Orchard Hills annexation

York Avenue property owner described severe light pollution from Meta shining into his kitchen window and asked for better buffering in new plans.

Lives on the boundary of the property; sees the data center with its berm and low traffic as the lesser of two evils versus housing traffic.

Ward 2 resident criticized the speed of annexations and rezonings and accused the council of treating residents dismissively.

Property line neighbor supported the annexation, saying the berm would actually block light from the existing Meta facility and housing would bring worse traffic.

Trammell Crow representative laid out the case: utilities ready at the property line, all five annexation criteria met, zero daily data center traffic, funded road and greenway improvements.

Draper Road father who moved from Colorado supported the annexation, citing the company's promises on noise, pollution and traffic reduction.

Ward 1 resident worries piecemeal annexations 'hopscotch' toward forcing annexation of Orchard Valley later.

Questioned contiguity, noting only about a quarter of the parcel touches the city and it abuts unincorporated homes.

Trammell Crow representative said the parcel meets all five statutory criteria, utilities are at the property line, and a 500-foot buffer with binding noise/light commitments is proposed.

Lives on the border; resigned to annexation but says neighbors are 'rooting for the data center' as the softest blow, though the existing Meta lights keep his house lit all night.

County-side resident whose fence borders the site wants a big buffer and no highway on her dirt road.

Argued three statutory conditions aren't met — no residents, no cost/capacity math, and only 25.26% contiguity — and flagged notice deadlines and the Planning Commission's 6-0 denial.