seasonal shutdown, and no production cycles. A data center operates continuously once commissioned.12 Community complaints about data center noise tend to focus on continuity of exposure more than on peak decibel levels.13 A noise source that operates continuously overnight presents a different exposure profile than one with higher peak levels but limited to daytime hours: ambient noise levels drop at night, making the same source more perceptible and more disruptive to sleep at lower absolute levels.14 15 The Applicable Standard and Its Structural Limitations How Minnesota Rule 7030 works Minnesota Rule 7030 is the applicable state noise standard. It is a receiver-based standard: the noise limit that applies depends on the land use at the location of the person or property receiving the sound, not on the zoning of the source property.16 Rule 7030 establishes minimum state standards; a municipality may impose more stringent requirements through conditional use permit conditions or local ordinance under its land use authority. The rule establishes four Noise Area Classifications (NAC). Applicable limits under Rule 7030.0040, Subpart 2 for the three most commonly relevant categories: NAC Land Use Day L50 Day L10 Night L50 Night L10 1 Residential, schools, medical, religious, educational services 60 65 50 55 Page 160 of 223 NAC Land Use Day L50 Day L10 Night L50 Night L10 2 Commercial, retail, parks, professional services 65 70 65 70 3 Manufacturing, utilities, communication, all other 75 80 75 80 4 Undeveloped land, water areas None None None None Daytime is defined as 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Nighttime is 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.17 L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a one-hour survey.18 For any proposed data center, the relevant question is what land uses exist in the surrounding area and at what distances. Schools, residences, medical facilities, and places of worship are all NAC 1 receivers under Rule 7030.0050.19 At any NAC 1 receiver, both nighttime limits must be satisfied simultaneously: L50 50 dB(A) and L10 55 dB(A). A measurement showing compliance on L10 alone without reporting L50 does not establish full compliance with Rule 7030. Note: Rule 7030.0050, Subpart 3(A) provides that NAC 1 daytime standards may be applied during nighttime hours if the land use does not include overnight lodging.20 Schools are NAC 1 receivers but typically do not include overnight lodging; where this exception applies, it would relax the nighttime limits at a school receptor to L50 60 dB(A) and L10 65 dB(A) — the daytime NAC 1 standards. Whether this exception or Subparts 3(B) or 3(C) apply at any given receptor depends on building construction and land use present, and should be addressed explicitly in noise study scope. The A-weighting problem Rule 7030 mandates measurement in A-weighted decibels, dB(A), through its incorporation of American National Standards Institute standard S1.4-1983 (ANSI S1.4-1983) by reference.21 A-weighting is a frequency filter applied to sound level measurements to approximate human hearing sensitivity: the human ear is less sensitive to low frequencies at moderate sound levels, so A-weighting progressively attenuates low-frequency content before it is recorded in the measurement. The practical effect for data center noise: A-weighting applies approximately 26 dB of attenuation at 63 Hz, and more than 40 dB of attenuation below 20 Hz, relative to mid-frequency content.22 Analysis: Chiller fan blade-pass tones typically concentrate below 250 Hz, varying by equipment; this range receives the heaviest A-weighting attenuation, meaning it contributes minimally to a dB(A) compliance reading even when present at levels sufficient to generate complaints. Larson Davis, a noise monitoring equipment manufacturer, notes that low-frequency humming “doesn’t contribute much to A-weighted noise levels but is often the source of complaints” — a facility can satisfy Page 161 of 223 Rule 7030’s dB(A) requirement while generating tonal low-frequency content that A-weighted measurement systematically underweights.23 This is a structural property of the measurement standard, not a function of facility size. In the context of assessing health effects from low-frequency noise, the World Health Organization concluded in its 1999 community noise guidelines — a foundational reference that predates the current data center proliferation but whose low-frequency findings have not been revised in subsequent WHO guidance — that “since A- weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low-frequency components, a better assessment of health effects would be to use C-weighting” and that “when prominent low frequency components are present, noise measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate.”2 Rule 7030 requires neither C-weighting nor any supplemental low-frequency measurement. Documented consequence: residents near data centers in Northern Virginia’s Prince William County reported persistent noise complaints while measured levels on residential property were 40 to 59 dB(A) — within applicable limits — with neighbors reporting sleep disruption, difficulty concentrating, and avoidance of outdoor spaces.24 What Rule 7030 does not require Minnesota Rule 7030 contains no requirement for: C-weighted measurement. C-weighting attenuates low frequencies much less aggressively than A- weighting, making it more sensitive to the low-frequency range where chiller fan blade-pass tones concentrate. The World Health Organization recommends C-weighting specifically for noise with prominent low-frequency components.2 Independent acoustic engineers and some jurisdictions have identified C-weighted measurement or octave-band spectral limits as necessary to capture the noise character of data center cooling equipment; A-weighted limits alone have in documented cases failed to address community complaints that persisted within compliance.25 G-weighted measurement. G-weighting, defined by ISO 7196:1995, covers the infrasound range of 1– 20 Hz — below audible hearing but perceptible through bodily sensation at sufficient pressure levels.26 27 Large compressor-based cooling equipment can generate tonal energy that extends into or near the infrasound range; whether any specific installation does so depends on equipment specifications that are not established by a dB(A) noise study alone. Rule 7030 requires neither C-weighted nor G- weighted measurement; a noise study conducted under Rule 7030 therefore provides no spectral characterization of noise in these frequency ranges.28 Octave-band or 1/3-octave-band spectral analysis. Octave-band analysis allows identification of discrete tonal frequencies and their relative contribution to total noise levels. Without it, a compliant dB(A) reading cannot identify which frequencies are present, at what levels, or whether any tonal component is prominent. Analysis: The WHO has identified A-weighting as inappropriate for health- effects assessment of noise with prominent low-frequency components; a noise study reporting only Page 162 of 223 dB(A) compliance therefore provides no basis for evaluating whether chiller fan blade-pass tones are present or at what frequencies. A tonal penalty. ISO 1996-1:2016 defines a framework for adjusting measured noise levels upward — by 3 to 6 dB — when a prominent tone is audible within a noise spectrum.29 The empirical basis for tonal penalties is strongest at mid and high frequencies: laboratory research found annoyance penalties of 0 dB at 50 and 110 Hz, increasing to 12 dB at 2100 Hz.6 Analysis: ISO 1996-1 §6 specifies the adjustment based on tonal audibility without stating a frequency floor; the standard’s text does not exclude low-frequency tones from the adjustment framework. Peer-reviewed literature documents that a number of U.S. municipalities have independently adopted a 5 dB tonal penalty using one-third octave band analysis under ISO 1996-2, applicable to any prominent tone detected by the measurement methodology.29 Minnesota Rule 7030 contains no tonal adjustment provision of any kind. Post-construction verification. Rule 7030 establishes limits but does not require post-construction measurement to confirm that operational noise matches modeled predictions. Post-construction noise monitoring can be required as a CUP condition under the city’s land use authority independently of Rule 7030; the absence of a Rule 7030 requirement does not preclude the city from imposing one. 1. Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre (INVC), “Low-cost high efficiency data center noise reduction,” invc.com (commercial noise remediation consultancy): “One of the most common complaints about data center noise is a low-frequency humming sound that travels long distances. The most common source is the large number of chiller or cooling fans required to control equipment temperatures 24/7. Technically, the hum is caused by the aerodynamic interactions of the fan impellers that may vary in frequency (pitch) as the fan speed changes with temperature.” INVC is cited here for the mechanism description; its characterizations of specific cases are attributed to INVC where used. ↩ ↩ 2. World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise (Berglund, Lindvall, Schwela, eds.), WHO, Geneva, 1999: “Health effects due to low-frequency components in noise are estimated to be more severe than for community noises in general… Since A-weighting underestimates the sound pressure level of noise with low-frequency components, a better assessment of health effects would be to use C-weighting.” The guidelines further specify: “When prominent low frequency components are present, noise measures based on A-weighting are inappropriate.” For sleep specifically: “Low frequency noise, for example, from ventilation systems can disturb rest and sleep even at low sound levels… For noise with a large proportion of low frequency sounds a still lower guideline [than 30 dB(A)] is recommended.” Note: these guidelines were published in 1999 and were written primarily in the context of traffic, aircraft, and general industrial noise. The 2018 WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region (see below) build on this framework and do not revise the low-frequency findings. ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ 3. National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 110, Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems (2025 ed.), §8.4.2 and §8.4.6. Required test schedule: monthly 30-minute operational tests at a minimum of 30% of nameplate kW rating (diesel); if a generator does not reach 30% nameplate during monthly testing, an annual supplemental load bank test is required at not less than 50% of nameplate for 30 minutes followed by 75% for 60 minutes (the 2025 edition eliminated the prior 25%/30min step; some jurisdictions may still enforce earlier editions). Level 1 Emergency Power Supply Systems additionally require a comprehensive 4-hour test every 36 months under §8.4.9. Monthly transfer switch operation also required. Plain-language summary: National Fire Protection Association, “An Overview of NFPA 110,” nfpa.org, January 2023: “The emergency power supply system needs to be inspected weekly, exercised monthly, and tested at least once every 36 months.” ↩ ↩ 4. Jubaili Bros, “Generator Noise Control: Enclosures, Silencers, and Acoustic Design,” lb.jubailibros.com, July 2025: “Exhaust systems dominate low-frequency noise between 31.5 Hz and 250 Hz.” Engine firing frequency for a 4-stroke diesel generator is: (number of cylinders ÷ 2) × (RPM ÷ 60); for a 6-cylinder engine at 1800 RPM this yields 90 Hz, at 1500 RPM approximately 75 Hz — both within the low-frequency range where A-weighting applies substantial attenuation. See also Engineering Research (Global Journals), vol. 14 (2014), documenting engine firing rate calculation and 90 Hz fundamental for 6-cylinder, 4-stroke, 1800 RPM generator. ↩ Page 163 of 223 5. C&C Technology Group (data center infrastructure contractor), “Data Center Noise: Effective Strategies for Reduction,” cc- techgroup.com: “Noise levels commonly reach upwards of 90 dB(A) near server areas.” Cited for the internal noise level figure; this is a subsidiary point as the building envelope substantially attenuates this before it reaches the property boundary. ↩ 6. Oliva, D., Hongisto, V., and Haapakangas, A., “Annoyance of low-level tonal sounds — Factors affecting the penalty,” Building and Environment, vol. 123, pp. 404–414, 2017 (peer-reviewed, DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.07.017): “Environmental and appliance sounds involving tonal components can be more annoying than broad-band noise… environmental and appliance sounds including tonal components are generally expected to be more annoying than non-tonal sounds with the same A-weighted sound pressure level (SPL).” Note: the same study found that the annoyance penalty was 0 dB below 200 Hz and increased with frequency above 200 Hz, reaching up to 12 dB at 2100 Hz. This frequency-dependence of tonal annoyance is not fully captured by flat penalty values in regulatory standards. ↩ ↩ 7. Griefahn, B., “Effects of low frequency noise on sleep,” Noise & Health, vol. 6, no. 23, 2004, reviewing primary literature including: Persson Waye, K. and Rylander, R. (2001) — in a cross-sectional study of 279 persons, fatigue, difficulty falling asleep, and feeling languid and tensed in the morning were reported significantly more often among those annoyed by low-frequency noise; and Verzini et al. (1999) — among 98 urban subjects exposed to dominant low-frequency noise from installations, air conditioning units, industrial processes, and traffic, energy content of 20–160 Hz was significantly related to sleep disturbance, concentration difficulties, irritability, anxiety, and tiredness. The review concludes: “Low frequency noise (20–200 Hz) is emitted by numerous sources in the society. As low frequencies propagate with little attenuation through walls and windows, many people may be exposed to low frequency noise.” ↩ 8. Williams County, North Dakota, “Williams County Update Regarding Atlas Power Data Center,” press release, June 29, 2023: “Beginning in April 2023, County staff and officials began receiving noise complaints from residents surrounding the Atlas Power Data Center, located west of Williston.” The release confirms $232,000 in code violation fines levied against Atlas Power Holdings ND, LLC, and documents the county’s order for installation of “acoustical panels and security fencing” as a “sight and sound barrier for the site.” Atlas Power’s operational profile — primarily cryptocurrency mining and high-performance computing — is described in KFYR-TV (March 2022) and North Dakota Governor’s office announcement (January 26, 2022). ↩ 9. KFYR-TV (Michael Anthony), “Settlement agreements going out to residents by data center next to Williston,” March 13, 2026: “In 2023, residents filed a lawsuit against the company asking for damages for the noise. They claim it tanked property values and hurt their quality of life. A settlement was reached two years later.” Settlement details are confidential per Atlas attorney Doug Daniels, as stated to Northwest District Court Judge Kirsten Sjue. ↩ ↩ 10. Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre (INVC), “Data Center Noise Regulation: a smarter approach to a global problem,” invc.com (commercial noise remediation consultancy): “This ‘jaw-dropping’ $5 million structure was intended to be the definitive answer. It wasn’t. It was a spectacular failure.” The $5 million cost figure and the characterization of the barrier ’s failure originate from INVC’s account of the project. INVC is a commercial acoustics consultancy. The underlying noise complaints, enforcement action, litigation, and settlement are independently confirmed by Williams County government records and KFYR-TV reporting cited above. ↩ 11. The frequency-dependence of acoustic barrier insertion loss is established in standard engineering references. The Maekawa diffraction model (1968) and the Kurze-Anderson formula define insertion loss as a function of the Fresnel number N, which is inversely proportional to wavelength: at low frequencies where wavelengths are long relative to barrier dimensions, N is small and insertion loss is low. As summarized in ScienceDirect Topics, “Noise Barrier,” citing Maekawa (1968) and Kurze-Anderson: barrier attenuation is “fundamentally frequency-dependent” and “high-frequency sound waves with short wavelengths experience greater attenuation because they diffract less efficiently around obstacles.” A 100 Hz tone has a wavelength of approximately 3.4 meters; practical barriers of finite height provide substantially less insertion loss at such frequencies than at mid- or high-frequency content. ↩ 12. Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI, a nonprofit policy research organization), “Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers,” March 23, 2026, eesi.org: “Data centers’ continuous operation means that cooling systems… generate a persistent humming sound around the clock.” ↩ 13. Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI, a nonprofit policy research organization), “Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers,” March 23, 2026, eesi.org: “Complaints about data center noise tend to focus on its 24/7 consistent presence rather than on its volume.” ↩ 14. LSARS (acoustic engineering firm), “Data Center Noise: How Loud, How Far, How to Address,” lsars.com: “Data center noise occurs 24 hours a day, including overnight when ambient noise levels tend to be lower. A 50 dB noise during the daytime may not be annoying, whereas it would be noticeable at nighttime.” Cited for the nighttime ambient principle; corroborated by the WHO 2018 Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region cited above. ↩ 15. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region, WHO/Europe, 2018 (ISBN 9789289053563): nighttime noise limits are established specifically because exposure during sleep hours produces adverse Page 164 of 223 health effects distinct from daytime exposure at equivalent levels; the guidelines identify sleep disturbance as a primary health outcome of environmental noise exposure and establish recommended nighttime Lnight limits. The 2022 updated meta-analysis (PMID 35857401, Environmental Health Perspectives) confirms these findings remain current. ↩ 16. Minnesota Rule 7030.0050, Subpart 1 (Applicability): “The noise area classification is based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use activity.” Published electronically January 27, 2017. Statutory authority: MS s 115.03; 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614; 41 SR 763. Noise standards table: Minnesota Rule 7030.0040, Subpart 2, published electronically December 12, 2003; statutory authority: MS s 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614. L50 is the level exceeded 50 percent of the time; L10 is the level exceeded 10 percent of the time during a one-hour survey. ↩ 17. Minnesota Rule 7030.0020 (Definitions). Subpart 3: “Daytime means those hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.” Subpart 10: “Nighttime means those hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.” Subpart 7: L10 defined as the sound level, in dB(A), exceeded ten percent of the time for a one-hour survey. Subpart 8: L50 defined as the sound level, in dB(A), exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour survey. Statutory authority: MS s 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; L 1987 c 186 s 15; 18 SR 614. Published electronically December 12, 2003. ↩ 18. Minnesota Rule 7030.0020, Subpart 7 (primary): L10 defined as the sound level, in dB(A), exceeded ten percent of the time for a one- hour survey. Corroborated by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “A Guide to Noise Control in Minnesota,” 2008, leg.mn.gov. ↩ 19. Minnesota Rule 7030.0050, Subpart 2: NAC 1 land use activities include “Household Units (includes farm houses),” “Medical and other health services,” “Educational services,” and “Religious activities,” among others. These encompass residences, medical facilities, schools, and places of religious assembly respectively. ↩ 20. Minnesota Rule 7030.0050, Subpart 3(A): “The daytime standards for noise area classification 1 shall be applied to noise area classification 1 during the nighttime if the land use activity does not include overnight lodging.” Subpart 3(B) allows NAC 2 standards to be applied to a NAC 1 building if: (1) the building “is constructed in such a way that there are no openable windows or doors to the outside” and (2) “the interior of the building is air conditioned or mechanically ventilated.” Subpart 3(C) applies NAC 3 standards to a NAC 1 building under the same conditions. Whether any of these subparts apply at a given receptor depends on the physical construction of the building and the land uses present, and is a question noise study scope should address explicitly. ↩ 21. Minnesota Rule 7030.0060 (Measurement Methodology), Subpart 4(B): “Measurements must be made using the A-weighting and fast response characteristics of the sound measuring device as specified in American National Standards Institute S1.4-1983.” Subpart 2 specifies that measuring devices must meet Type 0, I, II, or S specifications under ANSI S1.4-1983. Statutory authority: MS s 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; 17 SR 1279; 18 SR 614. Published electronically December 12, 2003. ↩ 22. A-weighting frequency response values are defined by ANSI S1.4-1983, section 5.1. ANSI S1.4-1983 is incorporated by reference into Minnesota Rule 7030 via Rule 7030.0010. Rule 7030.0020, Subpart 2 defines “A-weighted” by reference to ANSI S1.4-1983 section 5.1. A-weighting correction at 63 Hz is approximately -26.2 dB relative to the 1 kHz reference level; attenuation exceeds 40 dB below 20 Hz. Tabulated values available in IEC 61672-1:2013 (the current successor standard to ANSI S1.4-1983) and in standard acoustical engineering references. ↩ 23. Larson Davis (PCB Piezotronics), “Data Center Noise Monitoring,” larsondavis.com (noise monitoring equipment manufacturer): “Low- frequency humming doesn’t contribute much to A-weighted noise levels but is often the source of complaints.” Cited for the measurement consequence; corroborated by WHO 1999 above. ↩ 24. Neha Gour, Ed Maibach, and Luis Ortiz (George Mason University), “5 ways data centers endanger their local communities and the country as a whole,” The Conversation: “In northern Virginia, some residents have complained about an industrial-scale ‘drone’ or ‘hum.’ Measurements at the data centers that were the subject of complaints found noise levels were between 40 and 59 decibels on residential property. Those noise levels are quieter than a conversation… and not loud enough to damage people’s hearing or violate local noise ordinances.” Note: the article does not cite a primary measurement source for the 40–59 dB(A) figure; the claim is attributed here to the researchers’ account as published in The Conversation, not to underlying measurement data. ↩ 25. Acentech (acoustic engineering consultancy), Alex Odom, “Good Noise Neighbor: Data Center Design for Community Noise,” lab.acentech.com, November 6, 2025: “Some regulations therefore use C-weighted decibels (dBC), which include more low-frequency content.” The article documents an unnamed Virginia jurisdiction where data center cooling equipment noise produced community complaints while operating within A-weighted limits; that jurisdiction subsequently revised its ordinance to clarify that commercial and industrial cooling equipment is not exempt from noise limits. The jurisdiction is not named in the article. Acentech is an independent acoustic consulting firm; this source is not vendor content. ↩ 26. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 7196:1995, “Acoustics: Frequency-weighting characteristic for infrasound measurements”: “Specifies a frequency-weighting characteristic, designated G, for the determination of weighted sound pressure levels of sound or noise whose spectrum lies partly or wholly within the frequency band from 1 Hz to 20 Hz.” ↩ Page 165 of 223 © 2026 elkriverdatacenter.com · About & Terms of Use 27. Baliatsas, C., van Kamp, I., van Poll, R., and Yzermans, J., “Health effects from low-frequency noise and infrasound in the general population: Is it time to listen? A systematic review of observational studies,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 557–558, pp. 163– 169, 2016 (peer-reviewed systematic review of observational studies, 2000–2015), summarizing Møller and Lydolf (2003): “Low frequency noise in the residential environment is described as a constant, deep and humming/rumbling sound and although complainants perceive it with their ears, the perception of bodily or external vibration is also possible.” The review found associations between LFN exposure and annoyance, sleep-related problems, concentration difficulties, and headache in the adult population. ↩ 28. IEC 61672-1:2013, Electroacoustics — Sound level meters — Part 1: Specifications, §5 (frequency weighting characteristics). IEC 61672-1 is the current international standard defining A, C, and Z frequency-weighting curves for sound level meters, and is the successor standard to ANSI S1.4-1983 incorporated by reference in Minnesota Rule 7030. At 63 Hz: A-weighting applies approximately −26.2 dB of attenuation relative to 1 kHz; C-weighting applies approximately −0.8 dB — a difference of roughly 25 dB at that frequency. A-weighting approximates human hearing sensitivity at moderate levels; C-weighting applies significantly less low- frequency attenuation and is more sensitive to the frequency range where chiller fan blade-pass tones concentrate; G-weighting (defined in ISO 7196:1995) covers the 1–20 Hz infrasound range. ↩ 29. ISO 1996-1:2016, Acoustics — Description, Measurement and Assessment of Environmental Noise — Part 1: Basic Quantities and Assessment Procedures, §6 (adjustment for tonal character): specifies an adjustment of 3 to 6 dB to be added to measured levels when a tone is prominent, depending on tonal audibility. See also Aykol, S. et al., “Effects of noise on mental performance and annoyance considering task difficulty level and tone components of noise,” Environments, MDPI, 2019 (peer-reviewed, PMC6582013): “There is no accepted allowable value for tonal noise, though a 5 dB penalty is incurred in a number of municipalities in the US, when detecting tone in components for a source by using a one-third octave band measurement technique determined by the ISO 1996- 2:2007 standard, Annex D.” ↩ ↩ Page 166 of 223 Home Research & Analysis Applicant's Noise Study and What the City Can Require June 15, 2026 · updated June 17, 2026 · 18 min TL;DR A noise study evaluated solely against Minnesota’s minimum dB(A) standard would demonstrate legal sufficiency — but would not establish whether neighbors will experience noise problems. Independent peer review with a defined scope that goes beyond dB(A) compliance is the most direct pre-approval mechanism for establishing whether the study actually addresses the frequency content most likely to affect nearby residents. Where data center noise has become a sustained community problem the pattern is consistent: approval under minimum standards; complaints after operation begins; measurement under the same standard that failed to predict the problem; voluntary remediation; and regulatory reform — years after the fact. The city’s full negotiating leverage exists before the CUP is granted. After approval, if no enforceable noise conditions are included in the permit, the available mechanism is complaint-based enforcement under the same standard that could not capture the problem in the first place. The Applicant’s Noise Study: What It Will and May Not Show What the study is structured to demonstrate The applicant’s noise study, due at the June 23, 2026 Planning Commission hearing,1 will evaluate the proposed facility against Rule 7030 — the applicable legal standard and the minimum standard a study must satisfy for the CUP noise condition. A study evaluated solely against Rule 7030 would demonstrate dB(A) compliance at required receptor locations, but would not establish whether neighbors will experience noise problems. The four questions below identify what additional information a study must provide to be informative beyond bare legal sufficiency. Whether the submitted study addresses them can be evaluated when it is available. For the reasons described on this page and in Data Center Noise: What It Is and Why Page 167 of 223 the Standard Does Not Capture It, dB(A) compliance alone does not resolve the frequency-content questions most relevant to residential neighbors. Margulies, appearing as the applicant of record at the May 26 hearing, characterized the study’s intended scope as follows: the study “will not only say what the noise impact will be on the neighborhood — and hopefully that noise impact will be low, meeting the state standards the city has adopted — but if for any reason there are issues with noise standards it will tell us what type of mitigation is necessary and how to put that mitigation into effect.”2 The study’s stated primary target is Rule 7030 compliance. Methodological questions that determine whether the study is informative beyond bare compliance Four questions determine whether the study provides meaningful information about the actual noise experience of nearby residents and the school, as distinct from a demonstration of legal sufficiency: 1. Spectral content beyond dB(A). Does the study report C-weighted levels, octave-band, or 1/3-octave- band results at sensitive receptors, or only dB(A)? Without spectral data the study cannot characterize whether low-frequency tonal content — the primary complaint mechanism documented at other data center facilities — is present at levels that would affect nearby residents or the school even if dB(A) compliance is confirmed. 2. Load scenario modeled. Is the noise model based on full Phase Two capacity or a lower operational assumption? The Electric Service Agreement (ESA) drafted between Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) and Elk River Capital LLC establishes 23 MW for Phase One and an additional 10 MW for Phase Two, totaling 33 MW at full buildout.3 A study based on a reduced load assumption would understate worst-case operational noise. The noise study should explicitly state the load scenario modeled. 3. Nighttime limit application. Does the study evaluate compliance against the nighttime L10 limit of 55 dB(A) at NAC 1 residential receivers? The facility will operate continuously including during the 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. nighttime period when the more protective standard applies to household units and other overnight lodging. Compliance during daytime hours does not establish nighttime compliance at residential receptors. 4. Receptor placement. Minnesota Rule 7030.0060, Subpart 1 requires that sound measurements be made “at or within the applicable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source.”4 The rule requires measurement at the nearest point of human activity — not simply at the parcel boundary. Meadowvale Elementary School is classified as NAC 1 under Minnesota Rule 7030.0050, Subpart 2, which places “Educational services” in NAC 1 based on land use activity at the receiver location.5 For a school in NAC 1 that means the school building and outdoor activity areas; for a residence the dwelling and yard. A study should confirm that receptor placement satisfies this requirement not merely that measurement was taken at the property line. Separately the chiller yard is located on the south side of the Page 168 of 223 building enclosed by a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall with planned acoustic treatment.6 The acoustic performance of that enclosure — whether it is modeled as an attenuating barrier or a reflective surface — is a methodological question a peer reviewer should evaluate. Why independent peer review requires a defined scope Independent peer review of the applicant’s noise study at applicant cost is a legally defensible and precedented CUP condition. Chandler, Arizona’s data center noise ordinance, adopted December 5, 2022 following sustained community complaints beginning in 2014 at a data center in the Brittany Heights neighborhood, requires noise study review before and after construction.7 The Chandler ordinance arose from a residential-adjacent siting context; the conditions it establishes are referenced here as documented precedent for the mechanism of independent review, not as a direct factual parallel to the Elk River site configuration. Without independent review built into the entitlement, inadequate noise analysis produces consequences borne by neighbors rather than the applicant — and where no enforceable noise conditions are included in the CUP, the only available remedy is complaint-based enforcement after the fact.8 One noise analysis firm describes the result as “a post-approval nuisance complaint with no enforcement teeth.”9 Peer review only has enforcement teeth if the CUP condition specifies scope. A condition requiring review of “the applicant’s methodology” would authorize a peer reviewer to confirm internal consistency — it would not require the reviewer to evaluate whether the methodology captures the noise content most likely to affect neighbors. Under Minnesota Statutes § 462.3595, Subd. 1, CUP conditions must reflect “standards and criteria stated in the ordinance” — but the city may also attach reasonable conditions based on factual evidence in the public record.10 Analysis: A meaningful peer review condition should specify: C-weighted and octave-band analysis at all sensitive receptors; receptor placement at the chiller yard boundary in addition to property line; full Phase Two capacity load scenario; and nighttime limit evaluation at residential receptors. What the City Can Require, and Why Timing Matters The city’s authority to exceed the state floor Minnesota Rule 7030 establishes minimum statewide noise standards. It is not a ceiling. Minnesota Statutes §§ 462.3595 and 462.357 together authorize municipalities to designate conditional uses by ordinance, to approve them subject to standards and criteria set in that ordinance, and to regulate land uses for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.11 Municipalities may also incorporate those standards into zoning code through the ordinance amendment process. Page 169 of 223 Community Development Director Carlton confirmed at the May 26 hearing that the ordinance amendment process is specifically the vehicle through which the city can establish performance standards for data centers, including noise mitigation requirements.12 Specific conditions with documented precedent The following conditions are supported by precedent in jurisdictions that have addressed data center noise: Pre-construction baseline measurement by an independent acoustician, establishing ambient noise levels at all sensitive receptors before construction begins. Without a pre-construction baseline there is no objective reference point against which post-construction compliance can be verified. Chandler ’s ordinance requires baseline measurement as a condition of permit.13 Independent peer review of the applicant’s noise study at applicant cost, with defined scope including: C- weighted and octave-band analysis at sensitive receptors; receptor placement at the chiller yard boundary; full Phase Two capacity (33 MW); and explicit nighttime limit evaluation. Post-construction verification testing by an independent party, at applicant cost, after the facility reaches operational load. Measured results at sensitive receptors to be compared against modeled predictions. A defined remedy trigger — specific exceedance threshold and timeline — must be included for the condition to be enforceable. As LSARS (IOVerge LLC), a commercial noise analysis services firm, documents: “Without these items in the entitlement, the noise problem becomes a post-approval nuisance complaint with no enforcement teeth.”9 Documented timeframes in other jurisdictions include 60 days from occupancy (Albemarle County, Virginia draft ordinance)14 and six months from certificate of occupancy (PennFuture Model Data Center Ordinance).15 Generator load testing restrictions. NFPA 110 requires periodic load testing of emergency generators. Without a CUP condition testing may occur at any hour including nighttime. Chandler ’s ordinance limits generator testing to weekday daytime hours with advance notice to adjacent property owners.16 Whether a parallel condition is appropriate for this facility is a question for the city to consider in setting CUP scope. Annual noise monitoring for the first five years of operation, during peak operational periods, with results submitted to the city. Chandler ’s ordinance requires annual noise study submission for five years after construction completion.17 This creates a post-approval record and a mechanism for identifying operational changes — such as additional racks or increased load — that alter the facility’s noise profile. The ordinance amendment is the more consequential proceeding Page 170 of 223 Ordinance Amendment OA 26-02 (OA 26-02) would add data centers as a conditional use in all I-1 and I-2 industrial zones citywide. As Carlton described at the May 26 hearing, this is a permanent, city-wide change: any parcel in an I-1 or I-2 zone would be eligible for a data center application upon adoption.18 As of the May 26 hearing, no draft ordinance language for the new § 30-1293(d) section had been presented to the Planning Commission. The standards discussed — size, cooling method, noise mitigation, screening, setbacks — were identified as potential elements, not adopted requirements.19 The CUP governs one facility at one location. The ordinance, as Carlton confirmed, governs every future data center application in every I-1 and I-2 zone in Elk River.18 As of the May 26 hearing, no size caps, aggregate capacity limits, or noise thresholds had been drafted into the ordinance text.19 Analysis: An ordinance that designates data centers as a conditional use without specifying noise performance standards establishes no baseline against which a future applicant’s proposal must be evaluated; any conditions exceeding Rule 7030 compliance would require negotiation on each individual CUP application, with no binding floor established in the zoning code.10 The window for requiring more protective standards The documented pattern in jurisdictions where data center noise became a sustained community problem follows a consistent sequence: approval under minimum standards; community complaints after operation begins; measurement under the same standards that failed to predict the problem; voluntary operator remediation such as acoustic shrouds or louvres — which instrumentation and measurement authorities describe as ineffective against low-frequency tonal content, a frequently documented complaint source20 — and eventual regulatory reform years after the fact. In Chandler, Arizona, complaints began in 2014. Regulatory reform occurred in 2022 — eight years later.21 In Prince William County, Virginia, the county noise ordinance exempted heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment from regulation entirely; Amazon eventually added acoustic shrouds voluntarily.22 23 The county board removed the HVAC exemption in February 2023, with supervisors describing the ordinance change as a first step.24 The city’s full negotiating leverage — the ability to require specific noise analysis, impose enforceable conditions, and establish verification mechanisms — exists before the CUP is granted. After approval, where no enforceable noise conditions are included in the permit, the available mechanism is complaint- based enforcement under the same standard that could not capture the problem in the first place. 1. Zack Carlton, Community Development Director, City of Elk River, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): “I’m talking with the applicant; he is working to prepare a noise study, which will be ready for the June 23rd, 2026 planning commission meeting.” ↩ Page 171 of 223 2. Michael Margulies, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): “The noise study will not only say what the noise impact will be on the neighborhood — and hopefully that noise impact will be low, meeting the state standards the city has adopted — but if for any reason there are issues with noise standards, it will tell us what type of mitigation is necessary and how to put that mitigation into effect.” ↩ 3. Elk River Municipal Utilities / Elk River Capital LLC, Market-Based Electric Service Agreement for 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW (Revised), executed 2026: Section 5.2 establishes capacity at 23 MW for Phase One and an additional 10 MW for Phase Two (33 MW total at full buildout); Section 5.7 states ERMU has no obligation to upgrade its facilities for any electric load above the design load level detailed in Section 5.2. Document on file, Elk River Municipal Utilities; also entered into the public record of ERMU Board proceedings, May 2026. ↩ 4. Minnesota Rule 7030.0060 (Measurement Methodology), Subpart 1: “Measurement of sound must be made at or within the applicable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source. All measurements shall be made outdoors.” Statutory authority: MS s 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; 17 SR 1279; 18 SR 614. Published electronically December 12, 2003. ↩ 5. Minnesota Rule 7030.0050 (Noise Area Classification), Subpart 1: “The noise area classification is based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver.” Subpart 2 table: “Educational services” is listed under NAC 1. Statutory authority: MS s 115.03; 116.07; History: 11 SR 43; 18 SR 614; 41 SR 763. Published electronically January 27, 2017. The Meadowvale Elementary School parcel is separately confirmed as R-1 Single Family Residential under the City of Elk River Zoning Map (adopted October 3, 2022).25 ↩ 6. Nedal Abdul-Hajj, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): “We tried to strategically place them in the corner, as you see in the rendering, which is the furthest away from the residential component and kind of blocked by the building. We’ve also shown an acoustical CMU concrete wall that surrounds the chiller yard, which will ultimately be added with acoustical treatments once we get the sound engineer’s mitigation recommendations.” ↩ 7. City of Chandler, Arizona, Ordinance No. 5033, adopted unanimously December 5, 2022, effective January 5, 2023. Zoning code: Chapter 35, Section 2214. See also City of Chandler, “Chandler’s data center ordinance now in effect,” January 11, 2023. ↩ 8. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, “Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers,” March 23, 2026, eesi.org: “Because there is a lack of reliable data from sound level meters and because most county or community noise ordinances are written to address noisy block parties (rather than data centers), most noise complaints go nowhere.” Kyle Hart of the National Parks Conservation Association is quoted: “because data center noise spans multiple frequency ranges, particularly in the low- frequency range, it is difficult to measure with a decibel meter and without reliable measurements it is difficult to enforce local noise ordinances for nearby residents.” ↩ 9. LSARS (IOVerge LLC), a commercial noise analysis services firm, “Data Center Noise: How Loud, How Far, How to Address,” lsars.com: “Without these items in the entitlement, the noise problem becomes a post-approval nuisance complaint with no enforcement teeth.” The checklist items referenced include: baseline ambient measurement, predicted operational noise at sensitive receptors, compliance analysis, specified mitigation conditions, post-construction verification testing, and a defined remedy if measured noise exceeds predicted levels. ↩ ↩ 10. League of Minnesota Cities, “Land Use: Conditional Use Permits,” lmc.org: “Cities may only grant CUPs for uses specifically listed in the zoning ordinance as conditional uses in a particular zoning district.” And: “A zoning ordinance typically details general standards that apply to all conditional uses… If a proposed conditional use satisfies both the general and specific standards set out in the zoning ordinance, the applicant is entitled to the conditional use permit.” Under § 462.3595, each CUP applicant must show their proposal satisfies “the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance” — conditions not written into the ordinance as standards must be negotiated case-by-case. ↩ ↩ 11. Minnesota Statutes § 462.3595 (Conditional Use Permits), History: 1982 c 507 s 25; 2005 c 4 s 110. Subd. 1: “The governing body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments… as conditional uses under zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved… by a showing by the applicant that the standards and criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use.” Subd. 3: a conditional use permit “shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed.” The authority to set conditions — including performance standards exceeding state minimums — flows from the ordinance standards and criteria required by Subd. 1, and is grounded in the general municipal zoning authority of Minnesota Statutes § 462.357, Subd. 1: “For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, a municipality may by ordinance regulate… the uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, public activities, or other purposes.” History: 1965 c 670 s 7 (as amended through 2024 c 85 s 104). ↩ 12. Zack Carlton, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): “Through the ordinance amendment process is where the city can establish different limitations or performance standards for a specific use. In this case some examples could be size, Page 172 of 223 cooling methods, noise mitigation, screening both visually and with noise, lighting, setbacks from property lines, setbacks from residential areas.” ↩ 13. City of Chandler, Ordinance No. 5033 (2022), Chapter 35, Section 2214. City of Chandler, “Chandler’s data center ordinance now in effect,” January 11, 2023: “Requires a pre-construction sound study to establish noise baseline with results provided to residents prior to a scheduled neighborhood meeting.” Noise mitigation must “ensure noise levels from a data center does not exceed levels observed during baseline study” — the baseline becomes the operative noise limit. ↩ 14. Albemarle County, Virginia, draft data center ordinance (2025; process indefinitely paused October 1, 2025), published at engage.albemarle.org: “Post-construction sound study within 60 days of occupancy or upon request. Mitigation measures are required if limits are exceeded.” engage.albemarle.org/data-center-regulations ↩ 15. PennFuture, Model Data Center Ordinance (pennfuture.org): “An as-built sound study shall be conducted six months after issuance of the certificate of occupancy and prior to the final escrow release for any land development phase. An as-built sound study may also be required thereafter by the [municipality]. If it is determined by the as-built sound study that there is a violation of the aforesaid noise limits, it shall be considered a violation of this [ordinance].” pennfuture.org/Files/Admin/Model-Data-Center-Ordinance(1).pdf ↩ 16. City of Chandler, Ordinance No. 5033 (2022), Chapter 35, Section 2214. City of Chandler, “Chandler’s data center ordinance now in effect,” January 11, 2023: “Establishes backup generator routine maintenance and testing time limitations, including notification protocol.” ↩ 17. City of Chandler, Ordinance No. 5033 (2022), Chapter 35, Section 2214. City of Chandler, “Chandler’s data center ordinance now in effect,” January 11, 2023: “Requires the data center to conduct an annual noise study during peak operation times for five years once construction of the data center is complete.” ↩ 18. Zack Carlton, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): “In this case I-1 and I-2 — a data center could be allowed in any parcel within those two zoning districts.” ↩ ↩ 19. Zack Carlton, May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing (diarized transcript): Standards discussed as potential elements of the ordinance — “size, cooling, noise mitigation, screening, lighting, setbacks, etc.” — were presented as illustrative, not as adopted requirements. No draft § 30-1293(d) language was submitted to the commission. ↩ ↩ 20. Larson Davis (division of PCB Piezotronics, Inc., a subsidiary of Amphenol Corporation), “Data Center Noise Monitoring,” larsondavis.com: “Low-frequency tones from data centers (fan hum) are often particularly bothersome because they are not reflected well in A-weighted measurements (a common frequency weighting applied to noise measurements that attenuates low-frequency noise). Low frequency humming doesn’t contribute much to A-weighted noise levels but is often the source of complaints.” Larson Davis distinguishes mid- and high-frequency broadband noise — addressable by traditional acoustic barriers — from low-frequency tonal content, for which A-weighting systematically underrepresents the problem. Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre (INVC), a UK- based noise remediation consultancy, further characterizes acoustic louvres as providing “virtually none” attenuation at low frequencies and states that “neither of these options can attenuate the classic data center hum.” 26 ↩ 21. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, “Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers,” March 23, 2026, eesi.org: Complaints in Chandler began in 2014; city adopted zoning code amendment in 2022. ↩ 22. Data Center Dynamics, “Prince William residents complain of ‘catastrophic noise’ from data centers,” July 19, 2022: “The Prince William County board specifically excluded air-conditioning noise from regulation in a 1989 ordinance… As a result, the County has no legal ability to control noise at any level from data center cooling equipment.” ↩ 23. Environmental and Energy Study Institute, “Communities Are Raising Noise Pollution Concerns About Data Centers,” March 23, 2026, eesi.org: “Amazon, the owner of some of the facilities, has decided to retrofit its data centers with acoustical shrouds as part of its noise-reduction efforts.” ↩ 24. Prince William County Board of County Supervisors, Ordinance 23-07, adopted February 28, 2023 (7–1 vote), amending County Code Section 14.4(b) to remove the commercial HVAC nighttime noise exemption with a one-year sunset clause. Board Chair Ann Wheeler stated: “This is just a first step, that’s why it had a sunset clause in it. This was the quickest, easiest thing we could do, which was take away the exemption for commercial air conditioning at night.” Brentsville Supervisor Jeanine Lawson described it as “a great first step.” Sources: pwcva.gov official news release, “Prince William Board of County Supervisors Votes to Initiate Amendments to County Code Regarding Data Centers,” February 28, 2023; and “Prince William board moves to lessen data center hum,” Inside Nova, March 8, 2023. ↩ 25. City of Elk River, Zoning Map (adopted October 3, 2022), elkrivermn.gov: Meadowvale Elementary School parcel is classified R-1 Single Family Residential. elkrivermn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/368/Zoning-Map-1032022 ↩ Page 173 of 223 © 2026 elkriverdatacenter.com · About & Terms of Use 26. Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre (INVC), a UK-based noise remediation consultancy, “Low-cost high efficiency data center noise reduction,” invc.com: “Acoustic louvres typically provide modest attenuation (virtually none at low frequencies)… Neither of these options can attenuate the classic data center hum.” INVC distinguishes two noise types: mid/high-frequency broadband (addressable by barriers and louvres) and low-frequency tonal hum (not addressable by conventional methods). ↩ Page 174 of 223 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To City Council Item Number 7.4 Meeting Date June 15, 2026 Prepared By Zack Carlton, Community Development Director Item Description Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit: Data Center, Michael Margulies, 19178 Industrial Blvd NW Reviewed by Chris Leeseberg Cal Portner Justin Dunford Action Requested Open the public hearing, receive public comment, and continue the hearing to July 6, 2026. Background/Discussion The applicant, Michael Margulies, representing Elk River Capital, LLC (Swervo Development), has submitted two land use applications in support of a proposed data center at 19178 Industrial Blvd NW. The property is located within the city's I-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and is approximately 3.23 acres. The property includes an existing 62,000 SF industrial building that operated as an injection molding facility until late last year. The applicant proposes modifying the existing building to house a data center. Proposed changes include demolishing 5,000 SF of the building to improve the loading dock area and adding cooling equipment along the south-west corner of the building. The data center proposes closed-loop cooling, which does not require large volumes of water but instead uses glycol-based cooling equipment to keep the technology at a safe operating temperature. Submitted applications include an ordinance amendment to add data centers as an allowed use within the zoning district and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), anticipating that the use would require a CUP for zoning approval. Ordinance Amendment Application As data centers are not currently allowed in the I-1 zoning district, an ordinance amendment is required. Data centers meet the type of industry, tax base, and job/economic base for use in this district. This process allows the city to proactively establish development standards for data centers anywhere within the district. Examples of standards that may be included are limiting their size, maximum energy use, cooling system, noise mitigation, and buffering requirements. The city is not required to add data centers as an allowed use, and the amendment process is designed to give elected and appointed officials an opportunity to review the benefits and challenges before making a final decision. Under current zoning codes, adding data centers to the I-1 district also allows their use in the I-2 zoning district. Conditional Use Permit Application Page 175 of 223 The CUP application allows the city to review a specific project on a specific site. The application is reviewed against established standards within the ordinance. As a part of this process, the city would include specific conditions of approval to address potentially negative impacts of a project. These conditions must directly relate to the proposed project. With this particular application, city staff and city officials would be reviewing the project against the standards established by the ordinance amendment and the CUP process. Public Hearing The city recognizes that data centers have raised important questions and concerns in our region and across the state. The city is seeking input from the public as we review these applications. A public hearing is an important step in this process, and staff would like to collect questions and comments from the community to help inform the decision-making process. As data center technology is rapidly changing and can be technical at times, staff will review the feedback alongside the specific details of these applications. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 26, 2026, and will address public comments from both meetings (PC & CC) during the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. The developer is also completing a noise study, which will be available for review in the June 23, 2026, Planning Commission packet and after the meeting. Upcoming Meetings The Planning Commission will hold another public hearing on June 23, 2026. Staff expects the Commission to make a recommendation on both the ordinance amendment and CUP applications on that date. However, the statutory review timeline does allow an additional extension to July 28, 2026, if necessary. With a Planning Commission recommendation on June 23, 2026, the City Council meeting on July 6, 2026, would be the first opportunity for a decision to approve or deny the applications. Financial Impact None. Mission/Policy/Goal Appropriately govern in an ever-changing environment. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Narrative 3. Site Plan 4. Floor Plan 5. Public Comments as of 6-10-2026 6. Map of I-1 and I-2 Zones Page 176 of 223 Page 177 of 223 19178 Industrial Blvd NW – Conditional Use Permit Narrative Applicant seeks a Conditional Use Permit under Section 30-651 et. seq. of the Elk River City Code to allow 19178 Industrial Blvd NW (the “Property”) to be used as a data center (the “Proposed Use”). Property Description and Use. The Property is a 3.223 acre parcel of land currently improved with two connected one-story concrete block and metal sided buildings with a total foundation area of 63,190 square feet. The buildings were constructed in phases during the period 1978-1997. The Property is in an entirely industrial area of the City and there are no residential properties located within 500 feet of any boundary of the Property. It has been used for industrial and manufacturing purposes since 1978. Zoning Status. The Property is currently zoned L-1 (Light Industrial). By separate application, Applicant is seeking to amend the Elk River City Code Section 30-1293(d) to add data center use as a conditional use in the L-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Exterior Modifications. Applicant does not intend to make any modifications to the exterior modifications to the exterior of the buildings or to the site except to demolish approximately 5,000 square feet of the building to create a more efficient loading dock area. Proposed Use. The Proposed Use is a 58,000 square foot data center to be leased to one or more data center operators. Employment. The Proposed Use will create approximately 100 construction jobs during the period of construction for repurposing the building. The construction will take approximately six to nine months. Repurposing construction will commence in Summer, 2026. Upon commencement of operations, the Proposed Use will employ approximately 40 persons divided among three eight-hour working shifts. It is expected that no shift will have more than ten employees on site. Parking. The Property currently has 72 parking stalls. City Code does not have a specific parking requirement relative to data centers. City staff suggests that Elk River City Code Section 30-903(11) (Warehouse/Manufacturing) and specifically Section 30-903(11)(a) provides the best guidance for parking for this use. Section 30-903(11)(a) requires the following parking: “… one parking space for each two employees on the major shift or one parking space for each 2,000 square feet of floor area, whichever is greater, plus one space for each company motor vehicle when customarily kept on the premises.” Page 178 of 223 2 The likely maximum number of employees during the major shift is 10, thereby requiring 20 parking spaces. Alternatively, assuming approximately 58,900 square feet of floor area, the parking requirement would be 29 spaces. Therefore, current available parking is more than double the required parking. Satisfaction of Conditional Use Permit Requirements. Elk River City Code Section 30-654 sets forth the standards that must be met in order for a Conditional Use Permit to be issued. The Property and the Proposed Use satisfy all of the required standards. Specifically, the Proposed Use: 1. Will not endanger, injure or detrimentally affect the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City; 2. Is consistent with the Elk River Comprehensive Plan; 3. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; 4. Will be served adequately by and will not adversely affect essential public facilities and services including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, parks and schools; and will not, in particular, create traffic congestion or interference with traffic on adjacent and neighboring public thoroughfares; 5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons or property because of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, dust or vibrations; 6. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance; and 7. Will fully comply with all other requirements of this Code, including any applicable requirements and standards for the issuance of a license or permit to establish and operate the proposed use in the city Page 179 of 223 Page 180 of 223 Page 181 of 223 Page 182 of 223 Page 183 of 223 Page 184 of 223 June 23, 2026 Elk River Planning Commission Elk River City Council 13065 Orono Parkway Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Ordinance Amendment OA 26-02 and Conditional Use Permit CU 26-05 — Data Center, 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW Dear Chair, Commissioners, Mayor, and Council Members, I've spoken at every public hearing on this application since it was introduced. I’d like to thank city staff along with the planning commission and council for their efforts so far in drafting an ordinance on this important topic. I'm submitting this written comment to put the technical and procedural concerns below into the record ahead of the July 6 City Council vote. The points are organized in six sections: changes to the draft ordinance since the June 18 version; the noise study's technical adequacy; a mismatch between the facility's backup generation capacity and its stated backup requirement; the comparability of the two setback precedent facilities; a gap in the decommissioning provision; and a set of process questions I'd ask staff and the City Attorney to address before the vote. To be clear, I continue to request that OA 26-02 be denied. In its place, I'm asking for two things: a moratorium, and a task force with broad representation, given the time and mandate to study this issue and produce comprehensive guidance addressing how modern data center equipment affects our communities. 1. Changes to the Draft Ordinance Since June 18 The version dated June 22, 2026 differs from the June 18 version in three respects that weaken enforcement, and two that strengthen it. Both versions are in the record; I'd ask that this comparison be considered alongside them. Weakened. The June 18 draft required a noise study "[p]rior to application 1 ." The June 22 draft requires the same study "[p]rior to approval 2 ." This moves the noise study from a completeness requirement — gating whether the application is accepted — to a pre-decision requirement that does not gate the statutory clock under Minn. Stat. § 15.99. Weakened. The June 18 draft required that "[d]ocumentation of the [MPCA/EPA] review must be submitted with the application" and that, if an environmental review is found necessary, "it must be completed prior to submittal of a Conditional Use Permit Application 3 ." Both provisions are absent from the June 22 draft, which requires only that generator systems "comply with applicable [MPCA] and [EPA] emissions standards," with no submission or pre-application timing requirement attached 4 . Page 185 of 223 Weakened. The June 18 draft required that, where post-construction noise exceeds permissible levels, remediation "must be completed within 6 months of the date of review 5 ." The June 22 draft requires the applicant to "develop and submit for review and approval, mitigation measures," but no longer specifies a completion deadline of any kind 6 . Strengthened. The June 22 draft adds Z-weighted (dBZ) measurement alongside A-weighted and C-weighted measurement 7 . Z-weighting is unweighted across the audible spectrum and captures low-frequency content that C-weighting still partially discounts. *Analysis: this addresses the choice of weighting curve, not the resolution, load-point coverage, or measured-versus-assumed defects identified in Section 2 below — it is a real addition, but does not by itself make the spectral reporting requirement adequate.* Strengthened. The June 22 draft makes low-frequency noise and vibration an independent basis for both the mitigation requirement and the post-construction compliance trigger, separate from MPCA dB(A) compliance 8 . This is the first point at which the ordinance text decouples low-frequency adequacy from bare Rule 7030 compliance, and I'd ask that it be preserved and built on rather than narrowed in any further revision. 2. The Noise Study Falls Short of the Manufacturer's Specification and Recognized Acoustic Methodology The ordinance's own text requiring "full frequency spectra to identify low-frequency and tonal components" is broad enough that the submitted study likely satisfies it as written — A-weighted, C-weighted, and now Z-weighted measurements are themselves integrations across the full audible range, and the study reports all three. That is the underlying problem: the ordinance's current language sets a bar low enough to clear without producing the band-by-band data needed to evaluate tonal content, and the submitted study falls short not of that bar, but of standards the equipment manufacturer and the acoustic engineering field already treat as necessary for this purpose. A. The submitted study falls short of what the equipment manufacturer's own specification calls for. The chillers specified for this project are York model YVFA0459 air-cooled screw chillers 9 . York's published guide specification for this chiller line states, in relevant part: "A. Provide acoustical sound power or sound pressure level data in decibels (dB) at the scheduled eight (8) octave band center frequencies. A-weighted sound data alone is not acceptable. B. Provide all sound power or sound pressure level data at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% load. C. Supplied equipment shall not exceed scheduled sound power or sound pressure level data at any load point... D. Acoustical performance ratings shall be in accordance with AHRI Standard 370. 10 " Page 186 of 223 The submitted noise study (ESI Engineering, Project P3205, June 16, 2026) reports chiller sound data at one load point — 100% load, 101.4°F ambient — not the four points the manufacturer's own specification calls for 9 . The study further states that the 31.5 Hz octave band was not measured for this equipment: "[b]ased on measurement data we have for similar chillers, we assumed the chiller sound level at the 31.5 Hz octave band was equal to the level at 63 Hz 9 ." Analysis: the manufacturer's own specification exists in part because A-weighted summary data is not adequate to characterize this equipment's low-frequency tonal output; the study that the city's draft ordinance treats as the basis for the noise condition does not meet that specification's own stated minimum. B. Spectral resolution and receptor coverage are partial — and inconsistent with the study's own baseline methodology. The study's baseline ambient noise analysis used 1/3-octave-band data to identify and attribute specific noise sources: "[b]ased on a review of the hourly noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies, traffic produced the loudest levels in the 400 Hz to 2,000 Hz range," and separately, the 4:00 a.m. exceedance at the residential receiver "was caused by trains 11 ," a conclusion likewise reached "based on... the noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies 11 ." The calculated equipment noise results presented in Section D of the study, by contrast, report only 1/1-octave-band data — a coarser resolution than ANSI S12.9 Part 4 and ISO 1996-2 Annex C call for in tonal-penalty assessment — at just two single bands (31.5 Hz, 63 Hz), and apply that analysis to only three of the nine receiver locations evaluated in the study 12 . The remaining six receivers — including locations near Meadowvale Elementary and Aegir Brewery, both of which show zero or near-zero compliance margin in the study's own results 13 — receive no spectral characterization at all. Analysis: the study demonstrates that 1/3-octave-band analysis was both available to ESI and methodologically necessary for identifying frequency-specific noise sources at the baseline stage — that is how they determined trains, rather than something else, caused the 4:00 a.m. exceedance. The same resolution is not applied to the calculated data center equipment noise, which is the subject the study exists to evaluate. A study that uses finer resolution to characterize background traffic and trains than to characterize the facility's own chillers and generators has not demonstrated a resolution limitation — it has demonstrated a choice. C. Suggested replacement language for the ordinance, drafted to close this gap as a reporting requirement. I'd recommend the following language, drafted to function as a reporting and disclosure requirement rather than a numeric compliance standard, consistent with the principle that Minn. Stat. § 116.07, Subd. 2(c) preempts local noise standards that compete with Rule 7030's numeric thresholds but does not address study methodology: "The study must report sound pressure or sound power levels in 1/3-octave bands, per ANSI S12.9 Part 4 or ISO 1996-2 Annex C, at all load points for which the equipment manufacturer publishes acoustical performance data, and at every receptor location identified in the study. For each reported band, the study must state whether the value is a Page 187 of 223 direct measurement or a manufacturer-sourced rating; any band level that is assumed, interpolated, or extrapolated rather than measured or manufacturer-sourced must be identified as such, with the basis for the value stated. The study must also report the results of a narrow-band tonal audibility analysis per ISO/TS 20065, alongside integrated A-weighted (dBA), C-weighted (dBC), and Z-weighted (dBZ) measurements." Analysis: this version requires disclosure of what was measured, how, and at what resolution, without the ordinance text itself setting a pass/fail spectral threshold — the City retains the ability to act on what the disclosure shows through the existing CUP conditioning and revocation mechanism, without creating an alternative numeric noise standard in the ordinance text. D. The study omits the emergency scenario most relevant to nearby residents. The study's stated methodology is that "[a]ll the chillers may run continuously during daytime and nighttime hours[, but o]nly one generator will ever run at a time for maintenance, and only during daytime hours 14 ." Calculated results are reported only for "chillers only" and "chillers and one genset" conditions; no scenario models all ten generators operating simultaneously 13 , which is what an actual utility outage or grid disturbance would require, given that the facility's backup generation is sized to less than full load (Section 3 below). Combined with the resolution gap in Section 2.B, the city currently has no spectral data describing what nearby residents would experience during the kind of event the backup generation system exists to handle. E. The 31.5/63 Hz design goal is an indoor criterion applied to an outdoor design problem. The study's low-frequency design goals — 80 dB at 31.5 Hz and 84 dB at 63 Hz, measured outdoors at residential receivers — are derived as follows: "[a]ccording to ASHRAE, indoor noise levels of more than 65 dB at 31.5 Hz, and 69 dB at 63 Hz, are likely to generate vibration that may be perceptible[, with a] slight possibility of rattles in light fixtures, doors, windows, etc. 15 " The study adds an assumed 15 dB of building attenuation to those indoor thresholds to produce the 80/84 dB outdoor figures 15 . Analysis: the ASHRAE Room Criterion Mark II curve cited here is a diagnostic threshold for whether mechanical-system noise generated inside a building will cause perceptible structural vibration or rattle to building occupants — a property-condition and occupant-comfort metric, not a community health or sleep-disturbance criterion. Applying it to noise generated outside a building and received by residents in neighboring homes substitutes a metric built for a different problem. The 15 dB building-attenuation figure used to convert the indoor threshold to an outdoor design goal is also not established for the specific residential structures at the affected receiver locations; low-frequency sound transmission loss through residential building envelopes is not uniform across construction types, and facade attenuation figures are typically characterized at frequencies well above 63 Hz. Page 188 of 223 F. The equipment site plan exists and was used, but is not in the public record. The study's stated design conditions include "[e]quipment site plan received [by ESI] May 21, 2026 16 ," used as an input to the noise modeling. This document has not been made part of the public record for this proceeding and I'd ask that it be added. 3. The Backup Generation Capacity Does Not Match the Facility's Stated Backup Requirement At the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, ERMU General Manager Mark Hanson stated: "[t]ypically data centers run at about 80 percent... They will also have 100 percent backup generation — that is also a requirement in the agreement 17 ." The generators specified for this facility are ten Cummins model DQKAN units rated at 2,500 kW each 18 — confirmed in the City's own written Q&A response as "10 generators[, each a] 2,500 KW Cummins Diesel Generator 19 ." Ten units at 2,500 kW total 25 MW. Against the facility's stated 33 MW maximum design capacity 20 , that is 75.8% coverage — a 24.2% (8 MW) shortfall relative to the facility's full nameplate load, before any reduction for generator redundancy (an N+1 configuration, holding one unit in reserve, would reduce available backup to 22.5 MW, a 31.8% shortfall). Analysis: I'd ask the City to clarify, on the record, whether the ESA's "100 percent backup generation" requirement is measured against the facility's full 33 MW nameplate capacity or against the approximately 80% typical operating load Mr. Hanson separately described. If the latter — roughly 26.4 MW — the installed 25 MW of backup capacity is a closer, though still short, match. As stated, the 25 MW of installed backup capacity does not provide 100 percent backup against the facility's permitted maximum load under either reading, and I'd ask that this be resolved and stated plainly before final action. 4. The Two Comparator Facilities Used to Justify the Setback Are Not Comparable on Three Independent Measures Staff's stated basis for the ordinance's setback standards is that "[t]he two existing data centers have more than 50 homes within 750 feet of their boundaries... The city receives very few complaints regarding their operation 21 ." I'd ask the Commission and Council to weigh that track record against three respects in which the comparator facilities differ from the one proposed. Age and equipment generation. The City's own written Q&A response states that "[t]he existing data centers were constructed in 2006 and 2007 with design capacities of 10 MW and 20 MW[, and] are approximately 160,000 SF and 240,000 SF in size 22 ." Both facilities are Page 189 of 223 roughly 19–20 years old, predating the dry, air-cooled chiller technology proposed for this project. Power density. Dividing the City's own published figures: the existing 10 MW / 160,000 SF facility operates at approximately 62.5 W/SF; the existing 20 MW / 240,000 SF facility at approximately 83.3 W/SF. The proposed facility, at 33 MW design capacity in approximately 60,000 SF 22 , operates at approximately 550 W/SF — roughly 6.6 to 8.8 times the power density of the two facilities cited as precedent for the setback standard. Cooling technology. Satellite and street-level imagery of both existing facility sites shows water tanks paired with cooling-tower fan cells, consistent with water-cooled cooling tower equipment rather than the dry, air-cooled chillers proposed for this project. *Analysis: I have not independently confirmed via permit or water-billing records whether this is open evaporative cooling (consumptive) or a closed-circuit fluid cooler; I'd ask the City to clarify the cooling system type for both existing facilities for the record, given that the draft ordinance's zero-consumptive-water mandate is being applied to a facility design that may differ materially from the precedent facilities on this point as well.* None of the three factors that most directly drive a facility's noise emission, thermal output, and water consumption profile — age and equipment generation, power density, and cooling technology — match between the precedent facilities and the one under consideration. A low-complaint history from a fundamentally different equipment generation is not, on its own, a sufficient basis for setting the setback standard that will apply citywide under OA 26-02. 5. The Decommissioning Provision Has No Funding Mechanism The draft ordinance requires only that "[t]he applicant submit[] a decommissioning plan... outlining the estimated decommissioning timeframe, costs, and procedures 23 ." No bond, escrow, letter of credit, or other security instrument is required to back that estimate. The Electric Service Agreement between ERMU and Elk River Capital LLC addresses what happens if the developer does not proceed: "[i]f the Customer does not proceed with the Project, ERMU is not obligated to return any of the dollars that ERMU has already spent or encumbered as Infrastructure Costs... [t]he Customer will be responsible for windup and/or decommissioning costs 24 ." That is a contractual assignment of responsibility, not a funding mechanism. By contrast, the same agreement requires the Customer to post a letter of credit or cash deposit the moment two payments are missed in a contract year 25 , and sets a $1,000,000-per-year early termination payment for default on the power supply agreement 26 — both instruments protect ERMU's revenue interest specifically; neither protects the City's interest in not inheriting an abandoned facility containing ten chillers, ten diesel generators, and on-site fuel storage. Elk River Capital LLC is a single-purpose entity formed April 4, 2026, with no operating or asset history independent of this project. I'd ask the City to consider requiring that the Page 190 of 223 decommissioning plan's estimated cost be secured by a bond, escrow account, or irrevocable letter of credit payable to the City, with the estimate subject to periodic reappraisal over the life of the facility, and a triggering mechanism — extended cessation of operations, change of ownership, or bankruptcy — requiring the security to be posted or increased rather than relying on voluntary performance by whatever entity holds the property at that time. 6. Questions for Staff and the City Attorney Before July 6 Two procedural questions raised by the above sections are appropriately resolved by staff and counsel rather than asserted by me as settled: Completeness mechanism for noise study deficiencies. I'd ask whether a future requirement that a conforming noise study be a required submittal for CUP application completeness — resolved during the City's statutory completeness review under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, before the decision clock begins — is one the City would consider for applications submitted after OA 26-02 is adopted. Separately, for applications already deemed complete, I'd ask whether the City has authority to condition final CUP approval on submission of a supplemental or corrected study where the original is found deficient against the ordinance's reporting requirements, without affecting the § 15.99 deadline. Whether the statutory deadline can be tolled by a request for supplemental information. I'd ask the City Attorney to clarify whether Minn. Stat. § 15.99 permits the City to formally request supplemental information from an applicant and toll the decision deadline while awaiting a response, as a mechanism distinct from the completeness determination itself. If such a mechanism exists, it may be the most relevant tool available for addressing the noise study deficiencies described in Section 2 within the time remaining before the August 25, 2026 statutory deadline. Thank you for your consideration of these points. Respectfully submitted, Jesse Lang 19371 Upland St NW Page 191 of 223 Notes 1. Draft Ordinance (June 18, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1): "Prior to application, a noise study completed by a third-party engineer must be submitted demonstrating that the operations of the Data Center facility will comply with MPCA noise standards." 2. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1): "Prior to approval, a noise study completed by a third-party engineer must be submitted demonstrating that the operations of the Data Center facility will comply with MPCA noise standards." 3. Draft Ordinance (June 18, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(f)(3)-(4): "All generator systems must comply with applicable [MPCA] and [EPA] emissions standards. Documentation of the review must be submitted with the application. If the MPCA or EPA determine that an environmental review is necessary, it must be completed prior to submittal of a Conditional Use Permit Application." 4. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(f)(3): "All generator systems must comply with applicable [MPCA] and [EPA] emissions standards." No submission or pre-application timing requirement is stated in this or any subsequent subsection. 5. Draft Ordinance (June 18, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1)(f): "the applicant shall be required to develop and submit for review and approval, mitigation measures to bring noise levels below acceptable limits. The work must be completed within 6 months of the date of review." 6. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1)(f): "the applicant shall be required to develop and submit for review and approval, mitigation measures to bring noise levels within acceptable limits." No completion deadline is stated. 7. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1)(e): "The study must include A-weighted (dBA), C-weighted (dBC) and Z-weighted (dBZ) measurements, with full frequency spectra to identify low-frequency and tonal components." 8. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(e)(1)(d) and (f): mitigation measures must "minimize disturbance caused by low-frequency noise and vibrations," and the post-construction compliance trigger fires where "mitigation measures to address low-frequency noise or vibrations are inadequate," independent of perimeter dB(A) compliance. 9. ESI Engineering, "Summary Report for Data Center Noise Control," Project P3205, prepared for Elk River Capital, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. D-1: "York performance report for the ten model YVFA0459, 550 nominal ton air-cooled screw chillers... The York report provided unit sound power levels at each octave band frequency from 63 Hz to 8,000 Hz, which sum to an overall level of 105 dBA for the 100% load, 101.4°F ambient temperature condition. Based on measurement data we have for similar chillers, we assumed the chiller sound level at the 31.5 Hz octave band was equal to the level at 63 Hz." 10. York / Johnson Controls, "Model YVFA Air-Cooled Liquid Chillers With VSD Screw Compressor and Integrated Free Cooling," Page 192 of 223 (https://gfg.com.pk/gac/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/201.31-EG1.pdf) Engineering Guide Specification, § 2.07 (Acoustical Data). 11. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. C-5: "Based on a review of the hourly noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies, traffic produced the loudest levels in the 400 Hz to 2,000 Hz range. This noise was dominant during both daytime and nighttime hours... Based on a review of the weather conditions, the audio recordings, and the noise level results at ⅓ octave band frequencies, the L10 exceedance during the 4:00 AM hour was caused by trains." 12. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. D-2 and Table D-3, p. D-12: nine receiver locations (A through I) evaluated; 1/1-octave low-frequency analysis (31.5 Hz, 63 Hz, dBC-dBA) reported only for Locations A, B, and C. 13. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), Table D-2, p. D-7: Location D (NAC 1) calculated at 60 dBA against a 60 dBA daytime limit with chillers and one genset; Location G (NAC 2) calculated at 63 dBA against a 65 dBA limit under both chillers-only and chillers-plus-genset conditions. 14. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. iii: "Ten chillers and ten emergency power generators will be installed at the existing building... All the chillers may run continuously during daytime and nighttime hours. Only one generator will ever run at a time for maintenance, and only during daytime hours." 15. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. D-1: design condition 2, "[m]aximum project design goals for NAC 1 residential receivers of 80 dB at 31.5 Hz and 84 dB at 63 Hz." Derivation per ESI staff narrative, citing the 2023 ASHRAE Handbook of HVAC Applications, Ch. 49, Room Criterion (RC) Curves, Mark II: indoor noise levels above 65 dB at 31.5 Hz and 69 dB at 63 Hz "are likely to generate vibration that may be perceptible," with residential buildings assumed to provide approximately 15 dB of attenuation at these frequencies to derive the outdoor design goals. 16. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver 2), p. D-1: design condition 5, "[e]quipment site plan received May 21, 2026." 17. Mark Hanson, General Manager, Elk River Municipal Utilities, Planning Commission hearing, May 26, 2026 (diarized transcript), 00:19:28: "Typically data centers run at about 80 percent. The requester could provide a more accurate answer. 80 percent of requested load. They will also have 100 percent backup generation — that is also a requirement in the agreement." 18. ESI Engineering, P3205, June 16, 2026 (ver. 2), p. D-2: "Cummins specification sheet for the ten 2,500 kW model DQKAN diesel generator sets... each genset produces overall sound power levels of 128 dBA radiated from the unit, and 133 dBA at the open exhaust." 19. City of Elk River, "Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments Regarding the Proposed Data Center at 19178 Industrial Boulevard," June 23, 2026, response to Question 10: "the Page 193 of 223 specific generator [is] a 2,500 KW Cummins Diesel Generator – model DQKAN. The proposed facility would include 10 generators." 20. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(b): "[t]he total energy use of the Data Center facility shall not exceed 35 MW of power." Facility design capacity of 33 MW per Electric Service Agreement and City Q&A response cited above. 21. City of Elk River, Request for Action, June 23, 2026, "Ordinance Amendment": "[t]hese setbacks were established by reviewing the current data center setbacks from residential properties and peer community ordinances. The two existing data centers have more than 50 homes within 750 feet of their boundaries and are located across the road from residential zoning districts. The city receives very few complaints regarding their operation." 22. City of Elk River, "Written Responses to Public Hearing Comments," June 23, 2026, response to Question 6: "[t]he existing data centers were constructed in 2006 and 2007 with design capacities of 10 MW and 20 MW... approximately 160,000 SF and 240,000 SF in size... The proposed facility is approximately 60,000 SF in size and has a design capacity for 33 MW of power." 23. Draft Ordinance (June 22, 2026 version), § (d)(5)(g): "[t]he applicant submits a decommissioning plan, prepared by a qualified professional, outlining the estimated decommissioning timeframe, costs, and procedures for safe shutdown, removal of equipment, disposal or recycling of materials, and site restoration." 24. Revised Market-Based Electric Service Agreement for 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW (draft, subject to Commission approval), § 8.12: "If the Customer does not proceed with the Project, ERMU is not obligated to return any of the dollars that ERMU has already spent or encumbered as Infrastructure Costs for the Project. The Customer will be responsible for windup and/or decommissioning costs." 25. Revised Market-Based Electric Service Agreement for 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW (draft), § 5.6: "If the Customer fails to make a timely payment under this Agreement twice in a Contract Year, then upon the second occurrence... the Customer must provide... a letter of credit or other Performance Assurance in an amount equal to one-and-one-half times the then applicable monthly prepayment amount." 26. Revised Market-Based Electric Service Agreement for 19178 Industrial Boulevard NW (draft), § 14.6(a)(iii): early termination payment of "$1,000,000 per Contract Year multiplied by the years (or months, if partial Contract Year) remaining in the Initial Term of the Agreement," payable where the Customer is the Defaulting Party. Page 194 of 223 Ordinance Amendment Michael Margulies Swervo Development Page 195 of 223 Applicant’s Request §The applicant is Michael Marguliese working on behalf of Swervo Development – the developer. §Two land use applications: §Ordinance Amendment to allow data centers in the I-1, Light Industrial zoning district. §Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 33 MW data center at 19178 Industrial Blvd NW. §Former 60,000 SF manufacturing facility (1978). §City must decide by August 25, 2026. Page 196 of 223 Where are we? §The Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on May 26th and June 15th. §Significant concerns about data center impacts. §What equipment is proposed? §Noise impacts. §Environmental concerns. §Separate the review into separate discussions. Page 197 of 223 Where are we? §Ordinance Amendment – citywide standards. §Today – June 23 – PC reviews draft ordinance. §July 6 – CC reviews draft ordinance. §If ordinance is approved by CC. §Conditional Use Permit – specific project and site. §July 28 – PC reviews CUP request. §August 3 – CC reviews CUP request. Page 198 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §Data centers are not currently allowed in any district. §Existing two are legal non-conforming (BP zone). §Allowed to continue operation in perpetuity. §Draft ordinance includes specific standards based on comments from public hearings. §Residential setbacks (parcel and structure). §No city water used. §Specific noise standards (MPCA standards). §MPCA review for air emission standards. §Decommissioning plans. Page 199 of 223 Page 200 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §Data center facility at least 750-feet from residential structure and 500-feet from residential parcel. §Total energy use limited to 35 MW. §Formal agreement between city and ERMU. §Facility must be no larger than 75,000 SF. §Cooling may not use municipal or well water. §Closed loop with zero consumption of water. §Cooling systems may not have a physical connection to municipal system. Page 201 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §Noise study completed prior to application. §Noise generated by facility must meet MPCA noise standards. §Cities cannot be more restrictive. Page 202 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §C-weighted and Z-weighted analysis. §Evaluate low frequency noise impacts. §Noise mitigation recommendations. §Post construction compliance testing. §Annual noise monitoring. §Applicant has shared concerns with the draft ordinance as it relates to noise. §City attorney reviewing their comments. Page 203 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §Limits backup generators to emergency use only. §Testing must occur M-F 8am to 4pm. §City can further restrict if necessary. §Proposed generator system must be reviewed by MPCA for emissions compliance. §Diesel storage tanks must be screened from view within public right-of-way. §Decommissioning plan to prepare site for transition to a new use. Page 204 of 223 Ordinance Amendment §Updates – add items inadvertently removed. §Require noise study to be completed BEFORE application submittal. §Require MPCA review BEFORE application submittal. §Add the 6-month timeline to remedy noise issues. §More detail regarding the decommissioning plan. Page 205 of 223 Public Comments §Would this lead to more data centers? §Possibly, but they must meet standards in the ordinance. §Follow the CUP and public hearing process. §Power needs also need to be met – not available in all areas. Page 206 of 223 Page 207 of 223 Page 208 of 223 Page 209 of 223 Page 210 of 223 Public Comments §Different types of data centers (AI v. Edge v. Cloud). §AI – Purpose built facility with specialized computing equipment. 100+ MW, 100s of acres. §Cloud – digital warehouse, less need for specialized chips. (Gmail storage) §Colocation or Edge – Rent space for own servers. Multiple users in one building. Lease out space. §Ordinance does not differentiate. Must follow ordinance regardless of data stored/processed. Page 211 of 223 Public Comments §How does a closed loop cooling system work? Page 212 of 223 Public Comments §Why is the city reviewing this? §The city is required to act on any complete application that has been submitted to the city. §The city must make a decision under the timeline established under state law. §The city cannot choose to ignore or not act on an application. §Failure to act would result in an automatic approval. Page 213 of 223 Public Comments §Who is applicant, Swervo, and Elk River Capital, LLC. §Michael Margulies was hired by Swervo as a project representative. §Elk River Capital, LLC was established to own and operate the proposed facility. Separate business interests. §Wholly owned by Swervo Development Corp of which Ned Abdul is the principal. §Not affiliated with Monticello or Becker facilities. Page 214 of 223 Public Comments §What are the benefits to the city? §Employment opportunities. §Same as a similar sized warehouse. §Property tax. §Same as any commercial or industrial business. §Supports a need – data storage and processing. §Revenue sharing between ERMU and city. §$600,000 to $800,000 for current application. Page 215 of 223 Action Requested §Receive public comments regarding the ordinance amendment and close the hearing. §Continue hearing for CUP to July 28, 2026. §Discuss the merits of the proposed amendment and recommended changes (from public and applicant). §Recommend approval of updated ordinance. §Or §Recommend denial, citing specific reasons. Page 216 of 223 Future Meetings §July 6, 2026 – City Council Meeting. §If the PC takes action, the city council will review. §July 28, 2026 – PC review of CUP. §August 3, 2026 – CC review of CUP. Page 217 of 223 Page 218 of 223 Page 219 of 223 Page 220 of 223 Page 221 of 223 Page 222 of 223 The Elk River Vision A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity Request for Action To Planning Commission Item Number 9.1 Meeting Date June 23, 2026 Prepared By Zack Carlton, Community Development Director Item Description Roles and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission Reviewed by Katie Porath Action Requested No action required. Background/Discussion With the new commissioners that have been appointed over the last year, staff felt it would be a good opportunity to review the roles and duties of a Planning Commissioner. We will also discuss the planning process, the Comprehensive Plan, and how it all fits together. Financial Impact None. Mission/Policy/Goal Together we win. Attachments None Page 223 of 223