♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the Article 6-7 use restrictions. I did not understand what was said about the funeral parlors. Did those come off the list or stay on the list? Yeah, I can refer back to that. So this was the intent behind kind of staff's position on the conditional zoning restrictions kind of throughout the three rezonings is to essentially have some consistency. So initially, during the previous rezoning, the planning commission received a list of recommended conditional zoning restrictions from staff that to match the previous request. During that discussion, funeral homes was removed and sent to council with that recommendation. Council ultimately reinserted it as a restriction. And so part of the clarification that's gone on now was getting the conditions in front of you to reflect what was approved by council on the previous site. And so that's why it's shown today. During the zoning committee, that's when the discussion was on recommending having it removed again, which is absolutely with your all's purview, if you so choose. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. Chris, would you be the appropriate person to ask what the parcel owned by Francis Whitman that's shown in green that's counted as usable open space, it looks like it's owned by somebody else, but it counts as usable open space? I'm just kind of curious. It's a landlocked piece, is it not? Are you talking about this area? I'm sorry, I can't read the text. It says that it's owned by Francis J. Whitman, and the white text says usable open space. And I just wondered, what's the story with how, is that, it's still zone P1, I guess, or? This is the entire subject property. I don't think there's a parcel within that. There is a parcel within that? There is not. Would that possibly be a previous owner? Possibly, I'm not sure who that is, but that sounds likely. Okay, yeah, that's the previous owner. Okay, so it is that entire four-sided shape. Yes. Not a funky eight-sided shape. Okay, thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Okay, so in addition to the zone change, the applicant is also requesting two variances. According to Article 18.3a, it states that for any office or business zone except for P2 that adjoins any residential zone, there shall be a minimum buffer area of 15 feet adjacent to all common boundaries located behind the building line except street frontage, which will contain one tree per 40 feet of linear boundary or fraction thereof from group A or B only, plus either one, a double row of six feet high hedge, or two, a six feet high fence, wall, or earth mount. So the provisions of this ordinance were added to decrease light and sound impacts on adjoining properties that could potentially be caused by activities or events, depending on which business may eventually occupy this property. The requirements apply to the portion of the property that abuts the planned neighborhood residential zone to the west of the property, which I can show in a moment. And the applicant is requesting to reduce the required buffer area, perimeter buffer between an R3 zone and a proposed B1 zone from 15 feet to 4.4 feet, which is about four feet, five inches. And in addition, they are requesting to eliminate the requirement of the six foot fence along the rear property line. So here's the development plan again, but just the area that they are requesting the variance for is regarding this area outlined in orange. So the subject property and then to the west is R3 zoning. And then here's just the site photo again. So again, it's this area to the rear of the property along the parking lot. And then here you can more clearly see the existing vegetation that can be found along that property line. So the applicant provided just a few points in their justification for their reasoning for requesting the variance, including things that it will not affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The applicant states that they will retain the existing landscaping here already present on site. They also stated that the applicant is not seeking to make any physical changes to the building or vehicle use area to accommodate any new uses. The applicant also mentioned that removal of the existing landscaping in order to accommodate the required elements would create an unnecessary hardship. And finally, they also indicated that they haven't done anything to create a special circumstance that is impacting the property as the conditions on the property predate the current zoning ordinance requirements and that they are seeking the variance prior to establishing the proposed use. So staff recommends approval of the variances for the following reasons. The first being approval of the landscape variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor should it create a hazard or nuisance to the public. The subject property is operated over 70 years with the required landscaping buffer adjacent to the adjoining residential zone. And furthermore, the proposed fencing would disrupt the existing trees and the existing vegetation in this area will be sufficient to screen views of the use. Second, with the lack of on-street parking available on East High Street, the reduction in parking that would result from incorporating a 15-foot wide landscape buffer area would unreasonably restrict the applicant's use of the property. And third, the circumstances of the variance are not a result of the actions taken by the applicant subsequent to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. And this recommendation of approval is made subject to the following conditions. Number one, provided the Planning Commission and Urban County Council approve the requested zone changes to the B1 zone, otherwise the requested variances shall be null and void. Two, the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approval of final development plan or as amended by the Planning Commission. Three, all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Division of Planning, Traffic Engineering, and Building Inspection prior to the construction and occupancy. And finally, action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on the development plan for the subject property. And with that, I can answer any questions you might have about the variances. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions regarding variance? Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy here on behalf of Bread and Roses, LLC, which is a company owned by the Mickler family. And John Mickler is with me today in the fourth row. And as you probably know, Mickler is Mickler Florist, and the Mickler family is one of the longest, oldest family-owned businesses in Lexington. John is the fourth generation that has been involved with Mickler Florist. And as you know, they've made a success of their more recent ventures, which is the Kentucky Native Cafe and the bakery, which is in the building just to the north of us, which we rezoned three years ago. I checked the deed while you were talking up here, and the former owner of this property was the Francis Whitman Trust. And the closing was held in January from this year, from the trust to Bread and Roses. So the entire tract is owned by Bread and Roses. But that sort of leads into why we're here. Bread and Roses signed a contract to purchase this property in late 2025. This has been the site of Hubbock Interior Design for many years, measured in decades, not years, but Hubbock did not own it. They always leased it. And the property came on the market late last year, and Bread and Roses signed a contract assuming that Hubbock would be staying there for more years or decades or whatever. And two weeks after they signed the contract to purchase, Hubbock announced that it was closing its Lexington location. I guess they're headquartered in Louisville. So they moved out, I think, February 28th, and actually the building is now vacant. So we're asking for a rezoning so that Bread and Roses can look for an appropriate user for this property. P1 limits it to professional office uses, and that's not a great market right now, but P1 gives a lot more variety for other uses that might be appropriate in the neighborhood. So that's the reason for the zone change. We don't have a particular tenant or user in mind yet, but it'll just help make the decision in deciding who is gonna be moving into the property. As I think Ms. Browning said, we did have an open house, or I wasn't there, but the family had an open house at the Kentucky Native Cafe in February. Three residents showed up, and as mentioned, it was mainly an informative meeting. I won't go into all the, everything I could go into. Did wanna ask a question about the, mentioned the conditional zoning restrictions, and I'm just doing this to clarify and get something in the record. Conditional zoning restriction eight prohibits parking lots and structures other than as an accessory use, and we just wanna clarify that for several years, Michler Florist and the Native Cafe have rented spaces on this lot for their employees, and we anticipate that will continue, and we assume that that would not violate the restriction saying it's parking lots and structures other than as an accessory use, because they technically work on other lots, their adjoining lots. I think that restriction was placed in there so that somebody wouldn't tear down the building and just use it as a pay parking lot on the property. That's my assumption, and I just wanted the staff, hopefully, to say yes on the record so that if there's ever a question 15 years from now, they can look at the minutes and get the answer to that. Yeah, just weighing in. Yeah, that condition is intended to address parking lots as a principal use on that particular site, or so really when we're looking at things like shared parking agreements, the utilization when you have a business that is operating on that property as is being proposed, that is a non-issue, and we encourage shared parking when applicable. Thank you very much, and I just wanted to clarify that in the record. Appreciate it. We are asking for the variance. The reason we're asking for the variance is so we can leave the parking area and the exterior exactly the way it is today. We have very significant screening along that back line. You saw the pictures of the trees, and we want to leave it exactly as it is right now. So we thank you for your consideration, and I'm excited about seeing what goes into that property eventually, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. All righty, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for Dick? Great. Thank you. Thank you, Dick. All right. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to comment on this particular application today? Okay, seeing none. All right, we have a final commissioner comment or question. As always, the floor is open for a motion. No, no, no, I'm just getting my map off here. Go ahead. All right, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion. Let me get my ducks in a row here. Let me make sure Ms. Tracy's okay. To approve Bread and Roses LLC map amendment request number PLN-March 26, 007 to change from a P1 to a B1 business. And this is for the three, with the three requirements as outlined on the green? With the three requirements as outlined on the accompanying? I'm sorry. No, that's, I'm sorry. As? Well, the green sheet is for the plan. Right, zone change. What else did you need again? I'm sorry. The findings would be based on the findings recommended by staff and the conditional zoning restrictions? Yes, the findings recommended by staff. Per the findings recommended by staff and the conditional zoning restrictions. Okay, thank you, Molly. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Judy. So this is for the zone map amendment. Do we have any discussion on that motion? If not, the floor is, or I'm sorry, we can take a vote on that. Okay, that carries unanimously. It seems so easy until you have to do it yourself. So sorry. I'd like to make another motion to approve, oh, beg your pardon, why did it go away? I'm so sorry. Bread and Rose's request for, sorry. I'd like to make a request to approve motion PLNMJDP-26-20, Bread and Rose's property at 456 East High Street to approve their development plan with the variance, oh, variance is separate, right? Period. With the three conditions. With the, how many? 13. 13, thank you. That the 13 conditions as noted on page two of the green revised staff recommendations for planning commission. Perfect, okay, great. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Thank you, Judy. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote on that. Okay, that also carries unanimously. Now, Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance request from Bread and Rose's PL, sorry, LLC, and if I could just find it in here, I would do that. The variance is to, it's just page eight. Last page of staff report, thank you. To approve the, as per the staff report, to approve the variance to reduce the landscape buffer area from 15 feet to, where did it go? Can someone help me? That's okay. You could just say that you're moving for approval of the requested variances based on the findings in the staff report. Move for approval of the variance as requested on page eight of the agenda for April 23, 2026. Okay, with the, yes. And as attached in the staff report. Perfect. Therefore, am I right for? You don't have to say that. Yeah, I think we're good. To the following conditions. I think we're good, yeah. Subject to the four conditions in the staff report on the variance request. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Sure, Mr. Pim. Sure, thank you. There's no discussion, we'll take a vote on that. Okay, that also carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Mickler. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Our next item on the agenda is the top of page 12 under commission items, PFR 26.1. Mr. Cromb. Mr. Cromb. All right, good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Cromb, planning staff. The request before you is a public facility review. So this is a public facility review associated with the Haley Pike Solar Facility. Just as a reminder, public facility reviews are what we bring to the planning commission when the government itself, which is exempt from the zoning regulations, wants to add or expand a public facility. So what we'll be bringing to your attention today is a request to utilize a decommissioned landfill in order to install a ground-mounted solar energy system. So this is approximately 357 acres of the decommissioned landfill at 4172 Hedger Lane. Within your packet, and your granite case in front of you, is a copy of the staff report, as well as the applicant's letter of request is also a justification. So information about the project is contained there as well. But I will go over the generalities here. So just to locate the subject property, this is off Hedger Lane. So Hedger Lane extends in the vicinity of Haley Pike all the way to the rear, approximately a mile, to this facility, which approximately 357 of those acres or of the 565 present on the site are proposed to be utilized for a solar facility. So from the aerial, I'll just point out some of the vicinity. So here is the majority of the area that is capped landfill. There are portions of the site on the perimeter that were never used. They were sort of additional space that have not actually contained any landfill uses. So these portions here and kind of around the periphery do not contain any of those landfill uses. Zooming in a little bit closer, we do see two aspects of the site other than the landfill that generally function. One is actually a small miniature airstrip that is associated with the model airplane group that operates in Lexington. So for the past 20 or so years, they've had that facility there as well as a mulching use here. Under the applicant's proposal and that was included in their agreement, this airstrip area here would be utilized for solar panels. This facility here containing the mulching would remain. Zooming back out to give you an idea of kind of the zoning of the general vicinity. Once again, the subject property is outlined in that blue and it is actually bisected here by that railroad right-of-way, I believe. But we have a area that is almost exclusively zoned ag with the exception of a commercial landfill here, which to my knowledge also is no longer operating, but that is a private landfill. So they had to get an EX-1 zone to operate. So that was the construction material site that operated separately from the LFUCG-owned and operate landfill here. That green color you're seeing otherwise is AR, that agricultural rural zoning with a combination of residences and farms. There are no PDR farms in the immediate vicinity. And then you see to the far right of the screen, the areas here that feature no color at all are actually outside of Fayette County. So this is right on the border near the vicinity of the intersection of 64, which runs kind of to the bottom of the property here. Here we have an outline that just kind of goes over the applicant's proposal. So there's actually two different kind of types of panels that are being proposed. These black panels, which are located generally in areas that were capped landfill, actually are not being ground-mounted. They are essentially being suspended on cables across that length so that the membrane that caps the landfill areas is not being disturbed. The areas and panels that you see in red are the traditional mounted in the ground, secured in the ground, and are tracking panels as well. So two different kinds of styles, but ultimately one of the main goals with this entire project was ensuring that we were not going to have any negative impacts from locating these panels here as it relates to releasing gas, environmental issues, and other things associated with that landfill. They do note, once again, that this area here that contains the mulching area is set to remain. They've indicated that the substation for the use is located here. And those lines would actually run, zooming out just a little bit. We'll go back to the aerial. The electrical lines would actually connect through Haley Road through a easement on this adjoining property, which brings them out to here. So that is sort of where the electrical infrastructure is running. The site will be accessed via vehicle through the same way that the existing landfill has been accessed. And then zooming in here, we have a breakdown of kind of how these various areas are being used. So this is also in the report in front of you, or rather the applicant's materials. But they've color-coded to indicate how these particular areas were going to be used. The blue areas here are just areas that are right-of-way or being leased as a access easement in order for them to run the electrical work and transmission lines through those areas. Areas that are shown in green are the areas that are going to be predominantly the location of those panels. Orange dictates that some of that area, so up to 50% of those usable areas, will be used for those sort of suspended solar energy systems. And then the red and uncolored areas indicate areas that are not going to have any solar panel presence. So kind of a mix here. But once again, the areas shown in orange, the areas with the active, or rather the areas that were utilized for landfill before being decommissioned are being kind of treated more sensitively. We have a view of kind of what the subject property looks like as far as Google Maps will take us. So it is currently sort of a fenced-in condition, looking into the site from Hedger Lane. So it would wrap around this area here, as well as to the right. Ultimately, this is a project that, because it is a public facility, does not have to comply with the zoning ordinance. However, they have incorporated a number of measures that were indicated in the zoning ordinance that were done for solar facilities in other zones. So this has a greater setback that is found in the zoning ordinance. The applicant has committed to a land preservation plan, a decommissioning plan, a community benefits agreement, and other measures intended to kind of keep the site function operational. They have also indicated that they intend to have this as vegetative cover. So they will not be seeking to pave these areas that contain the solar panel uses and will continue to be incorporated in their land management plan. So as we look at this, the question before the planning commission is ultimately whether or not you all feel that this meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Is it an agreement with the comprehensive plan? In staff review, we looked at a couple of different aspects. But there are some very clear guidance within our comprehensive plan that calls for addressing these local impacts of climate change and emissions, promoting green and renewable energy and implying those environmentally sustainable practices when we do those. So once again, trying to meet our goals for emissions, our goals for sustainable energy, and making sure that we're doing so in a way that preserves the environment. Also noting that this is not within the urban services area. This is within the rural service area. And so when the rural land management plan was updated in 2017, it didn't really have a way to talk about solar facilities. They weren't a use that was mentioned. This is sort of a later edition. And so ultimately, the rural land management plan calls for protecting land that is suitable for those agricultural uses, and as well as protecting the gateway that is Haley Pike, where it meets the interchange with the interstate. So staff in the review of this found that this was a solar facility that, while located outside the urban service boundary, was being located on land that was not suitable due to it being a decommissioned landfill. And so we found that it was in agreement with those aspects. It's retaining other land that is more agriculturally viable by utilizing this brownfield site. And so ultimately, staff's findings, there are no goals and objectives or aspects of the rural land management plan that are in opposition. We found several aspects in which the plan supports the proposed findings. So the staff's findings on our end that the plan is in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but ultimately, that is the determination that is before you all, as to make a recommendation to the LFECG on whether this proposal meets the plan. And so with that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you have of staff at this time. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Pim. Thank you. Is the 357 acres all that they're being used? And are you classifying all the 520-something acres as brownfield? Or are you just clarifying what they're leasing? Yeah, yeah. So going back, so they have a breakdown. Part of the request for proposals, and this is outlined in the report that the Edlin group has provided, as a part of the negotiation for the lease, there was a requirement to use basically 25% to about 33% of the capped landfill area. And then the areas in green that are shown around that are areas that are LFECG property, but were never utilized for actual landfill uses. So they're adjacent to the actual brownfield site. They are associated with those uses, but were never actually, it was future capacity before they decided to decommission the project. So the areas shown in green have not had any type of actual brownfield work done in them, if that makes sense. Can I follow up? My concern is that we take land that's not brownfield, and we put solar panels on it. So for me personally, I need to know how much land was not part of the landfill that we're putting the solar panels on. So I mean, the applicant can answer that. I'm just putting that out there. Can I ask a question? Sure, Commissioner Davis. May I ask a quick question? Sure. Thank you, Chair. Can someone answer my question as to what a LFUCG spray field is? Yeah, that is outside of my wheelhouse. It says that it's 59 acres, and it's used for LFUCG in the Edelin report. And I just wondered where it was, what it is, and. OK. We will answer that when. Sure. Let's finish with Daniel, and then we will. Do we have any other questions that Daniel can answer? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel, let me ask Mr. Penn's question a little bit different way. We're talking about 357 acres, 565 total acres. Your staff report in two locations states in one spot does not have any agricultural potential due to its status as decommissioned site. And then in the summary, it states that the land, it is unsuitable for agricultural production. So is it brownfield, or is it not? So to clarify, the entirety of this project is located within the boundaries of the property that was included. As far as the specifics of what point that does or does not become a brownfield, I'm not sure that I can accurately answer. What we have before us is basically the areas that they decided could sustain the solar panels based on actively having those. I don't know if there could be areas associated with this particular use that don't actually have, say, any cells with them that may not be suitable for agriculture. So really, those are really from the concept of the property used as the decommissioned landfill really has limited agricultural use in that particular aspect. So whoever the city has deemed this unsuitable for agricultural production, the primary reason for solar panels? That would be my understanding, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any further questions? Daniel, just a clarification. Did you say or mean to say that the city owns all of the land that this is going to be involving? Yes, so this is an existing parcel that's bisected by the railway here. So the entirety of 4172 Hedger Lane constitutes 565 acres. 357 of that are proposed to be used as kind of described here for the solar panel use. 4172 Hedger? Yes. OK, I'm just kind of cross-checking with the Fayette County PVA. And they have that parcel at 650 acres. So I'm not sure where that discrepancy might be. And I'm trying to overlay it with the map that we had in the applicant's materials. Can I ask a question? Sure. What did you say it was bisected by, Daniel? I couldn't understand you. Yeah, it looks like we've got this piece right here, I believe, is right of way. So there is this very narrow piece here that sort of bisects that site. But this portion right here and this portion right here are all included as the address of 4172 Hedger Lane. Thank you. OK, do we have any final questions for Daniel? If not, thank you very much. All right, thank you. OK, at this time, we'd like to hear from the applicant. If you'd like. Sure. We don't have that packet, do we? We don't have the packet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the council for considering this. I want to lay out for you the concept. My firm, which is headquartered here in Lexington, Kentucky, right across the street, it was a very long commute in today, expressly does not develop on prime farmland. It's what we do as a company, as a principal. So what we're known best for is repurposing former industrial areas for the purposes of making these communities relevant to the opportunities of a green energy economy. We've done that to best effect in eastern Kentucky, where we invented the notion of coal to solar, where we have projects that are either built or going to construction this year that will result in $1.1 billion in private capital investment and several hundred jobs and enormous training opportunities for folks in Appalachian coal country. We're also working in tribal communities of the American West. We're repurposing a landfill currently in East St. Louis, Illinois. And we're excited about doing a project in our own backyard. What I know as a farmer's child is that farmland is precious and is a Lexingtonian for over 30 years. It's critically important that we protect that, which gives us our cultural heritage. This site is not an agricultural property, folks. Even the parts of the parcels that are not covered by landfill are subjected to all sorts of environmental reporting because it is adjacent to a landfill. And if you've been there, you'll see that the landfill itself is very tall. I mean, it rises from the ground like a significant hill. And so water monitoring, quality, those sorts of things preclude the property around the landfill from being truly agricultural. To the extent that we wanted to maintain in a project that demonstrates a commitment to agriculture, we even looked into the notion of having sheep graze on the site. But the problem is that the property is not conducive to raising sheep because there are contaminants in the ground, which means at the end of the sheep's useful life, we would have to slaughter them in a way that wouldn't be suitable to eat. So we can't grow anything on this site. You can't raise any livestock on this site. It is adjacent to a landfill. And folks, frankly, there aren't a lot of people lining up to spend $80 to $100 million like I am on a landfill. This is a massive private capital investment. It is a solar project that represents the green energy and sustainability commitments of this community, of this council, of our mayor, while doing it in a way that proves you don't have to use prime farmland to develop a green energy project. To put another way, this is about demonstrating that solar and agriculture can live in concert and cooperation rather than competition. I will point out to you that Edlin Renewables, for four years now, has enjoyed a formal partnership with the American Farmland Trust, this country's leading farmland preservation organization, to do projects precisely like this all over the country. So we're excited to be here. We're excited to be working in our hometown. We're excited about demonstrating the leadership of Lexington to bring people together to do very important big things, while making sure this community plays a role in meeting the climate challenge and adopting green energy, which has become a precondition of modern economic development. So we appreciate your time very much. I hope you're as excited as we are about the historic nature of this project. And I really look forward to getting this big, important thing done for our people. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Edlin. Do we have any questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Mr. Edlin, good afternoon. Thank you. Couple of questions. One, in your packets, which was very detailed, there's mentions the opportunity for you having grazing grasses. And you pretty much just said there's no livestock. We are excited about some potential opportunities like lavender. We know we can grow that there. But in terms of growing anything that became feed stock for man or animals, that's not something we can do. So are you of the aspect and belief that this is truly non-agricultural? It's, yeah, I wouldn't run a plow through it, Mr. Owens. OK, thank you. Mr. Penn. How are you going to control the growth of the grass? How are you going to keep the grass from getting up on top of you? We'll mow it. We'll mow it. That's part of operations and management to keep the grass down. It'll be mowed. You're not going to spray it with herbicide? No, sir. And I think if I'm not, Amy, I think we were prohibited from doing that by the council when we went before them. Yeah. No, there is a single, would you please? Ma'am, if you would like to just please, yes. That's all right. Tell them who you are. Good afternoon, Amy Sample, COO at Edlin Renewables. Enjoyed working on this project and proposals and in partnership with the LFUCG staff in the rear of the room who have current responsibility for environmental compliance and management of the Haley Pike decommissioned landfill. There are landfill closure plans that specify very clearly what can and can't happen on this property. So we've been reviewing those and have proactively offered to do a land management plan that is recognized in the ground lease agreement, which we have executed with LFUCG to ensure compliance to their two active permits out at the site. Sam Donaldson is doing a great job of making sure that we're aware of those and keeping up with both LFUCG local ordinance as well as state requirements related to those permits to ensure that we're in adherence to the methane venting pumps, keeping clearance from those, and allowing all access from Tetra Tech, the city's consultant, to contain you with all of the required monitoring. Thank you. If I might follow up with that, and my problem is that I've farmed all my life. And I know what happens if you don't maintain the ground, regardless of whether it's a brownfield or it's not. It grows up in weeds and trees and animals and becomes a mess. Well, I know you can't do what you're trying to do without controlling that. And if you kill the grass, you've got runoff problems. Absolutely. But the other thing is that there are properties that join this property, this 500 acres. And I want to be sure that those properties don't have unintended consequences by your operations. I don't know whether the council answered that or not, ask you that or not, because I wasn't there to hear it. But on the record, I'd like to know, have you talked to the neighbors around you? And are they OK with your solar project? So we have spoken with the ownership of the landfill next door. We have spoken with the commercial owners there. I don't know that we've spoken to any of the farm owners. I do know that a substantial part of that, Frank, excuse me, Mr. Penn, I've only known you 30 years. I do know that a substantial portion of those, the area around us, has been secured as land for right-of-way because of the larger private solar development that's being planned for just down the road on the Clark County, on the Clark County, Fayette County line. Yes, sir. That's the information we're trying to get. Yes, sir. Do we have any additional questions for Mr. Edelen at this time? You indicated that you could answer, what was the question? I'm sorry, a few minutes ago. What is it, a field spray or a spray field? Spray field, LFUCG spray field. OK, if we could just get clarification on that, that would be helpful. John Howard, Deputy Director of Waste Management. The spray field works in cooperation with our runoff from our composting and mulch process. So it goes to a sediment pond, and as the rainy season goes, that pond fills up, and then we have a permit where we can pump it out and spray the fields. That's all it does, really. OK. I'm sorry, just educate me. Why do you do that? To keep the pond from running over. Oh, duh. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Howard, for that clarification. OK, do we have any other questions at this time before we move on to our discussion? If not, thank you, everyone, for answering the questions we did have. The floor is open for any commissioner comment. Just a quick clarification, since this is a facility review, our role is not to approve or disapprove. It's to determine whether it applies with the comprehensive plan, and if we think there are areas where it needs improvement to do that, to recommend those. Is that correct? Yes, and I just have a quick question. As part of this process, to Mr. Penn's points, are notification letters sent out to anyone on this? No, there are not. OK. Mr. Nickel. Yeah, I just have a statement that even though I'm sitting here and personally am against solar farms on our agricultural land, this is a unique situation where we are dealing with a creative solution to a problem. And the problem is a landfill that's no longer going to be used. And the solution is to provide much needed 64 megawatts of power. So I commend the applicant that this is a creative solution. And I like the fact that their mission is not to put solar on agricultural property and to put it on things like industrial property or property that can be reclaimed. So I commend the creativity and the work that it took to get this done on the one hand. But on the other hand, if this were not this specific piece of property, I would be less enthusiastic. So good job on the creative solution for a problem our city has, and also for giving us much needed 64 megawatts of power. Mr. Penn. Yeah, I go along with Bruce on that. What my concern is is unintended consequences. And the process that we have in Fayette County, not only for expansion but also for use and also for the investors who come in here and invest millions of dollars in this property, the unintended consequence here is what does it do to the land values to the people that own the land around that you haven't even talked to? I don't understand how you can get this far and not have to talk to the people that are over the fence. Now, I'm not criticizing you for it. You all are doing what the LFUCG is telling you to do. I'm talking to LFUCG. We have to have notification for everything else we do, except not for your property. There's something wrong with that picture. And Adam, I'm not, Mr. Edelman, I'm not throwing stones at you. What I'm saying to you is the goose and the gander all have to do the same thing. So when this goes back to the council, I want them to say at least have the courtesy to notify the people that own the land that's going to join this, that's going to see it every day, that their land value is going to be impacted. That's not your all's job. That's our job to ask you to do that. We do it every other situation. So if the council hadn't thought to do it, and the planning staff hadn't thought to do it, it falls to you, Mr. Edelman, because you want to be a good neighbor. And you don't want to wind up in court by decreasing the land value of the people that own the land over the fence. That's not your problem. It's our problem. So that's where I am right now, and I hope these are valid. I'd like to discuss this a little bit, because to say this will be the only solar problem, solar thing, and what's going on in Clark County is unbelievable. And I'm not saying solar is not a good thing, but I'm saying it's awful hard for horse country to be involved with solar because of land values. Our land values are prohibitively expensive. And the damage you do economically to the people that own those farms, they at least need to be considered, or at least notified. That's my sermon. I'm preaching it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Finn. Mr. Owens, do you have anything? You're looking at me like you had a thought. Well, you know me, I always have thoughts. We spoke about solar last year to a great degree. This is a different request. I think when we spoke about it last year, the question did come up, what about the landfill? There wasn't an answer. I guess Mr. Edeland wasn't ready to bring forth his plan at that time. But I'm in agreement with this. My only concern, I may look to our legal staff a little bit. I would love to change the summary findings just a little bit, because it does state that there's no opposition in the comprehensive plan for this proposed improvement. I think when we start talking about land preservation and the rural aspects of our community and so forth, they are many. However, with the fact that this is pretty much determined that this is unsuitable for agricultural production, I think rewarding that to some degree, highlighting that, and maybe removing just the simple statement of opposition, there are no goals or objectives to the comprehensive plan in opposition to this. I'm OK with this. I don't know if our legal staff would like to help me with that or not. Thank you, Mr. Edelman. Ms. Worth? So far, I agree with everything that's been said. And this is not a concern. It's just a question for information. When we heard submissions about what was going on in Clark County, or heard information about that, and other proposals, the question about who are we generating this power for, does this generally go back to the grid? Does it come to Fayette County users, KU? Who gets their benefit here? That is a terrific question. The answer is it will be used locally. This project is qualified, is under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This project is deemed a qualified facility, which means we will sell the power directly to Kentucky Utilities. The Public Service Commission sets the rate that we can charge for that power, and we have to be at or below it. We believe that we can do that. So this project, unlike others in the area that have been proposed, where the power will be produced here but consumed by some third party, this will literally provide power to rate payers in Fayette County and in LG and EKU's jurisdiction. Great question. I should have brought that up, Judy. Ms. Worth? Yeah. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I'd like to have known that 20 minutes ago. Could we designate this as a brownfield, rather than just as land not suitable for agriculture? I would be very comfortable with that. And the reason I want to do that is that it makes it- Mr. Pink, can you speak into your microphone, please? Yeah, it's on. The reason I want to do this is that it is a lot easier in the rural community to- and you can put the owners of farms in the size, about three times the size of this space in the whole land in Fayette County. I'd like for them to know that this is only being presented because it is a non-usable agricultural piece of land. That's right. And the difference between the total acres and the acres you're using is an explanation that we need to have good talking points for. Right. So when you get back to that fancy office you've got over there, if you could give us some of those talking points, it would help some of us that are going to say, why would you approve something like this? We'll have it emailed to staff. That's fine. They can do it. But if we could use that term, Mr. Edlin, I think it more than adequately talks about what we're doing here. Well, we're brownfield developers, so it makes it easier for us. And, Frank, exclusively, we don't do anything that my dad would kill me for turning farmland into a solar array. The other thing, my bias, is that we have land in Bourbon County. And we have fought that battle over there. And that wattage was not going to people in Bourbon County. It was going east to be sold. That's right. Bias you use, and it helps also. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Penn. And just speaking for myself, I certainly would support the written recognition that this land that is going to be considered for solar is strictly brownfield, because I don't want there to ever be a thought that this could be used as a precedent for a solar facility elsewhere in Fayette County on land that, for example, would be rated as prime farmland by the United States Department of Agriculture. And another point that I just personally would like to make, I agree with Mr. Owens. I don't think we have to say there are no goals or objectives that are in opposition to the project. But I think, rather, we could turn that to a positive and say there are goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan that very, very specifically encourage the preservation of the finest soils in Fayette County. And this project, being a brownfield project, does not interfere with those positive aspects of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Mickler, did you have anything? OK, all right. Does anyone else have anything? Mr. Jones, do we? Well, I think she and Mr. Owens may have been working on a slight revision to the summary findings. You ready? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Let me attempt this. And believe me, it can be edited. Mr. Chair, I would move that this public facility improvement for the construction of solar energy systems at this location will serve the needs for the community. And I would encourage that, I would say that the 2045 goals of the comprehensive plan does encourage agricultural land preservation. However, as stated with this, the proposal of this land is unsuitable for agricultural production and does not negatively detract from the Haley Road I-64 interchange. As stated above, there are several goals and objectives to the 2045 comprehensive plan, as well as the policies of this plan that does support the project. I think I've got that straight. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Is that made in the form of a motion? This would be a motion that this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan with those slightly revised findings. Mr. Bishop. I missed it. I didn't hear Brownfield anywhere in that motion. Unfortunately, we, the city, has no definition for Brownfield. So they need to find one. I think, as I heard, they're working on it. Is there not a generally accepted definition of what a Brownfield? We do not have. It is not defined. I would tell you to stay tuned. Stay tuned next week. But the definition of Brownfield has certain requirements in it and certain evaluations that it would be hard to put in this without that definition. So I would recommend against it. OK. Would it be OK if we included language like land specifically and irreversibly non-usable for agricultural purposes at any point in the future? I guess I just want that sentiment expressed so that, again, we're not having a conversation in a year about a farm that's 99% prime soil. I think Mr. Owens has said in his motion and his revised findings that it's unsuitable for agricultural production. So if it's 99% prime soils, I don't think you could make that finding because it would be suitable in some respect. It would be suitable if it was 50% prime. So I mean, for agricultural production, unlike what we've heard here today, of why you couldn't do that. I mean, I don't know how many other instances would meet this factual, what you've heard today in the record. OK. All righty. Can our staff recommend to council that they signify this as a, we've got to use some term that's not just general agriculture. This is agriculture land. So something has to differentiate that from whether you could farm it or you couldn't. And brownfield is an accepted term. I don't know about all the federal regulations or whatever, but when the applicant doesn't mind using the word brownfield, why is the city scared of it? Just to answer that, my understanding is with certain types of federal grants can be received for redeveloping brownfield. And that brownfield designation has specific requirements. So it's tied to other funding mechanisms. I think we've stated the intent, and we've pointed out that this is land that is unsuitable for agricultural production, number one. And number two, this is land owned by LFUCG, which is also an important factor in what we're doing right now. But to clarify, LFUCG is not the only property owner in the overall plan. There are private. I think we are the only owner of what we're talking about. It's an easement and other property, but it's not the development itself. May I offer this, Ms. Jones, to try and include the possibility of what Mr. Penn is asking. In my statement, it does say that this proposal, the land is unsuitable for agricultural production, commonly known as brownfield. I would just stay away from that term right now. But I will tell you, if you're very interested in this discussion about brownfield, you should be very interested in committee meetings that are going to occur on Tuesday at the Irving County Council. In this room? In this room, at 1 o'clock, and at 3 o'clock. I read you loud and clear, OK? Thank you, Ms. Jones. OK, so Mr. Owens, is it worth restating your? I can try. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I would move that this plan, FRP 2026-1, Haley Pike Solar Facility, is in agreement with the 2045 comprehensive plan, noting that although there are plenty of statements encouraging preservation of agricultural land, that this land particularly is unsuitable for agricultural production. And therefore, there are several goals that do promote and support this plan, and that it does not negatively detract from the Haley Road I-64 interchange. OK, so that's a motion. I think that covers it. That this is, excuse me, hold on just one second, that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the reasons outlined by Mr. Owens just there. OK. Second for Mr. Nickel. Thank you. Do we have any discussion on this motion before we vote? Yes. Could I make a friendly suggestion, amendment, that it be stated that it's unsuitable for agricultural production because of its previous land use, or previous use? Well, is it? Isn't it important to relate it specifically to what happened to the land before? So that it doesn't come up in other instances So that it doesn't come up in other instances? That would be a question for Mr. Owens if he was willing to amend his motion to include that. Well, at this point, I'm going to defer back to our legal. I mean, you can if you want to. I mean, you can add that if you want to. I mean, I think the report's pretty explicit that you have that's part of the record that it's a landfill. But if you want to add that, you can. I suppose it reflects intent. So I would change my motion to include after unsuitable agricultural production because of the previous land use as far as being a landfill. OK. And then, Mr. Nickel, are you OK with that amendment? OK. We've had a motion, a second, an amended amendment to the motion and an acceptance by the seconder. Do we have any discussion? If not, we can put Mr. Owens's motion to a vote. OK. OK. That carries unanimously. Thank you, everyone. Mr. Duncan, do we have anything else? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a five Thursday month, so we have a second planning commission work session on Thursday, April 30 at 130 in the Phoenix building. We'll see you all then. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Do we have any other commissioner items? If not, we are adjourned without objection. Thank you.