# Planning Commission Subdivision (Sub) Committee - July 2, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 2, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6820 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6820?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-07-02 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: July 2, 2026 - **Length**: 19,521 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Subdivision Committee met on July 2, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. ET in the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee considered five agenda items during the meeting, taking five motions and votes. No public comments were heard during the session. The committee approved four of the five items on its agenda. These included the Final Subdivision Plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc.; the Development Plan for Lexmark International, Section 1, Lots 9 & 10; the Development Plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8; and the Zoning Development Plan for Southside Technical Center Property. The Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Lane Allen Park was tabled. ## Attendance The following 22 individuals were present at the Commission meeting on July 2, 2026: - Vaughan Adkins - David Filiatreau - Eric Sutherland - Brooke Gray - Lane Gilliam - Brian Morgan - Rob Poage - Scott Burton - Eve Miller - Scott Thompson - Bill Warren - Erik Merlino - Tyler Skaggs - Traci Wade - Daniel Crum - Chris Chaney - Jeremy Young - Dalton Belcher - Cheryl Gallt - Paula Owens - Tracy Jones - Brittany Smith There were no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took action on five items during the meeting, approving four development and subdivision plans and postponing one. **PLN-FRP-26-00014: Glenmore Farm, Inc. Final Subdivision Plan** [timestamp: 0:07:41] The Commission unanimously approved the final subdivision plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc. Approval is subject to seven conditions noted by staff. **PLN-MJSUB-26-00004: Lane Allen Park Preliminary Subdivision Plan** [timestamp: 0:46:24] The Commission unanimously postponed the preliminary subdivision plan for Lane Allen Park. The postponement was due to questions regarding stormwater detention and roadway intersection improvements. **PLN-MJDP-26-00039: Lexmark International Development Plan** [timestamp: 1:01:23] The Commission unanimously approved the development plan for Lexmark International, Section 1, Lots 9 & 10. Approval is subject to 13 conditions recommended by staff. **PLN-MJDP-26-00048: Samuel H. Bryan Development Plan** [timestamp: 1:14:02] The Commission unanimously approved the development plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8. Approval is subject to 12 conditions recommended by staff. **PLN-MJDP-26-00047: Southside Technical Center Property Zoning Development Plan** [timestamp: 1:27:50] The Commission unanimously approved the zoning development plan for Southside Technical Center Property. Approval is subject to 14 conditions proposed by staff. ## Final Subdivision Plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc. The Commission discussed the final subdivision plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc., located at 615 & 625 Gentry Road, Lexington, KY [timestamp: 00:03:27]. Cam Surveying presented the subdivision plan to the Commission. The plan was reviewed and discussed by the Commission members. The final subdivision plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc. was approved with conditions. ## Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Lane Allen Park The Commission discussed a preliminary subdivision plan for Lane Allen Park, Lots 2 & 3, located at 1899 Parkers Mill Road, Lexington, KY [timestamp: 0:08:14]. Matt Carter presented on the matter. The discussion centered on the subdivision plan, which involved unresolved issues that prevented the Commission from moving forward at this time. The item was tabled, meaning the Commission postponed action on the preliminary subdivision plan pending resolution of the outstanding concerns. ## Development Plan for Lexmark International, Section 1, Lots 9 & 10 The Commission discussed the development plan for Lexmark International, Section 1, Lots 9 & 10, located at 985 Freight Boulevard, Lexington, KY [timestamp: 0:47:30]. Greg with Banks Engineering presented the development plan to the Commission. The plan was reviewed and discussed by the Commission members. The development plan was approved with conditions. ## Development Plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8 The Commission discussed the development plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8, located at 2914 Clays Mill Road, Lexington, KY [timestamp: 1:02:27]. Matt Carter presented the development plan to the Commission. Following discussion, the Commission approved the plan with conditions. ## Zoning Development Plan for Southside Technical Center Property [timestamp: 1:14:34] The Commission discussed a zoning development plan for the Southside Technical Center Property, located at 1770 & 1800 Harrodsburg Road in Lexington, Kentucky. Matt Carter presented the zoning development plan to the Commission. The discussion focused on the proposed development for this property on Harrodsburg Road. The Commission approved the zoning development plan with conditions. The approval indicates that while the proposed development was acceptable to the Commission, specific conditions were attached to ensure compliance with local zoning requirements and development standards. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-FRP-26-00014** — passed (0-0): Approval of final subdivision plan for Glenmore Farm, Inc. - **PLN-MJSUB-26-00004** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of preliminary subdivision plan for Lane Allen Park - **PLN-MJDP-26-00039** — passed (0-0): Approval of development plan for Lexmark International, Section 1, Lots 9 & 10 - **PLN-MJDP-26-00048** — passed (0-0): Approval of development plan for Samuel H. Bryan, Tract 8 - **PLN-MJDP-26-00047** — passed (0-0): Approval of zoning development plan for Southside Technical Center Property --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. the subdivision committee meeting before we get started with the agenda I just wanted to make the Planning Commission and also other members of the subdivision committee aware that we've had some staff shifts and so within planning services so Chris and Cheryl will continue to present your development plans and subdivision plans but the waivers specifically will be handled by Jeremy young who has been taking still a senior planner but taking zoning cases so Jeremy's moving over to more subdivision development plan review with the waivers and then Dalton Belcher is taking on the zoning zoning role and he has been with the staff for two years that's right almost two years but working with Board of Adjustments. So you may not have met him yet, but he has been around and is comfortable with our zoning ordinance and all things related to the process that we have. So as you hear more about Place Builder instead of Daniel and Jeremy, you'll probably see Dalton up here. So I just wanted to make you all aware of those changes. All right. Good morning. Our first plan on our – oh, no, sorry. I jumped the gun. Sorry. Sorry. Good morning. We're going to start with a final subdivision plan. It's going to be FRP 2614 Glenmore Farm Incorporated amended. This property is located off of Gentry Road. It was one large track, but back in the plat is here because we are subdividing the property per a plat that was done or per deed that was done in October of 1998, which was prior to the moratorium of the 40-acre tract. So they have a 20-acre tract that they're subdividing. It was created by deed. And to be able to get a building permit, they need to have a plat. So you can see this was the farm. Originally, they subdivided this tract off by deed. and so now we are just recording that portion of the property to match the deed. So with that, this plan requires a signposting, an affidavit, which I believe it's been posted because I've already received a phone call about it asking how many houses they're building in the subdivision. I was like, not just one. Requirements not met. We need to denote per KRS 100.292, plats filed pursuant to this section may be filed by the last transferee in the chain of title, including holders of deeds which may otherwise be void under KRS 100.277. This is where it's saying that everything needs to be platted, a final record plat needs to be filed and recorded to transfer property by the KRS. Denote steep slopes are present on site. Any development in these areas will comply with Article 611 of the land sub-regulations. Denote that no building permits shall be issued until the health department has issued a septic tank. Denote development shall comply with Article 19 of the zoning ordinance. They have a little bit of floodplain located on the property. so on their property we need to show that information with the building line set back addition of addresses on plan phase identify and label sinkhole and spring per environmental services they found something clay spring number 9000 2989 on the property depict and denote required floodplain information including regulatory flood elevation and flood protection elevation and a 25-foot floodplain setback. Depict the vegetated buffer. Label the street name. Under that, technical committee recommended approval subject to the following conditions. We have engineering, traffic, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, addition of utility and streetlight easements, and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on. I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Just as a reminder, the reason you all hear these is because ag flats still require planning commission approval. Thank you for that clarification. I was wondering about that. Okay. Any questions for staff? All right. Thank you. Is the applicant? Yes. Good morning, members of the commission. I'm Gary Rowland with KM Sarvain, and I don't have any questions or comments for anybody, but I'd be happy to answer any questions that you all might have. Anyone have any questions for the applicants? Thank you. Thank you. Are there any public comments? Being done, we'll bring it back to the committee. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLNFRP 2614 Glenmore Farm with the seven conditions noted by staff. Second. Motion has been made in second. All in favor? Aye. All right. You name us. Next. Okay. Moving along, we have a MJSUB 264 Lane Allen Park, lots 2 and 3, and this is located at 1899 Parker's Mill Road. The purpose of this plan is to subdivide the property into 28 single-family residential lots, a street right-of-way, and one HOA lot. You would have seen this recently as a zone change to R3 for this single-family development. You have Parker's Mill along Plan South. This is where Lane Allen intersects Parker's Mill. they're proposing street private well sorry internal streets with cul-de-sacs and then the 28 single family homes kind of wrap around in the center of the property there's a natural drainage they're showing their detention basin here there's also an intermittent stream shown on the plan we'll discuss that in a moment a little bit closer detail here they did submit a revised plan on June 29th and so you have a revised staff report number one correct note 28 changing developer to development number two provide street names number three correct the typo in note number 30 and then number four depict all existing and proposed easements Five, denote all required floodplain information. Number six, provide stormwater design that conforms with LFUCG standards and regulations. Number seven, denote CLOMER approval as required prior to the issuance of any land disturbance or building permits. There is a floodplain on the property that extends through that center drainage area. They are requesting a waiver for street geometrics, and Jeremy will go into a little more detail about the waiver request. And then under design considerations, CSL accommodations provided by Division of Engineering provide street names, address sanitary sewer capacity, and locate hydrants so they're greater than 43-foot radius to accommodate for fire apparatus, turnaround vehicle clearance at the time of water plant submittal, and I think they've done that. Let's see, plane questions and concerns. Number one, discuss the intermittent stream that crosses lots 4, 5, and 20, and again, that's what I mentioned before. This is an intermittent stream. I believe this is, let's see, 4, 5, and 20 are the three lots in question. number two discuss the intersection improvements at the entrance with lane allen down here i'm going to go back to the so one of the concerns that we have lane allen comes in at an angle into the intersection and the entrance they're proposing doesn't quite line up with the center line of lane allen and with the potential for lane allen to be improved in the in the future, this intersection, if that's squared up, it may be even further out of alignment with the entrance. So we have some concerns about exactly where that lines up with Lane Allen on the other side of Parker's Mill. Let's see, number three, discuss half-road improvements along Parker's Mill Road, and they are showing that in the cross-section now. Number four, discuss stormwater management proposal. Number five, do the street cross-sections match the standard cross-sections? And as far as I can tell, they do. We're currently recommending postponement because of the questions with the drainage, the stormwater detention, and the intersection improvements. And then there are the standard sign-offs, if it should be approved, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike pad, open space, water quality's approval of the cap requirements, and finally to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. With that, I'll turn it over to you. We have any questions for staff? Thank you. I guess maybe the easiest one right now, with all the lots, the driveways accesses, are they all internal? Do any of them come out on Lane Alley? Yeah, they would all be internal. They'd be internal. Okay. And you mentioned the drainage situation. Is there more information at this time on that? I believe they've submitted a study, and Vaughn might be able to speak a little bit more to that but drainage has kind of been a question all along from the beginning with this one with the floodplain on the property. Maybe you should let Matt explain what they're proposing and how they're complying with the standards. Thank you. Just a quick we went through the hydrant thing pretty quickly. Is that resolved or we've got someone here to talk about that? Yeah, I spoke to them about it. We got it squared away. The symbol they were using for the hydrant was obviously not the scalar. That would be a huge hydrant. But they said that they would possess a hydrant outside of our clearance radius. So yeah, we're good. Thank you. Thank you, Fire. Any other questions for staff? Not, we'll have the applicant come forward, please. Oh, okay, thank you. Excuse me, on this amended report, it says waivers none at this time. Oh, okay. Okay. All right, just try to keep it straight. Okay, thank you. Go ahead. All right. So the waiver is a Regulation 6.8A, which requires all streets to meet Exhibits 6.1 through 6.7. and exhibit 6-1 is the street geometrics and that's it states that the roadway has to have a max three percent grade within 50 feet of an intersecting gutter and the applicant's plan currently exceeds that and so they are requesting a waiver and as chris mentioned there are questions about the alignment here with Lane Allen. And so if there is any potential redesign, it could affect the waiver request. So I think that should be part of the ongoing discussion on the road alignment and will the waiver be necessary in the future or will the dimensions change. So that's essentially the biggest question that we have right now is, is the waiver going to be necessary in the future if it's redesigned, and what will those numbers look like. And if you have any questions, I can certainly address those now. And if you have questions about why there's a 3% slope maximum, I'm sure our engineers could help explain that. I'm just curious, David, you're talking about possible, possible realignment. Is that in the works? Well, I think when he talks about realignment, at least in this case, we're requesting that their new access move to the plan right. So if it shifts slightly this direction here. No, I can. But as far as Lane Allen, nothing at the moment. There's sidewalks planned for the other side, but nothing at the moment as far as the rebuild. All right, thanks. The question, Harrodsburg Road was one of the flooded areas last week, right? But that was closer into town than the part we were talking about. I know it flooded under the railroad bridge on Broadway. Yeah, a lot closer into town. Yeah. I don't know what it looked like out of here. I'm sure there was a lot of water. So the grade is how much above the 3% maximum? I think it varies, but it's just a fraction above 3, and then it exceeds, or it goes almost up to 5. So maybe the applicant can give you a better idea within the 50-foot range of what the max is and then kind of what it tapers down to. Okay. Any other questions regarding the waiver? All right. Thank you. Now we'll have the applicant. Good morning. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I'll be real quick on the items that need to be addressed. under requirements not met. Most of these are just cleanup type items or seven items. We had 16 before, reduced it to seven. Of those items, let's see, depict all existing proposed easements. So we show all the easements for storm and sanitary. What we don't have on there is some of the, there's a gas line that, let's see if I can spot it on here. It runs through the site somewhere in here. The owner, applicant, is working with Columbia Gas. They've already got a plan and they're going to relocate that line and put it around the perimeter of the property. So we don't show an easement yet because we don't know the exact size of it and location. We know generally where it's going to go. But I guess do we know, is that tied down? In general terms, there's a proposed plan that's been drawn to submitting the property gas until we get this integration blocks finalized. Yeah. Yeah. You do need to show the existing easement. Okay. Because obviously your construction plans will have to work around that. So that should be on there. Number six says provide stormwater design that conforms with LFUCG standards and regulations. And so I think this is probably related to the detention and where it's located. Is that correct? And the discussions of whether it's an intermittent stream or not. That's part of it, but also the amount of flow that comes from the upstream area to this location per the manual. You're not supposed to pipe a flow greater than 100 CFS. And so the information I have said it was exceeded, and the information I can find online says it's more than 100 CFS. So there's some things that we need to discuss and make sure you're in compliance. Yeah. We've done a drainage study, and the flows are actually coming to the site, or 89 CFS. And the 100, I think what that does to the site is if it is truly 100, you can't pipe it. Is that correct? And it has to be in an open channel. But we've determined that the flows are 89 CFS, and JOD can provide you a revised drainage study. And this all goes to the floodplain and how we're modifying that. So you're going to be reviewing that anyway when we get our clomer prepared and filed. And then number seven, there's a note to add related to the clomer. And we really can't file a CLOMER until we get this plan approved because part of the CLOMER is we have to have an approved plan and we have to have grading. So the grading is going to reflect what's on the approved plan. But we will certainly add a note that says the CLOMER is required prior to any land disturbance. Moving on to design considerations. Number two, provide two street names. The applicant has informed me this morning he's come up with two names. We'll submit those to Mr. Pogue for approval. So, probably do that today. Address sanitary sewer capacity. This is just simply we have to file for with the water quality. They've got an application to fill out for sewer capacity. It's a standard process and we have to do that before we can get a land disturbance permit. We have to have that approved. locate hydrants specifically where they're talking about was right here and here on this cul-de-sac the hydrants the ones we had shown are kind of drawn bigger than reality so you can see them because if we drew them to scale it'd be more like a dot on the plan but what we've done is, I don't know if you can see it, but we've added a dimension from the center point to where the hydrant is, is 43 feet. So we've got that dimensioned on the plans. Intermittent stream. Well, under plan questions and concerns, number one, intermittent stream. So we had a a company independent from Vision Engineering do an assessment of the site, HMB. They're an engineering firm out of Frankfurt. We've given this to engineering for review. I gave it to you yesterday, so I'm sure you'll need a little bit of time. But in this, they did a determination of the stream types. They also looked for wetlands. So this has been uploaded to SEL. I don't know if you all have a copy, but there is one made available. In this, the area, let's see, here's our detention dam. Below that, there's a spring, which we have noted right here where the spring is. And then this area shaded right here is talked about in this report by HMB, and it's a wetlands area. They also did the delineation of the streams. And what they've determined was from this point right here down is an intermittent stream. And I won't go into great detail on what an intermittent stream is, but it has to have a defined channel. And typically it has water occasionally, but not year-round. During the wet seasons, water will flow. And it's being fed by the spring that's right here. So there's two streams that come in, and where they converge from that point downstream is intermittent. Where those streams start up to the convergence, And it's those, I want to get the right name for them, ephemeral. They're ephemeral streams. So in the hierarchy of streams, ephemerals kind of lower, less defined channel, intermittent, more defined channel. So once you get past upstream of there, there's no channel at all. I mean, if you drive by there and look at it today, it's just a grass field. And so what this report does is it confirms that there is no channel there, so there is no stream upstream of this point, all this area in here. There's no stream channel at all. So what that means to us is we are able to put our – we can't put a detention basin on an intermittent stream. We can put it in an area where there's no stream. So there was concern that we couldn't have a detention basin here, and this report proves that we're good on that. And engineering can review that and we can discuss that. As far as our detention basin, all the water upstream of our basin, we have it routing around the basin and not routed through it. So no water upstream goes in our detention basin. The only thing we will be detaining is any water that falls in our public streets, and most likely it will just be the backs of these lots that abut the basin. Their backyards will go into it over land flow, and then all the water from our proposed streets will go into it. No off-site water will be going in our detention basin. So, Matt, can you explain, well, first, do you have easements shown for that? Again, proposed easements on here for that water that's being routed around? Yeah, let me. And then as you're up there talking about it, I think one of the concerns is the lowest spot on the farm adjacent upstream is where that's labeled as an intermittent stream, and you're saying it's ephemeral. What happens when, again, no changes on the adjacent property and there's a low spot, and then you grade for your neighborhood and you flatten it all out, and is the pipe at the low spot? It starts at the low spot, and it's not going to be under anybody's houses. So I think that's the – can you elaborate on how that's going to work? So is this on? Okay. We've got a headwall here, so all are upstream. No, I'm just starting and working my way down. You asked about whether we had easements on it and where are those. So the pipe runs here to a manhole, crosses the street, manhole, manhole, headwall. and we've got an easement. Maybe it's not shown, but we'll have an easement on here. When it's in the right-of-way, there is no easement, but we do have an easement here. I think we need to add a little piece right there. And we need to get an easement there. downstream the intermittent stream starts here runs up to roughly right in here then it splits right here like this these two are not intermittent they're ephemeral and and then upstream of that there is no stream so But there's a low spot, and there's a line that was – I mean, there's a low spot coming from the adjacent property, and there's a line there that says Colonial Drive Tributary. It's a long dash and three little dots, and then a long dash and three little dots. So there is – Oh, right here? Yes. There is something that was mapped by U.S. geological mapping. Is that right, what it says? that shows up on yeah on the USGS map but if you go in the field but it's the low spot even if you're saying it's not an intermittent stream again that's between you and engineering but that's the low spot of the property currently so when you regrade are you regrading the adjacent Parker's Mill property no no okay I got you here on our grading plan we've put a ditch in starts here runs to our head wall. We put a ditch here, runs to our head wall. So any water we have going this way and they have that way gets intercepted and brought to this head wall. Okay, can you also add that drainage easement that you're discussing? The swale in the rear property line? Yes. Yes. We don't have any fences back there. I think existing, there is a fence along the property line. Is that correct? Yeah. It's not a six-foot property fence, but like a solid wall. You can't put a privacy fence on that. And that was what she pointed out as part of the issue. You're calling out an intermittent stream, and then I had seen the document that said it wasn't, but the plan you submitted for TRC still said it was. So you just needed to clean up what you were showing so that it was clear to everyone. Right there says it's intermittent. Yes. Okay, well, that's simple. We'll take that. We'll correct that. Yeah, when you look at a plan for hours and hours, sometimes you miss the obvious. So intersection improvements at entrance of Lane Allen, we're talking about right here. So I'm not sure how we're going to resolve this because we don't know what the future is going to bring us for that intersection. It's not on the six-year plan. There's no design for that road improvements. We're making improvements to our half. We've took the – is there one that shows this? Okay. Perfect. So if you drew the center line here and extended it across, our center line would be right here. Where they intersect would be right here. We've got a smooth transition from this road into ours. The problem is this road here, I can't change the alignment on it. It's got a 33-degree skew, which means if you draw a line perpendicular to the center line, measure that angle, it's 33 degrees. The most Lexington allows is 10, so it's nonconforming, to say the least. if I move my road over it's going to make anybody turn in here it's going to make that turning movement harder because it's going to have to pull this down more right now they've got room to swing around wide around here the stop bar it's not up here let me back up there's a picture that shows it You can see the stop bar where it is here. The reason that's significant is people turning, cut across there, and would get into the traffic. if we push our angle over here it's going to put the cars further or closer to the road and it's going to make turning movements really difficult I guess I'm not understanding which movement you say would be more difficult I guess, I'm sorry If you're on Parker's Mill, and that going... How would that change, I guess? Okay. I don't know. David, are we suggesting that they do anything to the Lane Allen side? No, I think it's just your approach. Yeah. He wants us to look at... Move it slightly. Effectively, where the radius is... Like, if you extended the tangent of Lane Allen... I know you did extend the center line, but if you squared each other, the intersection up more. because Lane Island does go out of skew, like you're saying, but I guess the center line and the striping sort of turn in and try to square up a bit. And so I just think if you were in that right lane and you squared up with the stop bar and you went straight, you're going to end up basically like where the detectable warning is. You're going to be – so I think you – I would say – Lot 1 needs to get bigger and Lot 28 will get smaller. Where's the driveway now in that – obviously you're widening it quite a bit. The current driveway is right in the dead center. I guess for me it just looks like you would shy to the right, plan right a bit rather than line it up straight. Especially if when Parker's Mill is redone, I would put money on the transportation cabinet squaring that intersection up for safety, right? Well, the problem they're going to have is when they square it up because of this skewed angle. We can talk about it. We can talk about it. I'll call you if that works. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Number three, the half road improvements. So we've got that drone on there, so we're basically adding 10 feet of pavement, carbon cutter, and sidewalk. Stormwater management proposal we've discussed, the tension basin we're showing is our stormwater management. And number five, the street cross sections, they do match typical sections from the sub-grade. As far as our waiver, what we're proposing, the ordinance calls for grades not to exceed 3% within 50 feet of the... There we go. So what the subregs call for is within 50 feet of the intersecting curb line. So the intersecting curb line would be this line right here. If you project that across to here, within 50 feet of that, you're not supposed to exceed 3%. And this occurs actually in two locations. It also would apply here, this intersecting curve, the road going down. So at each end of that entrance road, within 50 feet of the intersection, you're not supposed to exceed 3%. What we're proposing is a vertical curve at each end, and the grades will range within that 50 feet from 3.17% to 4.7% at the steepest. So it's going to be a curve, be a gentle curve, but there will be a curve there. But within that 50 feet, it's like closer to just the 3.17 number? Yeah. Because you're talking about the whole, the entire hill, right, is 3.17 to 4? Yeah. Like within the 50 feet, there's a vertical curve. So you can't give a grade for, you know, at any point on the curve, you have to calculate a slope. So I gave you the worst, which was the 4.7 at the 50-foot mark. And then as you come into it, it would be 3.17. And some of the hardships we ran into is our distance from here to here is less than 200 feet. and you can't get two vertical curves in in less than 200 feet, so something's got to give. That's one issue. Another issue is the grades on the existing road cross slope exceeds 3%, so that's kind of built into it. We have to plan for the future widening. Well, we're doing it now. So, and if we did flatten the slope out to where it would work, the site would be, we've determined it would be unfeasible. The grades would be so high at this intersection right here that we've ran the numbers, and it's just, it kills the project. I mean, he cannot afford it. He doesn't make it. He loses money on it. So this is a simple fix. We don't violate any of the site distance issues. The design speed on it will be 25 miles per hour because it's such a short distance and it's got a stopping condition at the end, each end. so in our opinion and hopefully you guys will agree too it's what we're asking is very mild we don't feel like it's going to be a problem Vaughn you did send me some information about another project where you had a fire truck if it was able to maneuver that and we ran the numbers on that, the truck that you guys have, your big truck, is 47 feet long and per, what's the code, NAPF or NA? NFPA. NFPA says grades can't exceed 5%. Well, we're 4.7, we're less than that. So that won't be an issue meeting that. And what that is is when their truck pulls in, the rear end is so far over the axle that if the grades are too steep, when you get to the bottom, the rear end will drag. And so as long as you don't exceed 5% grade, that won't happen, and we do not. So that's resolved. I think that's it. Really, I mean, to me, the only issue is we need to just have some discussions on this intersection, in my opinion, and I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for the applicant? I guess, Matt, do you have a study that shows less than 100 CFS for the 100? I'll have jihad send that to you. Because the previous study I had showed greater, but I'm willing to look at if you have a revised study. I think the previous one was based on information he took from FEMA. and as you know, FEMA floodplains are always being redone. A lot of information on the flow rates and stuff changes over time. They used very conservative numbers originally, and originally it was done when there was no development out here, so it was all farms, so they didn't care about being conservative. Now that it's all developed, you have to tighten your numbers up, and I think that's what's going on. I'll get you the report, and it will prove that we're not exceeding that threshold. So no questions on my end, and with what I've heard, it looks like Matt you've done some cleanup you mentioned that what's left on the requirements on Matt are mostly still just cleanup and for the most part what we've heard I think you need to sit down with Vaughn and David and hammer out the rest of it I think it's doable but I think you need to get with them you mentioned yourself that there's a couple of easements that's not shown and so forth So why don't you go upstairs, wherever they are, go upstairs or on this floor, wherever they are, and sit down and hammer it out with them and go from there. I don't know if you're ready to move on. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Okay, do we have any public comment? Okay. Are you suggesting that? I'm going to bring it back to the subcommittee. Okay. So are you ready for something? I'm ready to leave it in the postponement stage and let them hopefully hammer it out in the next week. So my recommendation motion would be for postponement of plan MJSUV 26-4 Lane Allen Park. Second. With the conditions supplied by staff. Currently 10. 10. Noting the design concerns. Second. All right. The motion has been made and second for postponement. All in favor? Aye. All right. It's unanimous. Okay. We're going to move down the agenda. We're going to the first development plan on the agenda. This is PLNMJDP 2639 Lexmark International Section 1, Lots 9 and 10. This is a final development plan for a piece of property located out off of Freight Boulevard, out off of Newtown Pike. This is Newtown Pike, Freight Boulevard. You can see here's a better shot here. So this property is located within the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Area, so therefore they went in front of the Royal Springs. They had a recommendation that they have no underground detention, and so with that, they needed to bring this back in front of you all for y'all's final review due to the changes in the zoning ordinance, Article 21. so that we can review this in front of you for your recommendation to move forward. They are proposing a large building here in the center of the property for just under 29,000 square feet, a building, parking, truck circulation, and stormwater management on the property. The access, they have access up front and then another one in the rear to get into their loading docks up front. The access is for the parking on site. So with that, as I said, this was a final development plan in the I-1 zone. Requirements not met. Provide dumpster enclosure and concrete pad specification. update lot 7 per MJDP 91, MJDP 2491. That is down in this area. We just need to make sure that we had another development plan come through that another engineer had done and we need to make sure that on this overall development that that's updated so that we're carrying forward all the correct information from one DP to the next. complete the outdoor lighting plan provide a VA interior landscaping required proposed and ILL interior landscaping area tree canopy requirements proposed for lot 10 upload an open space exhibit to a cella depict existing and all proposed easements depict tree protection area to scale. This time we have no waivers. Design considerations. See all the comments by the Division of Engineering. Number two, move sidewalk off curb to increase potency and comfort. Design, number three, design does not preserve greatest number of trees. Let's move this. There are some trees along the edge here. We also have the Legacy Trail coming through the front here and heading on down Newtown Pike. The Legacy Trail comes up this way, comes through, and then goes up Newtown Pike. So the trees are within that area. Plus, we have a Newtown Pike corridor, so we need to make sure we preserve trees that we have and additional trees will be needed. Plan questions and concerns. Discuss with a vehicle use area screening. Discuss the underground detention in the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Area. Update the right-of-way dedication of Freight Boulevard and corresponding sidewalk infrastructure. What is the plan for the relocation of the storm line? discuss who will own and maintain the stormwater management areas, adjust the sanitary sewer capacity and access, clarify notes 19 and 14. Tree removal justification is not explicit. Proposed mitigation is not sufficient. The technical committee had reviewed it and made a recommendation of approval with the following sign-offs, engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, Department of Environmental Quality, bike and ped, open space, division of water, division of waste management, division of water qualities, approval of CAP, U.S. Postal Service, and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on. I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Questions for Sarah? just clarification regarding what's on the revised plan for example on the tree removal piece have they already negotiated changes to that plan or is that to be negotiated moving forward i don't think they submitted a revised plan um i'm looking at the note that It says the applicant submitted a revised plan on June 18, 2026, and based on that, the technical committee recommends moving forward except for the Royal Springs Aquifer. Oh, yeah, this is the revised plan. I thought you meant submitted something since last week. No, I'm just trying to clarify what still needs to be negotiated about things like the tree removal. Has that been agreed to or it still will be pending after? It's still pending, yeah. Okay. So then my next question is, and this is, Vaughn, probably for you as much as for anybody else. Am I recalling that the Royal Springs Aquifer, not called committee anymore, but that group, routinely recommends no underground storage and that we have in the past, in the past we have approved underground storage depending on certain conditions. Yes, they every time recommend no gas stations and no underground detention. There's a general concern about not being able to see the stormwater basin and whether it gets maintained by the individual property owners. So if they are willing to address those concerns and meet our engineering manual requirements for underground detention, certainly we can approve that. But any time we deviate from what the Rural Springs Aquifer Committee recommends, it's coming to the full commission to override that. So you're acknowledging that was a recommendation. We understand it. But in this case, we believe underground detention or gas station or whatever. Yeah, what are those special conditions can be addressed? We also have a new maintenance manual for post-development stormwater controls, so that should help with some of those issues, I think. And we also have to have annual inspections anyway. I had a question, had some notes about the private sanitary and streets, and I don't know if that was resolved. Maybe Greg has some information. I think Greg might be able to answer that better. Any other questions for staff? All right. If not, we'll have the applicant. Good morning. Greg Smorstad with Banks Engineering. Let's see, where should we start? Ron, you want me to start with your question? Just as far as the sanitary at this point in time will remain private. As we go through, so there's currently another project where we are trying to dedicate let's see freight boulevard from this point all the way down to here and then sets our way we're trying to get those streets dedicated to lexington city streets and part of that project is that we have to go through and do a lot of sidewalk improvements and things so that is kind of moving on its own pace separate from this project. So as we move through that, there's a potential that some of this sanitary could become public, but at this point in time, it's all private. So that's kind of where we are on that. One other thing, Ms. Worth, that I think you asked about, the trees. So I have met the urban forester out on site, explained to him why we are going to remove a couple of the trees that we had stated we were going to. And then we just talked about how we're going to mitigate that, how many trees we're going to plan to plant along the legacy trail to kind of make up for the fact that we do have to remove some of those trees. And I believe that he was fine with that. So we have gone through those steps. So we'll take care of the cleanup conditions listed under requirements not met. We also have a few other items under planned questions and concerns, and I'd be happy to talk about any of those. But the main reason I think that we're here today is because of number two, and that is the underground detention in the Royal Springs Aquifer area. So I'd like to just kind of start with that, and then, like I said, I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you have. So if you look at our site, you can see that over 25% of the property is taken up by the Legacy Trail and also with the large Texas hedge that exists out there that kind of separates the trail from the proposed development. So we're looking to keep that. So we've got basically 25% of the site that is unusable. and by the time we laid out the building to fit the owner's needs along with vehicle and truck circulation we just weren't left with a whole lot of space this is why we showed the underground detention however the site is in the Royal Springs Aquifer area and that's kind of where we are now so since we had the TRC meeting we had a chance to meet with Josh Desarn with engineering to just discuss the project and the use of underground detention and I just wanted to go through some of kind of our discussion points just so you all would feel comfortable that you know we have talked about this and we think that we can make it meet the stormwater manual so you know typically underground detention systems period would be undesirable on projects where we stored heavy equipment or vehicles if they contain fueling stations or stored petroleum products but we're not proposing any of these things. We have a pretty standard warehouse use here with the loading dock. And so Josh commented that a warehouse use is a pretty low probability for groundwater contamination. Then we explained to him that we're proposing to use an ADS underground chambered underground detention system with an under drain. And his response was that that type of underground system is preferred because it's very easy to maintain and inspect. Also, the underdrain eliminates the potential for the majority of groundwater infiltration. And so he said that using a system like this is not significantly different than having a surface detention basin. But utilizing an underground basin is super important to us on this site because it allows the site to function the way the owner intends and gives us a practical way to store stormwater on the site, especially on a site when 25% of the area is already taken up by the Legacy Trail. So Josh believed that the system that we are proposing would be appropriate for this site and that it would meet the requirements of the LFUCG stormwater manual. So I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you will have, but that's kind of the gist of our conversation with engineering regarding underground detention. Any other questions? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just curious, the Legacy Trail, is that on your property, is that an easement? It is, yes. It is an easement? Is that taxes hedge part of that easement? I don't know. I mean, it's located within the easement, I think. No, you don't think so? So I think these two arrows right here are maybe specifying the easement. So I think that the hedge may be outside of the easement, but it's close. But our hope is to keep that hedge just because it provides a good separation from the tree. Okay. Yeah. I agree. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment? All right. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee. I want to get back on the right page here. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2639 Lexmark International Section 1 with the 13 conditions recommended by staff. Second. All right. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? Aye. We're unanimous. Okay, we're going to move down the agenda. We're moving down to the second plan on MJDP 2648. This is Samuel H. Bryan, Track 8, Carnes property. You'll have a revised staff report for this one. This property is located off of Clay's Mill Road. We just had a zone change on this property. it's to include 41 townhome lots with an HOA area here, open space HOA here. So we have Clay's Mill Road, Holland Drive. This is connecting to Loretta Drive. This is already an existing neighborhood here, so there was some discussion of connecting these two together. On the far end here, this is still a single-family lot. There's one home on it, but we always propose stoves to them for future development. And so with that, we have this plan matches pretty much the same as to what the zone change was for the R2 zone. This is a final development plan for the townhomes and a preliminary subdivision plan for them to be able to build the roads and do the improvements and to give an idea of how these are lots are going to be subdivided in the future. With that, requirements not met. As I said, we had some revised conditions. So now we're down to traffic calming features to be added in accordance with the lane subdivision regulations. Provide justification for removals and propose mitigation for significant tree loss. Number three, upload open space exhibit to Acela and provide open space and site statistics as percentage, identifying common areas. they have the sidewalk and then they had proposed a sidewalk going around this detention basin here. So we just wanted more information to depict on the site statistics for that. We do not have any waivers at this time. Design considerations. The sanitary sewer easement will need to be parallel to Clays Mill Road right away to allow for connection of 2916 Clays Mill Road. The sewer capacity in the area is low at this time, so we need to make sure that they apply for their capacity assurance for the city. Design does not protect the greatest number of trees. Plan questions and concerns. Will there be on-street parking? If so, 20 feet of clear road width must be maintained for the fire. With these townhomes and the driveways, there's not going to be much parking along the street here. We don't have a distance to be able to have on-street parking at this area, but there's a possibility here adjacent out in front of the open space area or along Loretta Drive on these locations here. Again, the driveways don't allow. The aprons are for two driveways, but they don't allow much distance here. So I'm not sure how much on-street parking they will have, just the one area. The staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions, engineering, traffic, landscape, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, open space, fire, waste management, division of water quality for CAP, insurance program, and United States Postal Service, and that says correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not met here on. I will open it to you if there's any other comments or questions. Questions for staff? Yeah. I should remember this, but I don't. Do those houses have garages and do they have driveway parking? Single car garages is what they show us, what had been proposed. Let's see here. So if you look here, there's a single car garage, and then they have the driveway access right there. So there is potential parking in a driveway as well, right? Yes. So my next question, and this is just not understanding how this works, where it says the sewer capacity in this area is low at this time. So they apply, but what happens if there is not enough capacity? What's the way? Yeah, then they'll have a reservation for when there is capacity. You won't be able to. They can't develop until, got it. Okay. One other, I was just, I thought about this. We discussed this at the time of the zone change as far as an area proposed possible sinkholes. So this is the area that by the GIS mapping, geological mapping for the state, that they have marked. And there is a note on the plan that states that while they're doing construction, if they should find anything that they will have to stop and work with the Division of Engineering with staff reports or information more on what they found. I'm sorry. Thank you. Cheryl, as to your plans or questions on street parking 20 feet, do we have clearance? I believe they've been working with the Division of Fire to make sure that this road width allows for the truck to come through and that this is a different, that they'll be able to have parking on the one side and still be able to make clearance. Yeah, the streets are 31 feet, so there's parking allowed. The overall width of the street? It's 31 feet. So that still gives 20 foot? Oh, yeah. That's our standard. There's two standard typical cross sections for neighborhood. but one's 27 and one's 31. Yeah, and to add on to that, I think that I mentioned they could probably say something more about it, about putting up some sort of signage on one side, because the concern is if wherever they can park, if they're parked on both sides of the road, opposite of each other on that road, that will get us below the 20 foot. So that's why I was inquiring that says, hey, if you're going to do on-street parking, make sure that you do it in such a way that there's still a 20-foot minimum clear width. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right, next we'll have the applicant. Good morning again. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Just running through the requirements not met. traffic calming will, we will add that, I mean, wherever you want. I assume being a stop condition at each end is not considered traffic calming. Not exactly. Yeah. But you have some options. There are some different options. Okay. So maybe like mid-block, a choker or something. Yeah. You've got a couple. It's outlined in the, you've got some options, whatever. It's kind of your choice in that respect. So I guess, are you okay with during the sign-off process, we'll show you where? So, okay. Provide justification for removals of trees and mitigation. So I've talked to the urban forester, but we have not met with him in the field. He wants to meet, so we're going to do that. I think he understands that the road where we have it, there's not a lot of choices on where to put the road. The one on Loretto Drive, it has to line up where Loretto currently is. So, unfortunately, where the road goes is a lot of the significant trees we would be losing. But in any case, I'm going to get with him before the hearing and see what he says and talk about what kind of mitigation would be appropriate for this. Open space exhibit. The only open space required, correct me if I'm wrong, is common area. And we do show common area here. It's identified. You're required to have 10,000 square feet for residential. And so we're just barely over 10,000 right there. sanitary sewer easement they're asking for across the front we show it but there's a lot of line work on there it's hard to read but there's an easement that runs across the front and then it'll have to bore under the road to put a sewer in, but we'll make that more obvious on the plan. Sewer capacity, we have to apply for it. We have to do, basically you have to reserve your capacity. Water quality said the area is low. It's not, doesn't mean there isn't, But it is low, so a little bit of concern. But if, say, there's not enough capacity, maybe there's some, it could limit how many townhomes they build initially. It could also mean they can't build any townhomes until there is capacity. They pay a fee to reserve it, and then once capacity comes online, then they would be notified they can start building. So that's just something we've got to address. So we'll do that. On-street parking, I think we talked about that. But there's really just, we'll sign it anywhere there's a townhome. We're not going to have parking. There's just simply not enough room between the driveways for a car to park. And, again, the only areas where they could park is here, here, and here. So it'll be signed as such. With that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thanks. Any public comment? All right. We're back to committee. Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation approval on plan MJDP 26-48 Samuel H. Brian track eight with the 12 noted conditions recommended by staff second okay our next development plan is in support of a zone change from R1C to B3, MJDP 2647, Southside Technical Center property. This is located at 1770 and 1800 Harrodsburg Road. And actually, I think the actual address is 1770, and that should be resolved by the time we certify the plan. we actually as long as PVA has those two addresses we need to keep them on there for the zone change notice for the development plan too so it won't go away okay right so on the plan to plan north this is Harrisburg Road plan south this is Clay's Mill Road and this is where McCubbin cuts across between the two. So recently we saw a development plan for a coffee shop in this location. This is an existing, it was formerly owned by Fayette County Public Schools. It was a trade school. The zone change proposal is to allow it to continue as a trade school, but now it is owned by a union. And they're proposing to, they're they're not really proposing any changes to the site. They're just going to come in and use the existing facilities as is. And so the zone change is to allow for that use because it's not a public entity. It's not owned by Fayette County Public Schools any longer. So they do show on the plan the existing. This is the main structure. It kind of takes up most of the site. There's a fenced area in the rear with some smaller storage-type structures or smaller accessory structures. They're not small, but smaller than the main building. And I think they have indicated that they may remove some of those, but with no plan to replace them at this time. Then they do have the main parking area. At this end of the site, there's an existing circle drive off of Harrodsburg Road, and we'll discuss that a little bit. They do show an entrance off of Clay's Mill into the rear fenced area, and then there's an entrance off of McCubbin to come into the main parking area. they do show pedestrian connections sorry, along the Circle Drive and out to Harrodsburg there's a sidewalk, I don't know why this doesn't want to go down there we go, along Clay's Mill and then there currently isn't a sidewalk on this side of McCubbin so I'm going to this is the aerial of the site, it might help a little bit kind of show what's going on. Again, this is the circle drive off Harrodsburg, and then this shows some of the smaller structures in the fenced area behind the building. They did submit a revised plan on June 30th, and they did a lot of cleanup. We do still have upload open space exhibit to Acela and provide open space in the site statistics as a percentage. And then number two, remove preliminary development plan from the title. There's no waivers requested at this time. Design considerations, CSL comments provided by engineering, and waste management indicated that any future plan will require a dumpster location. Then under plan questions and concerns to discuss the place builder criteria, and Dalton will come up after we're done discussing the development plan and go over that. Number two, discuss removal of circle drive on Harrodsburg Road, and that was something during the pre-app that we discussed, and they indicated that they would look into that, that they may not need that. So that was just something we wanted them to discuss further. Number three, confirm there are no proposed site changes, including the right-of-way. Number four, address sanitary sewer capacity. We do recommend approval with the sign-offs. The first one provided, the Urban County Council approves the zone change to B3, and then sign-offs for engineering traffic, engineering landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, open space, fire waste management, water quality's approval of the CAP requirements, U.S. Postal Service, and then number 14, correct, all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met. And with that, I'll turn it over to the committee if you have any questions. Yeah, just I remember the McCubbing Drive. Yeah. Because I go through there pretty often. Where the coffee shop is going in, because they've already taken the structure down right now. Right. Is there going to be a sidewalk on that side of McCubbing? From what I remember, yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so even – and there's no proposal for sidewalk on this side. Well, and I apologize. So in the discussions, one of their previous requirements was that they have to provide a pedestrian connection to each right-of-way. So the bike head coordinator had – we discussed it, and the direct connection they've shown the sidewalk out to McCubbin, but they're also showing a sidewalk improvement to make that connection between Harrodsburg and Clay's Mill on that side, on the subject side of McCubbin. I'm going to put in a side comment. As I recall, in terms of traffic volume there, we did a lot of things to change what's going on there. And I think originally there were bollards as you approach where Clay's Mill and Harrodsburg come together. I think that's all paint now. word from a driver the paint needs to be repainted okay go ahead as a follow up I think I heard you correctly say that they're proposing a sidewalk on McCubbing going out to Harrodsburg Road correct but not to Clay's Mill no no it'll connect all the way through okay The aerial doesn't really show it well, but you can see on Clay's Mill, it ends there. And then similarly, I don't think it comes on to McCubbin, so they're proposing a full connection on that side. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right, we'll hear some place builder. All right. Bear with me. I've been a little under the weather, so my voice probably sounds terrible. Sorry about that. So they are proposing the corridor place type, and staff is in agreement with that. Harrisburg Road is an identified corridor within the comprehensive plan, so we don't have an issue with their proposed place type. And then also just to address public engagement, They did have a neighborhood meeting on June 22nd. Staff attended. Quite a few topics were discussed at that time, generally just the operations of the trade school, but also if there would be any changes to the structure or any additional parking, and then the school's nonprofit status, and then just sort of a general concern from the neighborhood about changing to a B3 zone and what uses would be allowed or not allowed, and that's where the conditional zoning restrictions will come in to limit quite a few of those. And then just concern about commercial development in the area, the neighborhood. So that's kind of what I've got for the place builder side of things. Any questions for me at this time? Okay. It doesn't appear to be. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. We'll hear from the applicant. Matt Carter and Scott Schutte. While he's handing that out, I'll just real quick go over basically everything that you've already heard. But we are proposing a sidewalk connection out to here and then one along McCubbin. As you can see, there is a sidewalk from here out to here. I don't know why it doesn't show up on that photo. Is that an old photo? And then no sidewalk here. But we'll be putting that sidewalk in. and then this sidewalk goes out to Clay's Mill, and it's existing and ties in here. The only thing, one of the comments was sewer capacity, and there's no concern over sewer capacity. What Water Quality said was they have to track sewer capacity, and they want to tie the new owner to the current capacity. And right now it's under Board of Education, so it needs to be put under. So I have to go through the process of applying, but there's just no new square feet added. So it's just a procedural thing. Other than that, if you've got any questions for me or Scott, I'd be glad to answer. I have a good question. What will trigger the construction of the sidewalk? Because there's no CO, everything's existing. Is it just whenever you feel like it? That's a good question. I don't know. I don't know. maybe a CO? I don't know. We've had this happen, you know, when there's not a – there's nothing to tie it. There's nothing to tie it to now you must do it. Sometimes people do it, sometimes they don't. And you can bond sidewalks, so they could technically get a CO with a bond. Businesses do get new certificates of occupancy, especially if they need a zoning compliance, like there's a zone change. Not a zone change, but a use change. I guess we could ask them to get a certificate of occupancy which would be the right thing to do good question and at that time that they build that sidewalk I would support that because you know that's a school school school school kids walking across it needs sidewalks yeah you may want to talk with building inspections too because it may be a change of occupancy for the actual structure. So does anything need to be noted somewhere? Okay. All right. Okay. I didn't hear the comment clarification. What? The highlighted ones are the ones that were looking to restrict. Okay. I thought that's what I heard, but it wasn't clear to me. So, very good. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment? Doesn't look like it. So, we're back to committee. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2647, the Southside Technical Center property, with the 14 conditions proposed by staff. Second. All right, motion been made and second. All in favor? Aye. We're unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Well, moving on to the waivers. The first one on the agenda is PLN WAV 2617. That is Masters and Station Center. The applicant is requesting a waiver of Exhibit 6-3, which is the cross section. Typically, you'll have the roadway, a curb, then a five-and-a-half-foot grass strip, and then the pedestrian facilities. Ever since this plan was approved, it's have several amendments along the way, but it always shows an eight-foot multi-use trail that is four feet in the right-of-way and four feet is actually on private property on a trail easement. during construction utilities were actually placed in the trail easement and the applicant is requesting a waiver to shift that trail out of the four foot trail easement and so you would have roadway curb and then a nine and a half foot multi-use trail that is completely in the right of way so we've asked for a little bit more detail on how that would function. There are, the request is to avoid relocating those utilities, but staff did a site visit and noticed that there are actually in that block between Robinson Way and Citation, which I guess I should show you the plan here. So this is Robinson and then Citation here. The block in question is here. and so this is what the applicant is proposing and this is the nine and a half foot multi-use trail here which would be directly adjacent to the vehicular travel lane. So staff noted that there are actually in that block, there are two fire hydrants and 14 water meters, a traffic control box as well as some signage that we'd just like more detail on how that's going to function as a trail with those obstructions and how it's going to comply with regulations regarding multi-use trails. Specifically, where it meets, there's a curb cut on the plan in this location. And we would just like to know how that's going to transition from the trail to that entrance as far as cross-slope and, you know, approach and transitioning down to that entrance. And additionally, the clearance from the fire hydrants, is there sufficient clearance to basically have an eight-foot clear vertical from the edge of the trail to those fire hydrants? And then, yeah, I think I've mentioned most of our questions. If you have any questions for me, I can answer those. Just to clarify what you said, I'm not sure I understood. The way it's either what's there or proposed to be there, the trail abuts directly with the road. There's no protection between people on the trail and the road. And is that typical for our trails? It does happen in some locations where there's a sidewalk directly adjacent to a roadway. I think ideally you'd have some sort of grass buffer, which is, I think, why it was designed the way it was. So this is the travel lane here, and then this, the nine-and-a-half-foot section here would be the multi-use trail. I guess for contrast this would be what was proposed was a five and a half grass strip and then a four foot portion of the trail on the right of way and a four foot portion on an easement was what was proposed right on the original plan I'm still not quite tracking in terms of what's being proposed now. What's being proposed now is it's nine and a half foot trail adjacent to the roadway so we're taking out a safety factor here. So what they originally had was, like you mentioned, it was the four-foot sidewalk, but outside of that sidewalk was another four feet to make an eight-foot chair trail. But ultimately, I guess when it was built, a lot of the electrical equipment and transformers was built in that location, and so they never built the trail. And now they're coming back and saying, well, we can't actually build it exactly the way we've shown it because of these other issues, but we're going to go to the opposite side. And like you're saying, it's all monolithic, effectively, now. But the eight foot is what the minimum they had they're showing nine and a half Any other questions? Yeah, I guess we still have some concerns about I think I mentioned it in TRC or asked if they were gonna leave the four feet and then just add five and a half feet of concrete next to it which would cause a seem to be for the full length and sometimes when you construct things at different times you get differential settlement and things and I don't know if that's ideal for path for me I think if they're asking for this waiver we can make it a condition that they remove the sidewalk and pave it all at the same time and but I Jeremy, did you mention the fire hydrants? Yeah, there are a couple of fire hydrants in the right-of-way along that stretch of road, and then the 14 water meters that would need to be addressed in some form. So those also create hazards, if you will. Obviously, the fire hydrant is above ground, and we don't want a bike lane around it or a use trail around it. and then the water meters also create, you know, changes. I think what we discussed was that if the hydrants, if they're in such a location where you could still maintain the 8-foot, minimum 8-foot, that there wouldn't be an issue with that, although it would still be obviously in the way. And then to your point about the meters, they might have to be raised or lowered depending on how things work out. Okay, any other questions for staff? All right, the applicants are ready to go. Good morning, Rory Kale, FDA Partners. Water meters, I'm told that those can be elevated a few inches and laid flush with the concrete, so it's the fire hydrants that we have to figure out how to make the path move around them. As far as safety, there's on-street parking. So the travel lane shouldn't necessarily be that, which is right next to the curb. We've been trying to figure this out for several months. I was talking with Scott Thompson. Our first suggestion was to leave the sidewalk, four foot as it is, and then on the street take away the parking spaces and stripe in for the bike path. It wouldn't necessarily be a multi-use path, but we'd have the facilities in there. but that was not his choice, so then we looked at other ways to get around this. I will show you a couple of pictures. That's standing at the driveway that serves these townhouses and looking in both directions. So you can see the utility boxes. We do a final record plat with townhomes. We almost always put in a blanket easement. Well, the utilities decide to go right behind that sidewalk. So now those utility, the KU boxes and the Internet phone boxes are all close to that sidewalk where the trail is supposed to be. So there's a lot less obstacles if we go and put the entire trail within the right-of-way. And that's what we're trying to figure out. Thank you. So we're back in the bike. You said you're not going to strike. What's the alternative? If you take it away, we'll have to bike to work. Well, we're trying to keep the eight-foot multi-use path, which is pedestrians and bikes both, on the property. Our first suggestion was to separate the two. That was not favorable. So now we're looking at providing both the pedestrian and bike together, but instead of it being split four foot in the right-of-way, four foot on the property, now it's nine and a half foot all within the right-of-way. And we'd have to work with engineering and traffic engineering on the transition at the driveway you see there. as the street curb comes around and ties back to the sidewalk, we'd have to remove that curb and feather in some sort of concrete. Well, it would all be concrete. So we thought it would be two separate, that we'd have one easy pour between the curb and the sidewalk, and we'd just make it flush. At the driveway, we'd have to figure out how to feather that in. Oh, to you, and Scott's not here. I don't bike. I remember when we put the sidewalks down Tate's Creek. That was a hot-button issue there. But the whole issue of having bikers and pedestrians and people with strollers and things like that on the same pathway, even a wider pathway, are we doing that in other parts of the city? Do we try and keep the bikers separate? Where are we on that? Yeah, so this actually has a trail network. So if you go to the aerial, the reason why this was a trail, this was different than maybe your standard is that, well, okay. Well, if you go and look, it's Ferndale Pass, which is where the adjacent, and then there's Robinson Way. They're on the corner of those two streets, right? If you go west of Robinson Way, there's a trail, and this is what it was supposed to connect. Yes, yeah, so the idea is that this connects Citation Boulevard to that trail. which goes behind the homes back into Masterson Station. So that's the reason why this was here, is because it's actually part of a larger trail network. All right. On the screen, what he's talking about, middle button, top button. Okay. This is Robinson. On the other side of Robinson, there's a trail that comes up, and that picture there shows how it hits the curb, and that's the end of that multi-use trail that's been there a dozen years or more. Yeah, at least. Multi-use means bike, pedestrian, bus, all. Correct. Asphalt, I think that's 10, 12 feet wide, something. And so ours was to be a continuation of that along Ferndale, from the Robson-Ferndale corner along here to where you got to Citation, and I believe Citation has on-road bike facilities and a sidewalk. which is why I thought separating the bikes at Robinson and Ferndale would have made sense because it would tie into the same situation at Citation. But whatever we do differently, I still need a waiver from you. Any more questions? All right. I guess not. Okay. Point to the engineers. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. I mean, I guess when you're talking about the fire hydrants and trying to have clearance, if we put a variable or a wave or something on this cross section to where we could bring the trail around the fire hydrants just so it had a spot of green that would stand alone separate from any... If necessary, basically. I think I just need the waiver and then we need to work with them because we'll have to have a set of construction plans to show the pavement. Yeah, but it does shy towards the curb, I guess. So it's just, yeah. But I think we can work out the detail of what that would look like. Is there two? Is that correct? Two hydrants? Yeah. And the meters, I think, yeah, they can be obviously flexible. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Okay. It doesn't look like we have any. Now, do we do any action on these? Okay. We'll wait until. We'll go through this again next week. Now that we have waivers. Yeah. Yes, your role is to review those and at least have a better understanding before we get to the full planning commission. So we'd rather have these more extended discussions about the details of it before the public hearing. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Got another waiver. we need to start charging when they're free so uh our next waiver is um pln wav 2618 it's the good shepherd uh church of the good shepherd it is a uh waiver request of article 26 of the zoning ordinance uh tree canopy regulation that It requires 30% tree canopy coverage on any residentially zoned lot. I think that their plan shows 28% coverage, so they're just a little bit short of that 30%. There's been some discussions back and forth with the urban forester about there is, let me get oriented here, there's Main Street, and this is Belcourt here. There is a white oak. It's barely visible. I think that may be the trunk right there. It's a fairly prominent, significant white oak in the front lawn that the urban forester was keen to keep, and the applicant has agreed to do so. So I think with that, we need an updated development plan and tree protection plan. Now, we did receive an updated tree protection plan just yesterday afternoon, and we haven't had a chance to fully review it and have the urban forester weigh in on that. But I think that, you know, we're heading in the right direction. I think they've indicated that they are amenable to planting off-site, some off-site plantings on public space to mitigate the deficit in the tree canopy coverage. So, yeah, if we just get some updated documents and a plan to do that mitigation. So what are they doing on the church property that's requiring this change? I'll give you a little context. Sorry about that. I'm used to doing this after a development plan. So there's going to be an addition in this area here. So there are actually six trees along this fence row that are being removed. and I think there's one smaller maybe a dogwood I can't remember exactly what it is that's being removed here but the white oak would have been the seventh but it is actually going to remain so it's just an addition to that church Okay. Show me where Belcourt is again. Belcourt is here. Okay. And that's Sayre. Okay. And then you've got Main Street here. That's an old church, right? It is. There's been several additions over the years, they said. Yeah, I think really the only portion that is original is this front section here. all these areas to the rear have been additions over the years. Oh. So you can kind of see the roof line here. That's sort of the original outline of the church, and then these structures here have been additions. And the proposed addition is going to be roughly in this area. I'm sorry? And that's the white oak tree. The white oak is, I believe that is the stump or the, not stump, I should say, the trunk of the tree. Stump might not be the right word in this context, but the trunk of the tree is there near the sidewalk. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? I don't know. Is there an applicant? Okay. Good morning. I'm Katie Beard. Oh, sorry. I'm the civil engineer for the project. Let's introduce yourself. Kevin Kinney. I'm a landscape architect with Lord X Sargent. So, as you already heard, we're very close to meeting the 30% requirement. We're actually bringing it to about 28%. The lot is fairly covered at this point with building and parking and playground, and we'll have an underground detention in the front along with access points, access to the building, sidewalks, a terrace. so the lot is getting fairly well filled with other things, so we have done the best we can to maintain the tree canopy. We're actually bringing it up a little bit from the existing condition, which currently is under 30. I think it's about 25%, and we're bringing it up a tiny bit to 28. And as mentioned, we will upload the revised development plan and tree protection plan. And we are going to protect that white oak and preserve that as well. So everything has been updated and will be uploaded. Do you want to add anything? Yeah. So as we – this – Yeah, I'm going to get to the mic. Okay, there we go. So here is the existing white oak. Can you speak into the mic? I'm sorry. Thank you. Here is the existing white oak, as we discussed. So we're going to be doing everything we can to preserve that tree as part of the new construction. So the six trees that we're moving, five along here, along this fence line, are existing black locust trees. And they do provide to the existing tree canopy, but generally, you know, aesthetically are not generally desired. So we'll be replacing those with more aesthetically pleasing trees throughout the site. I think one challenge with this is just given the historic nature of the church and how prominent the facade is along the corridor, we don't want to obscure the facade in any way. We've been discussing with the Board of Architectural Review, and it's very important for them to preserve the views toward the church. So I think we feel we've maximized the site as much as we could in terms of tree canopy and planting. As Katie mentioned, we are just shy of the 30%, 2% short, but we are showing a 3% increase from the existing condition. Just a couple of questions, more out of curiosity. I think they've got a daycare center over there. Is there going to be green space for the kids to play once you do the additional construction there? So right here is the existing playground. That's very frequently used by the day school and the kindergarten. We're going to be preserving that. There are existing trees in that playground that we're going to be working around. We want to replace the equipment with updated equipment. but preserve the existing trees in that location. So I think that's going to come down to maintaining the surface treatment and not paving over that area, keeping it a... Got it. And green space for kids, right? Thank you. So my second question, and this is not a zone change, so I guess it's not a requirement. This is a waiver. That's a very active neighborhood association over there. Have you all been in contact with them or have they been in contact with you about the changes? They've been notified of the waiver so that they can attend the meeting and speak to that if they would like. Their signs posted as well for the development plan and for the Board of Adjustment because it's a conditional use. So they have been notified. The owner is here. He may have further. If you need more information, I don't know if they've spoken with the homeowners specifically, but they have been notified through those processes. Thank you, Katie. Scott Hershey, Director of Operations at Good Shepherd. It's good to be with you today. Thank you. We have begun communication processes with the Belcourt Neighborhood Association. An email correspondence was sent out yesterday actually specifying our intent for tree canopy preservation and increasing the threshold for tree canopy. So we are in excellent relation with our neighbors in the Belcourt area, and we'll continue to provide those communications as the project progresses. You bet. And I can't confirm I've had a couple of neighbors contact me and ask questions about it, so the neighborhood is aware. All right, great. Any other questions? All right, thank you. Okay. No public comment. We'll go to the next one. All right, moving on to our last waiver. It is PLN WAV 2619. It is for the Turner Property and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center. It's a waiver of Land Subdivision Regulation 4-7, which requires substantial completion prior to a final record plat. And this revolves around road realignment. Seems to be a common theme today. But the Turner Commons way here is proposed to sort of be realigned to match up with, I believe it's Clyde Drive across the street. It's sort of got a little offset now, and they're wanting to kind of clean that up. So that's shown on the approved plan. but the applicant has indicated that they would like to record a final record plat in order to subdivide prior to completing these improvements. And I think really the only question that came up during this discussion is, what is the proposed timeline? When will that work be completed? I think that's really the biggest question on our end as far as this waiver request. If you all have any questions for me, I can address those. Any questions for staff? All right. Okay. We'll move it from the applicant. Zach Cato, Billings Law Firm for the applicant. That's an accurate summary of what's going on here. Basically, the property that's at the corner that you see there next to where that connection is going to be is now owned by this applicant. He bought it partially to develop, which we're working on a zone change to bring in to the commons development now and incorporate it. And the road realignment will be done as part of that. Timing, I can't tell you exactly when that's going to be, except we've already had our pre-app meeting for the zone change. We're working on that. there's a ton of moving pieces ultimately though all the public infrastructure that's required except this road realignment which was something that the applicant wanted to do to help this area also everything else has already been done this is the last piece of it it's going to get done the property was bought at the corner there to make sure it got done it's going to get done and probably sooner than later and the only thing the only reason that we need this waiver is to go ahead and be able to do a subdivision plat to create some lot lines on the existing pud 3 property that relate to how the deal is being structured and finance and things but nothing's actually changing with it other than we're creating some lot lines the infrastructure is there already so it's kind of weird that we're subdividing after it's already been developed, a little different than how things normally come through here, but that's why we're asking for the waiver. All right. Any questions? As long as I get a chance to ask them. What's the property, the corner piece property, going to be used for? Is that housing or other things? It is proposed to be a restaurant. Currently, that used to be Stuttgart Motors, which is like an auto repair. there's adjacent properties to that that are also going to be brought in to help facilitate pedestrian access and parking with this development but that one on the corner it will be redeveloped as a restaurant i think it's already been discussed in the newspaper which was exciting to read about these things in the newspaper but i think that's already out there I would just say that if you could give a year range as opposed to sooner rather than later, I think that would help us kind of zone in on maybe how long the bond will be out there. It's currently an existing road and existing intersection that comes in at a skew and that hasn't been modified to what's on the plan which is perpendicular and they're wanting to record the plat to what's proposed not what's existing and so there may might need some notes related to those lots and what you're proposing when you're going to do it for reference. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. What's next? I see these re-approval items. Do we need to go through these? Or this is just FYI? Yeah. These are, they'll be on your agenda for next week. But this one is a re-approval because it has expired. So it will need to be re-approved by the commission. It was previously approved by the commission. So was it previously approved in 25? Because the note here says June 13, 2026. That's not right. Okay. I think it's probably 21. Okay. Yeah, because it expired earlier this year. It would be the same conditions. They just would need to update some of the areas of their plan to meet ordinance changes. So that usually involves the landscaping and open space. Okay. All right. The lesson is don't let your plan expire. Right. Okay, I think that's everything. We do have a number of things that have been postponed or continued, and I will say that many of them we anticipate to postpone again or be part of the Planning Commission hearing at the end of July for zoning cases. We'll certainly know more as we get a little bit closer to the end of July, but the first case on the postponement list, we understand they are planning to request it. one month postponement again next week so that's the WML properties down here at 503 South Upper Street and we also understand the Tom Collins farm McGee property number four is also planning to request another postponement they indicated 60 days and an email so we do have some information but not for the not for every case. In terms of staff items, we do have several text amendments that are coming through the commission this month. Three, in fact, and Chairman Davis did ask Daniel and I to give a quick presentation to the committee. And I guess if our two staff members don't want to stay and hear about some of these, they certainly can leave because you're not going to vote on them. So, yeah. Are you okay with a quick presentation? I'm not okay. The three topics are solar energy systems, an amendment to an existing regulation, and data centers, new regulations, and attended donation centers, also new regulations. Attended donations? Yes. I'll tell you all about it. You want to start with an easy one? Well, come on and tell us. You don't have a PowerPoint for that? No. Yeah. No. This is on the front side of the page, and our staff report is on the back. All right. Daniel Crumb, planning staff. So with the first ZODA we're going to discuss today is ZODA 2607. That's the attended donation centers. This is an applicant-driven request, so this is Goodwill Industries of Kentucky. And essentially, they are asking to create a new definition. The zoning ordinance basically allow them flexibility in how they manage sort of their operations. So if you're familiar with the Goodwill, it's a nonprofit entity that deals with donated items that are then sold and that is used to fund the other aspects of the nonprofit. But with their retail operations, they also generally serve as a site to drop off or donate items. Essentially, the text amendment wants to create the ability to create sites that are just the donation center. So they are basically a drop-off point for those same type of items, but you're not having the retail sales that are kind of present on the site. That's not really a defined term in the zoning ordinance, so they have proposed some language that deals with what that use would be allowed to do and are asking for it to be a conditional use in the B1 zone and then be a permitted use in the B3, B4, B6P, and the PUD3. So this time we are asking the applicant for some more information about how these uses typically operate, things like basically asking for a greater justification, how it fits within the zones, because they're asking for everything from neighborhood-level commercial to shopping centers to more of an entertainment-type district. So this is an applicant-initiated ZOTA, so we are not under the same crunch timeline-wise as other aspects, like we are with solar where it's initiated by council or the other entities. So we are requesting more information from the applicant at this time, so we have a postponement recommendation for the staff report. Once again, we'll go into it with a little greater detail later on this afternoon with the actual presentation. Just one question. Sure. You said applicant-driven. Initiated. Initiated. I thought a year or two years ago we talked about it. Yes, yeah. Not successful. Okay. Okay. Just a clarification. Yeah. So anything else on that item? Otherwise, I'll give you a much more comprehensive stack of papers here, and we can talk about data centers. Okay. Okay. all right so pivoting over to a different topic here we have so to 2608 this is data center regulations this was initiated by the urban County Council and as the name suggests it is a text amendment that establishes a framework for kind of an expansion expanded review of data center uses so what are data center uses these are kind of the facilities and the infrastructure that really power most of what we kind of do in the modern age so this is storing transmitting and processing digital data so it can look kind of a variety of ways serving from facilities that serve just a particular user to sort of these hyperscale facilities that are handling the data and the loads associated with things like artificial intelligence and other kind of more modern innovations with that. So once again these are facilities that have incredible amounts of computers and associated machinery in order to keep those uses functioning. Currently in our zoning ordinance we have a definition of a computer and data processing centers that is allowed in zones like our professional office zones but they reflect a time when that use looked and behaved very very differently. So the graphic I have up on the screen kind of illustrates what the expectations kind of have been for data centers as that technology has progressed, moving from instances where these uses were the size of rooms, but as the demands of the data and what we were asking it to do have increased, the size of the facilities and the infrastructure that is needed to kind of support them has grown. So today we are not simply Googling pictures of cats. We are asking the Internet and the AI to give us pictures and videos. So these processes result in a wildly different load than sort of what was initially envisioned when these uses began. So we are now seeing trends of where these facilities are accounting for millions of square feet, huge power grid considerations, and other aspects of that use. and it is growing. It is showing no signs of stopping. So as low as this is in 2018, this is a graph of the projected power grid or the power needs of these in gigawatts is only slated to grow and it is kind of outpacing even our initial projections at this point. So a couple images of how these uses can generally look. It could look in a variety of ways. Ultimately these are rooms that store computers and so the demands of the facilities what they're asking to do and the loads really dictate their their size concerns so this is an example of chicago this was a repurposed i believe a printing plant that was redeveloped so you're looking at three three point seven acres over a million square feet and a hundred hundred megawatts of energy so that's approximately 65 5,000 homes is what it takes to power that facility. So thinking of that 100 megawatt power level, it can look like this as well. That's a 65 acre campus. It's what looks like when it's not spread out. Once again, this is 138,000 square feet. So 100 megawatts can look like a million square foot facility. It can look like a 100,000 square foot facility. What changes is the technology, how intense of a process they're using, what type of calculations, if this is, you know, designed to support AI, if this is designed to support a particular company's functions, it can vary wildly. Now that contrasts with the really largest scale, hyperscale, where you're talking about 1,200 acres in a campus, 200,000 square feet per building. So this development looks like a total of 6 million square feet that are planned. And that is 2.2 gigawatts of energy, which is 1.43 million homes worth of power. So these are huge users of power, users of other utilities, depending on the actual construction. This is the absolute sort of largest scale. But as time goes on and those demands increase, the industry is increasingly looking at these hyperscale levels in order to kind of satisfy that need. Now, what does that look like from land use perspective or technology perspective? Basically, it depends on the type of facility that we're looking at. So when we're talking about these machines running, regardless across the spectrum, they produce a lot of heat. Those computers running, the calculations, the power needed, the main sort of limitation on these facilities is how do they cool these computers down to keep them functioning? Step one, which is on the left, is direct evaporative cooling. So essentially, they pump water in, they use that water to cool the air, and then that's circulated through the system. These are the systems that use a ton of water. So this was sort of the cheapest, most straightforward way to cool these facilities, and once again involves evaporating and releasing incredible amounts of water. the operators of these facilities also have gone to a closed loose systems as well so essentially they spend a lot more money in order to create a system that doesn't use as much money but it requires a lot more power to chill it so it recirculates the same liquid without evaporating it through the air ultimately it is still a very resource intensive approach however it doesn't use as much water. Utility capacity. Any real facility of these sides has to have dedicated infrastructure. Once again, we were talking about a single facility consuming the same amount of power as thousands and thousands of homes. So they coordinate with local utilities to create the infrastructure. Depending on the agreements in place, that cost can sometimes get passed on to other rate payers, depending on how those agreements are set up. But once again, ultimately can require lots and lots of water, lots and lots of power in order to operate. And generators. In the event that there is an issue with the power grid, these facilities almost always use large-scale generators powered by kind of a variety of means in order to make sure that they have redundancy in case the power goes down. These are tested regularly, so not only is there sort of the sound generated with these uses from whatever is cooling them, but they test, you know, on a monthly or weekly basis these hundreds and hundreds of generators that are needed to kind of step in if that power is necessary. So looking at data centers in general, some of the recurring themes as far as land use impacts, we're talking about demand on the power grid, what that means to rate payers in the area, water consumption and discharge, How is that released? Noise level from the ventilation systems and the generators that are operating. Lighting associated with sort of the facility always being on and functioning. Anytime you're having developments that span hundreds of acres, you're looking at things like impervious surface. But one of the ones that really isn't talked about a lot is, you know, the loss of jobs producing or agricultural land, depending on kind of how the municipality looks at this or permits it. But these uses do not generate a ton of actual jobs once they are constructed. Really, it's the folks that kind of day-to-day maintenance, but really is sort of running independently of folks operating, compared to, say, an industrial use of that same size where you're talking about a much larger employment base. So the framework that you have before you is the follow-up pages. This was done in concert with some of our research into our best practices. it was also derived from part of the recommendations from the blue sky small area plan that you all recently looked into they made recommendations for updates to the industrial zone and they highlighted the need to kind of a framework for data centers and so the big picture is that we create new definitions for the use based on the size of the facility there is staff is recommending that no facilities larger than 50,000 square feet are allowed within Fayette County anything that is less than 50,000 square feet is only a conditional use in our B4 not I1 zones so no other zones would be allowed to have that use that comes with a variety of requirements that are spelled out in detail on the staff report and the corresponding text but they have to show their work regarding the energy that they're going to use the water the noise generated it contains separation requirements from residential uses agricultural uses and other similar facilities requirements on generator testing essentially we want the the framework to say you can be operating in lexington in these zones as long as you can show your math that this is not going to negatively impact the health safety and welfare of the communities that they're they're looking to locate in as an additional piece conditional use requires approval by the board of adjustment that's a public hearing so there is a public input process for those uses. And then last, we've created a definition that was suggested by the consultants for a server room. So this is highlighting when businesses have existing facilities, these are not really standalone uses. These are what is needed to power or serve their own business. Those are accessory uses. They're not going to be required to have any type of review. But really the big takeaways are that 50,000 square feet and less allowed in very limited zones under very stringent conditions. So staff is recommending approval, and we'll be talking about this a little bit later on this afternoon as well, once again stressing the need to provide some protections in place for a use that is prior to a recent moratorium imposed by council was allowed as a principal use. So we had a very large disconnect from the original zoning ordinance text amendment that we have now versus what was on the books previously. So we are recommending approval, but we're happy to have any questions you have. I know this is a whole new framework, so feel free to go ahead. Just out of curiosity, on the heavy industrial and university research campus, there's no provision for server rooms there. Can you talk about that a little bit? I'm assuming a research campus would have a server room. Yeah, we may need to double check to make sure that that didn't fall through the cracks. But I will speak to the heavy industrial as far as the allowance. So we have received some comment already asking about why it would be allowed in the light industrial zones, but not in the heavy industrial zones. And that was really a desire to protect essentially our jobs producing industrial land. And essentially any property that is going to be developed as a data center can generally outcompete most other typical uses at this point because of the absurd amount of money that is involved with these. But, yes, we'll make sure that we're all aligned on that. I understand the university already has server rooms. Hospitals already have server rooms. And I can't imagine that the research campus wouldn't need a server room. Yes. But it's not going to be good. I mean, it's going to be good. Yeah. It's going to be good. It's going to be good. Yep. And then up to 10. No. Daniel. Yes. clarification I think as much as anything much as what Judy was just mentioning on that one zone maybe omission on your graph you're showing you know where the ED zone that's you know data centers are prohibited correct But in the text, it fails to mention that it's a prohibited use. There's a few zones that it just simply doesn't mention it as a prohibited use. Yeah, and so essentially any time a use is not listed, if it's not listed in the zone, it's not permitted regardless. So the prohibited is really more just reminder text than anything. But we can add that in if there's a... So for the expansion area zones, they are worded slightly different. They don't include the... It doesn't list prohibited uses. It just says if it's not listed as permitted, it's prohibited, period. So there's no extra list of prohibited uses that give examples. So we don't need to list it there because it's covered by that language. Well, that clarifies it because if you scroll back two pages under P2, it does list it as a prohibited use. And it's like, okay, so you clarified it, though. That's fine. Yeah, you clarified it. Generators, substations, all of that, would that be part of that magical under 50,000 square foot? So we're really looking, I guess, at the size of the facility itself. So if we're talking about, like, the actual infrastructure that's normally not included, unless it's an actual structure, I would say. $50,000 would apply to the building, not anything stored outside. So if the generators are inside, then that would be included. If they are out on the grass, then no. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Again, our dividing up work this month. July turned out to be quite busy. A note on Daniel's presentation. That will be discussed this afternoon, of course, at Zoning Committee, like with all text amendments. But instead of it being a hearing July 23rd, it will be July 30th. So we have a meeting dedicated just to the data center text amendment. So I want to make that part of the conversation. For this case, ZODA 26-4, this is an amendment to solar energy systems, which you might remember the commission reviewed two years ago in July. we first discussed solar energy systems and a new article to the zoning ordinance and this case will be heard next week so we're again a little bit off from our normal zoning review of these two text amendments from the council this item was referred to the commission from the council and came to the Planning Commission in mid-May. So our applicant is the Urban County Council. They initiated it May 14th, and that gives us 60 days from that date to have our hearing and make a recommendation back to the council. And the intent is to just update the solar energy system regulations, which are all found in Article 31 of the zoning ordinance. and I don't know I think we've covered most of this over the last month in terms of a work session and then also a work group that the chair put together that Mr. Owens and Ms. Worth were both on but just to briefly cover it we heard things in 2024 the Planning Commission we sent texts to the Council from your recommendation, which included a recommendation to hold off on any solar energy systems in our agricultural zones that were basically ground mounted in the intermediate or large scale realm, indicating that there needed to really be more stakeholder input and research done into the impacts of those in the ag areas. When the council received that text amendment, they did spend some time reviewing the text but also set up their own work group to review a lot of the information that Daniel had researched for you. They sort of redid that and gathered the information again and now are recommending additional changes to the ordinance since you saw it last. So in 2025, when they updated the text, when they actually adopted the text amendment that we sent, they did make changes, and those are outlined in the staff report at the bottom of page one and also the top of page two. And that did involve putting in a few things that sort of were indicators that they were considering an ag use as a conditional use in the future. And those were making the small-scale ground-mounted accessory, the intermediate-scale ground-mounted a conditional use. So they made those changes. They also added requirements if the Board of Adjustment was going to review something for information that would help the board make decisions like a topo map, a screening plan, the NRCS map, and also community benefit evaluations. They required vegetative ground cover for 85% of a property, and then they put in a maximum land utilization for the entire county. So they identified the size of Fayette County as 182,000 acres, and they said 1% of that should be allowed to be in, that would be a maximum, should be allowed to be in ground-mounted solar. So they felt we're indicating to the PSD, Public Service Commission, really the maximum that our county wants to accept in terms of this type of energy production and land utilization. And then that 1%, so again, 182,000, 1% is 1,800 acres, would be allowed to be within an ag zone to serve the county or serve the grid. So they did add some of those things, but they still left conditional use permits for large scale off the table. But when they created their committee, they wanted to look at that. So when the working group met earlier, well, they started in September, as soon as they adopted the other ordinance and worked through February. And Mr. Crum and I attended every meeting. And they did study and ask experts and stakeholders to come in. So they did gather more information. And now we're coming back with this second proposal now to amend Article 31. certainly some of the changes are in line with what we have been discussing with the commission for these past two years and some of the other things that council's done like allow actually make the landfill or city landfill available for solar installation so one of the things that the committee recommends making a change to the ordinance has to do with brownfields and allowing an exception so that in any zone, whether it's an ag zone, residential zone, or business zone, that if you do have a property that is categorized as a brownfield, that solar would be permitted there of any type. So that's one thing that the committee suggested. One of the other things was a change to the ag zones, which is to allow it as a conditional use in large scale, for large-scale merchant styles or size, which is, again, more than five acres, within our AR and our AU zones. And let's see the third change or one of the other changes. They did provide some more definitions for prime soil, or sorry, prime farmland and statewide significance for soil, definition of brownfield property, community benefit plans. That was not something that the commission had spoken about before. So they added text about if a user applicant was interested in coming to the community, that they would create a community benefit plan. Of course, it would be optional. And then also a change for decommissioning, that once a site is inactive for the current text says a year, then that would trigger decommissioning activity on a site. They opted to change that to six months and then also added some hazard assessment for battery storage. I think what the main, most of the changes recommended by the council or sent back to us for review are consistent with what we've spoken about before and are intended to either clarify or make sure we're protecting the land and are just consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan the one thing that does not really align with the Planning Commission or the adopted comprehensive plan and the rural land management plan is the policy to allow for conditional use in our AR and AU zones for large-scale solar so despite the recommendation coming from the council to consider that the staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission is to remove all of the language related to conditional uses in the agricultural zones and that we change the table to again remove the additional column that they added and move everything back to either accessory or prohibited uses in the Ag zones just clarification about colors here yes yes the red is from the council blue came from staff exactly yes and we did say you know goals and objectives and the soil composition and the environment and economy those are the things that you know are outlined in our comprehensive plan and rolling management plan that we're trying to protect and solar does not align with those goals in the same way it does within the urban service area any questions or and again next month or not next month next week we will be having a public hearing about this following the plans and waivers that you just heard more about just a quick question on brown fields you said they would be allowed in any zone basically a solar field do we have brown zones within the city we do and we have some information from our there's the race to net zero plan that the division of environmental services has prepared and that includes a table of the EPA has listed or recognized list of brownfields and they are both outside the urban service boundary and within most of them are not real large some you know less than an acre some five acres or ten acres the largest was our landfill and the city is already working with a development group to put solar there but yes they we do have a list and a map that we can bring to the hearing for sure yes and I can we can share that with you yes Tracy I guess just speaking to that our other old landfill would probably be the next largest brownfield area yeah that we had there was a public meeting Tuesday night and that was a question from one of the participants in the meeting there's a there's there's a early and I think he was talking about the construction landfill but we do you're right we do have two landfills we have the landfill that's in the agricultural area where they're putting their they've gone forward with the proposal Haley Pike landfill but we have a capped landfill on Frankfort Pike as well and I've not I've not heard the same conversations about that site maybe because it is so constrained at Haley Pike there's there's more available land that's not been used yet for the landfill but once a landfill is capped you can you really can't just drive structures into it because it will yeah it punctures the membrane and stuff like that so while there might be some interest in our least town road or open for a pike corridor there I'm not sure that has the same available land but the question we had the other night was about the construction landfill which is privately operated and mr. Duncan reminded me after we spoke about the meeting that it's in a different zone completely, which is the EX1 zone, and they would not be really within the framework of solar, be able to even apply for that. Any other questions? Okay. Well, thank you for your time today. Oh, yes. Your microphone's not on, though. We had a question that came up about who owns the Bluegrass Army Depot property at this point. Did anybody do research on that? Jim, Mr. Duncan says Commonwealth of Kentucky owns. And is that leased by Fayette County? I don't think Fayette County leases it. They have private entities that operate there. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. I guess that adjourns our meeting. Thank you. We'll be right back. One that really screams I've been searching for the daughter of the devil himself I've been searching for an angel in white I've been waiting for a woman who's a little bold And I can feel her but she's nowhere inside Ooh, all you just will mind you And between the wrong and the right Oh, come and look behind you Swear I'm gonna find you one of these nights One is mine In the king of dark and the love Coming right behind you Swear I'm gonna find you We'll get you, baby, one of these nights. One of these nights. One of these nights. And I can feel, can feel. One of these nights. Covered behind you, swear I'm gonna stand you now. One of these nights, it'll be so dark, so dark behind you. One of these nights, one of these crazy, crazy, crazy nights. One of these nights, I swear I know I'm starting to come. I don't want to say I don't want to say I don't want to say I don't want to say I'm going to be right. We'll be right back. Thank you. We are here to celebrate an exciting new chapter in Lex Tran's art shelter program. At Lex Tran, our mission is to serve people in our community with mobility solutions. We know our service connects people to jobs, to health care, to education, and other quality of life activities. We also know it connects neighborhoods and builds communities. Today, we are proud to launch our 2026