Laserfiche WebLink
May 14, 2014 Location: Fbrama>H.:Drive>15153>RndingsFeport <br />X3 Municipal Campus/Middle hool <br />Sibject Ropertywas guided for said use. This comparison is subjective and arbitrary. Based <br />on information the Oty has available, this comparison is most relevant and applicable to this <br />specific situation. This base comparison has been utilized by Qty staff to draw conclusions <br />and provide information to the OMCSudy Group. <br />D. A data center is a lower impact use than either guided uses for the Sabject Property <br />(munidpal center campus or middle school). Data centers yield significantly less traffic, <br />significantly less employment, quality buildings and less noise than either guided uses. In <br />general, based on City Gaff research, data centers 'want/desire' to remain as low <br />profile/ hidden as possible from surrounding properties. For the reasons stated, Oty Gaff <br />believes it would be very challenging to support an accusation daiming a data center would <br />have a negative effect on surrounding properties values—in comparison to the guided uses <br />(munidpal center campus or middle school). <br />E A number of OMC2udy Group members indicated they worked with real estate agents and <br />real estate appraisers whom indicated construction of data center on the Sabject Property <br />will result in a minimum 10-15%decrease in surrounding residential property values. Oty <br />Gaff did request for an opportunity to follow up with real estate agents and appraisers <br />whom OMC S*udy Group members received professional opinions. An opport unity to <br />communicate with said appraisers and real estate agents was not realized. A concern Staff <br />retains is what base comparison said real estate agents utilized to determine a loss in <br />property values (i.e. see section Cabove). <br />F. In an effort to mitigate this concern, Gaff would emphasize the importance of quality land <br />use regulations (including proper transitioning standards) and quality building design if the <br />Sabject R'opertywere to be developed for a data center. Gaff recommendsthe Oty update <br />their comprehensive plan to reflect desired zoning before moving forward with either <br />development scenario (residential or data center). <br />NOTE Previous to 2006, the Oty participated a one-to-one land swap/exchange of publicly zoned <br />property (on the north side of the Sibject Property) for residential zoned property (on the south <br />side of the abject Property). The result was no net increase or decrease of public or residential <br />property. <br />G. REVIEW OF PEN DI NG LAWBJIT AGAI NST O11 GROUP (DATA CENTER) IN OHIO <br />NOTE the Oty was provided with a copy of the lawsuit and disposition from Case No. 2:12 -0✓ -856, <br />United Sates District Court, SDuthern Ohio, Eastern Division. <br />The Qty did take some time to review said lawsuit and disposition. Based on City Staff's <br />interpretation, the Plaintiff has the following major claims (issues/arguments) against the <br />Citi Group data center in Ohio constructed in 2007: <br />1. Regular use of generators on weekends <br />2. Regular use generators at night time, all days (between 10pm and 7am) <br />3. Refuse of Defendant to install or design generators that would avoid creation of loud <br />noise <br />4. Refuse of Defendant to shift generator operations to normal working/business hours <br />5. Asa result of the above issues not addressed by Qty Group (i.e. noise), the Plaintiff has <br />claimed a decrease in property value and would like to scck compensation. <br />OMC3udy Coup, Findings Faport (DR4F7) Page 36 of 42 <br />