# Planning Commission Work Session - July 16, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 16, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6830 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6830?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-07-16 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 15,856 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 Planning Commission Work Session convened on July 16, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. ET / 12:30 p.m. CT in the Phoenix Building 3rd floor Conference Room. The work session was informational in nature, with no votes taken and no public comments heard. The Commission considered five agenda items: Placemaking, Downtown Area Master Plan Update, Data Center Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, Other Business, and Adjournment. All items were presented for informational purposes only. ## Attendance The following commissioners were present at the July 16, 2026 Commission meeting: * Hannah Crepps * Boyd O. Sewe * Daniel Crum * Hal Bailey No commissioners were absent or arrived late. ## Contested Items The Commission meeting on July 16, 2026 included discussion of two contested items: **Downtown Area Master Plan** The Downtown Area Master Plan generated significant community opposition, particularly regarding which neighborhoods would be included in the plan. Residents of the William Wells Brown neighborhood expressed substantial concerns about the proposal. Their primary worry centered on the potential for gentrification and displacement resulting from the plan's implementation. **Data Center Zoning Ordinance** The Data Center Zoning Ordinance prompted heated discussion among Commission members and participants. The debate focused on two main areas of concern: the environmental impacts of data centers and the appropriate size limitations that should be imposed on such facilities. Specific concerns raised included the effects on power consumption, water usage, and noise generation from data center operations. ## Placemaking Hannah Crepps presented on the concept of placemaking [timestamp: 00:00:14], focusing on the importance of community involvement in creating vibrant, welcoming spaces. The presentation was informational in nature. **Key Points** The discussion emphasized how placemaking relies on active community participation to develop spaces that are both functional and inviting to residents and visitors. **Outcome** The agenda item concluded as an informational presentation with no formal action taken. ## Downtown Area Master Plan Update Boyd O. Sewe presented the Downtown Area Master Plan to the Commission, with participation from Hal Bailey. The presentation focused on community engagement efforts and key recommendations for future development in the downtown area [timestamp: 0:26:21]. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the Commission with an overview of the master plan's development process and proposed direction for downtown growth and revitalization. The plan incorporated input gathered through community engagement activities, reflecting stakeholder perspectives on downtown priorities and development goals. Key recommendations from the master plan were highlighted during the presentation, though specific details of those recommendations were not documented in the meeting record. The presentation served to inform Commission members of the planning work completed and the community input that shaped the plan's direction. This agenda item concluded as an informational presentation without a formal vote or decision required at this time. ## Data Center Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Daniel Crum presented a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment addressing data centers. The discussion focused on size limitations and environmental impacts associated with data center development. **Key Discussion Points:** - Size limitations for data center facilities - Environmental impact considerations **Outcome:** The item was presented for informational purposes. No formal action was taken at this time. ## Other Business During the Other Business section of the meeting, the Commission engaged in general discussion on various topics including public engagement and future planning sessions. This agenda item served an informational purpose and allowed for broader conversation beyond the structured items on the agenda. No specific transcript timestamp is available for this portion of the meeting. ## Adjourn The meeting was adjourned. --- ## Full transcript And we're ready to start this plan session, work session. We'll start with placemaking with Hannah Kreps. Good afternoon. Is this on? Okay, good. Classic rookie move. I'm Hannah Kreps with the outreach and strategic planning section. here today to speak about a term, a concept that you will have all heard before. So the Comprehensive Plan defines placemaking as the process of creating quality places where people actually want to live, to work, play, shop, learn, visit, basically all the things. Theme D of the comprehensive plan delves into this with an entire pillar devoted to 15 placemaking strategies. I am not going to read aloud all of those strategies, but I do want to draw your attention to a few verbs and key phrases. Create, cultivate, activate, coordinate, collaborate, and then work with interested neighborhoods, honor Lexington's history, create safer spaces, coordinate with nonprofits, promote economic development, and adaptive reuse. So I invite you all to explore the full breadth of these strategies in your own time, but for right now, I just wanted to point out that the word placemaking is often used without really understanding or agreeing on its meaning. And this makes sense because the purpose of placemaking expands and contracts depending on the context and perspective. Okay, so considering its malleability, I wanted to start just by grounding us in the policy language that we use here in Lexington. Okay, so having set the groundwork, let's widen the lens and cover some basics. So if the concept is so malleable and context-specific, then how do you know if something is actually placemaking? One clue is in the name itself. So to borrow an expression from a friend, placemaking implies action, not place made or place we'll make later when all conditions and plans are perfect. You can look for four recognizable hallmarks. A place that is loved. There is evidence of grassroots or non-institutional. So that's not government or a single developer. Non-institutional care and attention. Unexpected. The place has unexpected elements of surprise and delight. Experimentation and curiosity abound. Animated. The place is animated. There's ongoing evolution and there are ever-changing characteristics. And then the place is shared. So it has features that invite the enjoyment of anyone and everyone, not just a select few that pay. So I wanted to just really quickly express some gratitude. I did not come up with these by myself. I just appreciate the help I had, brainstorming good inspiration and how best to articulate what makes great placemaking. So thank you to Alice Hilton, Sadie Middleton, Ryan Hughes, and Quinn Mulholland. It was very difficult to choose only a few examples. I've only got 10 minutes, but I wanted to take a look at a few. So first, we have little free libraries. So this is a national spread. It's not something that's site-specific, but it is highly individualized. There is resident ownership. These counter the pervasive pay-first model that we see in our culture. They're always changing. The material is ebbing and flowing, and they can be modified to meet and respond to local needs or desires, such as art supplies, maybe canned goods, hygienic supplies. Okay, you can have placemaking in the form of art on fire hydrants, storm drains, utility boxes. These are actually from my hometown of Danville. So in downtown, it's mysterious to me, the origin actually, but many of the hydrants all across downtown are painted. They're a reliable source of delight. They are unique. They're thematically connected to the surroundings. They're small, yes, and they're easily unnoticed, but when you do, you're surprised. Okay, and then you can have placemaking that's happening on front porches. You can have yardins, art alleys. Yardins is a term maybe not everyone is familiar with. If I'm not mistaken, Louisville has recently passed an ordinance that allows yardins, and it's basically edible gardens in people's front yards instead of grass. So these spaces all blur the distinction between public and private space. So any one person can encounter these spaces, and they can experience a little joy. Similar to Little Free Libraries, the concept is a container for wonderful personal expression. Each of these spaces signals invitation, welcome, care, and beauty. It is evident that someone or some group has taken ownership and played an active role in how the space looks and feels. Garden Side Park. Y'all, this is my new favorite park in Lexington. So this has an active neighborhood association. There's connections with the local nonprofit Friends of Wolf Run. There are many different cues of care and unique features in Gardenside Park, and these only come out from community participation. They've been doing Popsicle Mondays during the summer, so there's recurring events. There's a beautiful stream bank pollinator garden. There's a kiosk with rotating educational signage. and there's a beautiful student-created mosaic, which I did not include a picture of because I think you should all go see for yourself. Okay, and then lastly, Parkland Plaza. So this is a project that happened in Louisville. When I worked for a nonprofit in Louisville, I was at the very, very beginning of this project. This was started and initiated by a resident-led group. It was a partnership between that resident group and the nonprofit. There was some city funding and there was permitting support. We did a quick build better block intervention. There was ongoing activation through a local music nonprofit. And then additional funding came through and design helped to elevate it to a permanent park. So we went from AstroTurf and bourbon barrels to what you see here. and then nearby asphalt art actually helped to root this park in the neighborhood and sort of express the voice of the neighborhood oh and then here's an example that's actually bad but this is not in Lexington, this is again in Danville, this is Weisiger Memorial Park sometimes this is an active space when there's an event city sponsored but most of the time I walk past this and it's empty which is interesting because it has all these wonderful features, it's got great seating It's got evidence of care and love. And I put this in here just to kind of point out and kind of show that placemaking is more than just the physical beautification. It has to have some human element. It has to have some person or people or group that's sort of fueling and energizing the space. So I recently had the opportunity to attend Placemaking Week in Detroit. Several of us from LFUCG got to go. So Placemaking Week, for those of you who don't know, is a national conference. It gathers professionals from across many fields together with engaged community members that are learning and teaching with each other. So there are urban designers, landscape architects, city planners, but there are also community service nonprofits. There are arts-based coalitions. There are craft and vendor market organizations, public health workers, plenty more. community energizers. Everyone at Placemaking Week believes that vibrant places generate a return on investment, and that above all, good placemaking is inherently welcoming and lays the bedrock for a healthy, and I mean that in every sense of the word, community. So a few takeaways from my experience this summer. Placemaking only lasts when it is rooted in the desires and the talents of the people directly impacted. If a placemaking effort is top-down, doesn't involve or resonate with the community, is one-time only or too generic, it doesn't achieve any enduring positive change. Placemaking is intentional, and yet it also allows for spontaneity, unexpected and unplanned collisions of ideas, needs, and talent. Yes, this is about the physical, tangible, but it is also about early conversations, open ears, and social kindling. Provide the setting, but foster activities, gatherings, and events. Placemaking is not something that government leads alone or even maybe at all, so it is okay that it is not linear and sometimes messy. There must be a mix of actors. There have to be local neighbors, shop owners, church groups, design professionals, funders, and institutions. Yes, that's government. Could be also libraries, schools, hospitals, etc. And then lastly, good placemaking happens when someone has an idea and realizes they have the power to bring life into the spaces around them. Not just their home or their workspace or the private club they belong to, although all of those are great spaces to practice the muscle of placemaking. but in their local park, their neighborhood street, the commercial node around the block. I have a few other notes, but I want to be mindful of time, so any questions? Go ahead. Thank you. Great presentation. I'm very interested in exploring the possibility of connecting funders which is a top-down approach to the bottom-up placemaking because what we saw in that presentation it takes this it takes what we've seen love curiosity excitement all of these things that are born from a community so one of the possibilities of how we connect can connect funding to this organic growth would be similar maybe to how we have open space requirements for commercial or for developments and there is a carrot that's been put in place which is if you are within a certain distance of a public park, you're going to have reduced green space requirements. And so the idea was hopefully promoting the use of our parks, promoting development around the parks, and it's a way to further activate those spaces and allow the developer to get greater density. I would be interested in exploring the possibility that if there was some carrot out there, that if a developer is developing, let's say, a block for multifamily housing, instead of that developer top-down placemaking a specific area to reduce some of the government restrictions or land use restrictions on the property to allow it to be more dense, let's just leave it there. If there were a possibility where a developer could support financially an area that's having placemaking, an area that's focused on placemaking but it's not within a certain distance from that property, that could be a real advantage. We could have someone downtown that wants to build a hotel that would trade off, let's say, green space, but they're not within a park. But if we created a way where they could fund an already established placemaking as a contribution, that could both promote organic growth and promote development. So if there is a way we can try to find a way to connect bottom up and top down, that would be really interesting. Agreed. Yes. I do think that the point of funding, the issue of funding, is pretty significant. And like I mentioned, the meaning and what placemaking is expands and contracts. It can be as small as planter boxes. it can be uh you know the art on the fire hydrants which can't cost too too much money but then yes when there is significant funding that just amplifies the power and i think what it can do is we've seen in our studies that everybody always wants more parks and the idea of park we just leave it out there as parks but what we're seeing is yardins and alleys these interesting spaces that can be activated for the community to get together should be promoted. And if there's a way that we can give developers incentive through reduced land use restrictions to fund some of these developments, you're building downtown, but you've invested in a north side or a third street pocket park that's doing great and it just needs funding. That could be a great way to get everybody together. Long run. Okay. Just, Bruce, in theory, I kind of like that idea. The only thing that I would have concerns about is we need green space downtown, too, and too much trading off gives us hot and paved. The other thing I would say is 100 years ago, my neighborhood association got a grant from the city where we put little gardens in all the cul-de-sacs in our neighborhood. What I observed at the time was that the city has a lot of resources to give out to groups, whether they're churches or neighborhoods or whatever. What they lack is technical assistance for a lot of those groups to be able to learn how to submit a grant. Some neighborhoods are full of people who have a lot of experience with that. We were fortunate in that respect. But I know there are a lot of neighborhoods and a lot of churches who could access funds that are already available, but they don't know how to submit the grants. Thank you. Yes. Your slide, your park down in Danville, Weisinger. Weisinger Memorial Park, yeah. So what's missing? Well, I am still figuring that out. But I think what's missing is the more organic piece. So the city of Danville sponsors events that happen there, and in those instances lots of people show up and it's full. But I don't think there's a sense that the park is for the community unless there's something formal happening. And I think it's a bit of a chicken and the egg thing. So residents figuring out that they actually can activate and affect sort of the environment around them as opposed to just sort of passively receiving whatever is there. And I think that takes, you know, one or two people who maybe have that mindset and maybe have some creativity and can come up with something to sort of pop up in the park and surprise people. I am currently considering, you know, in my free time, you know, what could I do to kind of activate that park? But it's not missing too much, but I think it's missing the organic element. How simple could it be? I'm just curious. I probably have played cornhole twice. What if you put cornhole on the board just out there? Yes. Cornhole, and then I love, I know I mentioned it, but Garden Side with their Popsicle Mondays. It's a regular event. They're giving them out. It's free. People become familiar, and they recognize, okay, at this time, on this day, I need to go for this thing. you meet other people something could emerge out of that so popsicles and cornhole i think i might give that a try thank you yeah thanks yes uh first of all i do appreciate also your presentation in fact the mayor of danville is a good friend of mine we're going to be having dinner yeah yeah i am such a fan of his that's really yeah jh and i've been together a long time so when we have dinner i'm going to give him a good report on his community as such but uh also i'd suggest because I know people like Cornhole that they ought to set up a big huge chess board so people could come in and manipulate, like whatever the case may be. But anyhow, thank you for the presentation. I needed your presentation today. It has saved me $400 with my psychiatrist. I'm just kidding you. That's great. That's what I'm here for. Okay. So the rest of us who have to work with him are very good. Yes. Good, good, good. Thank you, guys. Okay. Go ahead, Frank. That's all right. I can do it later. What happened right out the door here with the park that we had to redo? Phoenix. Phoenix Park. What made it not functional and it's going to be functional now? Well, I don't know if I have enough authority to answer that, but I was almost going to include it as an example, actually, because I think it's well on its way. Because we have in Phoenix, they do at least once a week. I think it's twice a week. they do a concert at lunchtime and it's free and anybody can come food trucks have started showing up it's a little bit that's parks and rec i think managing that which is wonderful and it's giving you know the government a sense of presence that i think is much needed but i but i decided not to include it because it's still a little bit on the top down side now i will say i did see just today a fellow in kind of the middle area dancing all by himself. He had like a boom box, and he didn't look crazy, but he was dancing. And I thought, well, that is someone taking this space and making it their own, which is an example of placemaking. So it's not even a year old, and I think it's already displaying that. Mr. Penn, I think it's also we added a playground, which wasn't there, And that has greatly changed who participates because, you know, you've got the flow from the library to the playground. And that seems to have brought a lot more, a lot of different people there than were there before. I was just kind of wondering why the first one didn't do that. You know, what did we learn from the first one that we improved on the second one? Ooh, bathrooms. Yeah. I was going to say something that I grew up hearing, going to Phoenix Park as a kid. because the fountains had all kinds of kids waiting in them. And you could climb up those rocks and you could, you know, collect change out of the fountains. And then they started putting signs up that you couldn't get in the water. You're probably going to die if you got in the water. It was poisonous or something. Keep the kids out of the water. Well, then there was nothing to do. and then so you know you you lost the activity and then um the only activity was people who were homeless using the library as their public space and the park as their public space but you know it wasn't just the design of the park it was the management of the park because the design of the park had all this public water that at one point in time was very active space so you know we can we can design good things and then regulate them to death you know they i i think they did a good design for the park so i'm not critiquing that But it is sort of interesting to see that when you come in, you're like, this isn't working. So we haul off all the red boulders and then bring in gray boulders. You're just like, sometimes the change doesn't need to be, you know, the change can be less than we think to make something work. And then I was going to say one other thing. And I'd be interested in you looking at some of the places that are doing a good job with placemaking and looking at the relationship to those neighborhoods around the space, in particular home ownership. because as these areas around our downtown or in certain areas, as we're seeing a transformation from more and more people renting, what impact is that going to have on neighborhood groups and doing placemaking? I know that a lot of the things that I've been involved with in our neighborhood, whether it's the gardens at Woodland Park or it's tree planting in the neighborhood, Those are organized by groups. The neighborhood is primarily, is largely rental, but most of the people organizing those are homeowners in the neighborhood. And so either looking at how to engage people who are renters in this sort of activity or what does that look like to protect areas for this type of neighborhood activity as more and more of the single family homes are redeveloped into apartments as we look around the downtown area. This is not specifically for you, Hannah. This is a question, not a statement. But sort of in my professional career, we operated off the if you feed them, they will come principle. And somebody mentioned the food trucks, and I'm wondering if there's a way. I don't know what our restrictions are, if there's a way to loosen some things up so that we can have food trucks in other places. because, I mean, I noticed when Parks and Rec did their appreciation event in Woodland Park and we had all the food trucks over there. Well, a lot of people came for the food and stayed and mixed and all that kind of stuff. And is there a way we can explore doing that somehow, not just in our parks, but in our public spaces or even some private spaces where the owners are willing to be open to that? this is just to open up a discussion. We've seen at Gatton Park, we have private security in Gatton Park, which is super helpful. In these areas where we have the ability to placemake, it may be a good idea to reach out to our police department and see what things can be done to help them be on location as often as possible to create that security, that safe environment. And there's some things that are done in local apartment communities where you have a special Wi-Fi router that you leave open to the police officer so that they can come do their paperwork while in their patrol car. I would say if we go down this path, continue to go down the path, we need to consider security and safety. And I would imagine that our police department would be interested in participating to help make these spaces protected and safe. So that may be someone that you would like to reach out to to figure out how we can coordinate with them and provide that added layer of safety. So people are taking their kids to these spots and just feel more comfortable about the space itself. All right. Well, thank you so much, Hannah. Okay, boy. Good afternoon. We good on this? One, two, vibe check. Okay, today's presentation will briefly cover the purpose of the plan, the downtown area master plan, the planning process, what we had, the major recommendations, and the refinements made during public review. Today's presentation will provide an overview of the planning process and answer any questions you may have before next week's public hearing. I'll discuss the plan, the planning process, the community engagement that shaped it, the key recommendations, the refinements made following the public review. This plan reflects over a year of conversations about the future of downtown Lexington. Throughout the project, we engaged residents, businesses, neighborhood representatives, institutions, council members, community organizations, and the development community. This has been a community-driven process. Staff and the consultant's role was to listen to the community and translate that input into a comprehensive planning document using technical analysis, adapted city policies, and planning best practices. Downtown is Lexington's civic, cultural, and economic center. The purpose of this plan is to establish a shared vision for downtown's future. It provides a framework to guide future growth, redevelopment, and public investment. It also serves as a guide for future policy decisions, capital improvements, and implementation efforts. Most importantly, this plan establishes a long-term vision informed by the community and supported by professional planning analysis. The project followed a deliberate planning process where each phase built on the previous one. We began by understanding existing conditions and identifying opportunities and challenges throughout downtown. We then conducted extensive community engagement to understand priorities, concerns, and ideas of downtown's future. That input informed the vision and recommendations contained in the draft plan. After releasing the draft, we continued gathering feedback through online comments and meeting with stakeholders, reviewing that input, and refining the document where appropriate. Because this is a community-driven plan, engagement was the foundation of the project. We intentionally used a variety of engagement methods to reach people where they were rather than relying on limited public meetings. We conducted public workshops, advisory committee meetings, stakeholder meetings, neighborhood meetings, council briefings, community events, and online engagement. Through those efforts, we heard from residents, businesses, neighborhood representatives, institutions, community organizations, council members, and the development community. Our goal wasn't simply to collect comments. It was to identify recurring themes, understand community priorities, and use the information to inform the plan. Throughout the engagement process, several themes consistently emerged. We had the need for additional housing opportunities serving a variety of income levels. We had strong support for a safer, more workable downtown with improved pedestrian and bicycle connections. Participants consistently emphasized investing in public spaces and creating a vibrant public realm. We also had the importance of supporting local businesses while encouraging continued investment in downtown. Another recurring theme was preserving downtown's unique character while accommodating future growth. growth. Finally, we heard that creating a welcoming downtown includes addressing the needs of our unhoused neighbors through thoughtful, coordinated strategies. As with any long-range planning efforts, we had both support and concern throughout the process. Those conversations strengthened the document and helped shape many of the recommendations presented in the final draft. The plan recommendations directly responded to the themes we consistently had through the community engagement. The plan supports expanding housing opportunities while encouraging compatible redevelopment. It recommends continued investment in workability, streetscapes, bicycle connections, and public spaces. It encourages strengthening downtown's economy by supporting local business and mixed-use development. It also establishes an implementation framework that helps guide future public investments and policy decisions. None of this recommendation stands alone. Together, they create a comprehensive framework for downtown's future. After the draft plan was released, staff and the consultant continued engaging stakeholders while also reviewing every online public comment received. Staff and the consultant carefully reviewed feedback received through online comments, meeting with council members, neighborhood representatives, community leaders, and the development community. Where comments identified opportunities to strengthen the plan, improve clarity, or better align recommendations with the existing city policy, revisions were incorporated. Those refinements included updating the housing incentive recommendations to align with Lexington's existing housing programs, adding the 2021 Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force report to the plans reviewed and expanding the anti-displacement section by adding a dedicated strategy and supporting recommendations. Throughout the review of the process, comments were evaluated using technical analysis, adopted city policy, planning best practices, and staff's professional planning judgment. I'd like to conclude with one final thought about this planning process. From the beginning, this was a community-driven plan. The recommendations did not begin as predetermined solutions. They evolved through extensive community engagement and continued dialogue throughout the project. Over the past year, we had a wide range of perspectives. Some viewpoints aligned, while others differed. And that is exactly what we expect in a long-range planning effort. Our responsibility as planning professionals was not simply to collect comments. It was a careful evaluate all input, identify common themes, and develop recommendations that advance the community's long-term vision for downtown. Where comments strengthened the document, improved clarity, or better aligned recommendations with existing city policies, revisions were incorporated. The document reflects that complete process. It is informed by community engagement, supported by technical analysis, grounded in adopted city policy and planning best practices, and presents staff professional planning judgment. We appreciate everyone who participated throughout this process and helped make this stronger. Before I open the floor for questions, I'd like to leave with this map of the downtown area master plan. As with any planning process, we've had both support and concerns throughout the past year. Community engagement has been central to this project, and this feedback has helped shape the draft before you today. I'll now turn it over to Hal to provide an overview of what we've had before opening the floor to questions. Thank you very much. Hal Bailey, Manager of Long Range Planning. I want to go a little deeper into some of the comments that Boyd was talking about with some of our public input throughout the entirety of the process. Throughout the outreach process, the downtown master plan was focused on avoiding any preconceived notions of what this plan was meant to be at the end of it. The team allowed for community feedback to shape the analysis and recommendations. This resulted really in the emergence of new chapters, new perspectives of things, including the added chapter on the unhoused population in our downtown areas and the support that we need for those populations. And then expanded recommendations related to anti-displacement strategies and affordable housing opportunities for the downtown core and midtown area previously referred to as that area of downtown influence. an aspect of long-range planning for the downtown area that needs to be stressed as we come to the final stages of this plan is that not everyone believed that we needed a plan for our downtown area nor that their neighborhoods should be considered when we were reviewing some of this process planning staff and the consultant team heard from community members that there is a sincere distrust of the government and government plans. During these conversations with community members from neighborhoods, including the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association and the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association, we heard significant concerns regarding the potential impacts of being included in a plan by the urban county government and talking about downtown development. Residents referenced Lexington's history of displacement, including the demolition of Adamstown for the construction of the Memorial Coliseum, the destruction of portions of South Hill for the parking associated with Rupp Arena, and then the urban renewal projects associated with the early 90s developments and how that impacted the East End neighborhood. Community members voiced their frustration with the ongoing impacts of gentrification that is leading to displacement and the current economic pressures that affect neighbors and neighborhoods who are culturally and historically tied to their neighbors, neighborhoods. We didn't take these concerns lightly in the development of this plan. They directly informed the recommendations for the plan, such as tax abatement for affordable housing, landlord incentives for the development of housing, home buyer support and other strategies that are meant to support neighborhoods and seek greater stabilization and opportunities for neighborhoods that could be impacted by future downtown development with or without a plan. These recommendations were not predetermined. They emerged through these conversations that we had with residents, neighborhood representatives, council members, stakeholders and the broader public. Throughout the process, we have continued to meet with neighborhood representatives and their council members to describe the intent and the potential benefits that the recommendations of the plan have itself. We stress that the downtown area master plan does not result in immediate regulatory policy or zoning changes. Rather, it provides recommendations to appointed and elected officials to move forward the potential solutions to the continued issues that were addressed by neighborhood representatives and neighbors and community members that came to the different public and neighborhood meetings that we held. While these conversations have been productive, they do not suggest in any way, shape, or form that the distrust of the government or the planning process has been resolved. Building trust requires continued engagement, implementation, and then follow through. We recognize that this work is ongoing. We're doing this in various different ways, not just with the downtown plan, but with various other projects that we're doing, not only within the government, but within the division of planning. From the start of the engagement process, the leadership of the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association expressed a desire to be removed from the plan in its entirety. This reflects continued concerns regarding the perception of the plan and government-led projects. We respect these concerns and the context in which they were given. On the other hand, by removing the neighborhood from the plan, it continues to leave the neighborhood subject to the same impacts of displacement that were raised time and time again by residents that were providing feedback for this downtown master plan. The continued input was provided at neighborhood and community-wide meetings regarding the need to plan to protect and preserve neighborhoods that are surrounding the downtown area and are historically rooted in that area. these suggestions and recommendations that were put forth by the neighborhood and have been put into the plan are outlined in the plan specifically into chapter four and the implementation items that are at the end of the entire document the planning staff and the consultant have also included additional recommendations following our recent meeting with the leadership of the William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association just last week while we know that no plan will be perfect and there has been deep concern regarding the implementation of this plan the downtown master plan is reflective of significant public outreach and input and is a balanced approach of guiding future development and protecting and supporting existing neighborhoods thank you very much for letting me go through some of that I think that this does represent a significant outreach and a significant plan that is community-based as Boyd was pointing in. We'd be happy to have any questions at this point in time about the plan and its current configuration. This is more of a comment. First of all, I appreciate the efforts you all are making. Number one, that engagement piece is critical. I was surprised to hear some of the comments that you made related to the fact that they did not wish to be a part of the plan, but I think it's important to continue to reach out and continue to do as you're doing there. There has been a lot of misunderstanding between the issue of gentrification and displacement. One of the things we had tackled in the neighborhoods for transition, we could never agree on gentrification. We didn't. That comes to the eye of the beholder on that. But one of the things we all agreed on was what we called involuntary displacement. That's a different because a lot of people want to get rid of whatever it is, their properties, and some people are living outside of this state, and they do whatever they can to get rid of it as such. But I really appreciate the emphasis, and you're in a bind a little bit, but I think you're on the right track in a sense because if a community says they don't want to participate, then if something happens, then they're going to come back and say, well, they didn't ask us to participate. So you can't go that way. I would rather have the errors of enthusiasm as opposed to the errors of indifference. So I applaud you for continuing to push for that community engagement. And you're absolutely right. Based on the things that we've seen and observed around this community, I can see why people wouldn't trust us as such. But trust is not something you develop overnight anyhow. And the key word that I heard you all say was continuation and continuing to function. So I just want to give a pat on the back to you. I think you've done a good job here and encourage you to continue. And I will say this is still a draft. We are still taking public comment on this, and I don't want to say that, well, the representatives from William Wells said they didn't want to be in the plan. The William Wells Neighborhood Association has engaged in this plan. They have provided feedback. Just in that meeting last week, they provided feedback of what they saw as deficiencies and what they saw as distrust. So I don't want to make it sound like they have disengaged completely. Oh, no, that's fair. I'm glad you did this, Hal. The only thing, I've gotten several copies of letters from the Williams-Brown neighborhood. And how do you answer the question? I haven't responded to any of them because I don't have enough information to respond. But how do you respond to the neighborhood that, yes, it's okay unless the University of Kentucky wants it? And that is a tough thing to deal with with all development within our community. But that's affecting these neighborhoods that you're talking about. Well, it has affected a lot of neighborhoods. I mean, especially when we talk about the historical context of Rupp Arena or we talk about the historical context of Memorial. What we need to do is be leading with our transparency of this being a community-driven process and making sure that we're getting the implementation items that are called for for the concerns that were put out there. So having a very clear implementation table and then working with the appropriate people to move those things forward. I think a large portion of the issue with many planning documents is we can plan to our heart's delight, But we do not own the ability to move certain things forward We can own certain elements when it comes to zone changes and we can work with you and the council on Certain things when it comes to zoning ordinance text amendments But when it comes to policy funding and other things like that We need to work closely with the elected officials and the other appointed officials to try to move those policies and Recommendations forward so that we have a clear implementation strategy going forward Can I follow up on that? Will you see the data where the University of Kentucky and the city works together, or do you think they're just... I think that Boyd worked very hard to ensure that they were at the table as many meetings as possible. We are continuing as a staff to do that type of outreach, build those relationships more and more so that we know what they're trying to do, but also they know what we are trying to accomplish. If we can collaborate and accomplish the best set of things from our downtown plan and their master plan, the city and the university can grow together. What would help a lot is they communicate with the public. That's true. I mean, that's your boogaboo right there. Go ahead. Could I build on that one thing? When we have these discussions with it right now, I don't know what level of people you're getting from the University of Kentucky, But if they're not bringing their policy people there, if the people sitting at that table can't tell you yes like they can tell you no, I wouldn't pay any attention to them. Well, they did. We had vice presidents. Yes. So we had good. We had good. Okay. okay so just to educate me the meeting most recent meeting you had with the william wells brown group what were the concerns that that neighborhood was still voicing about the plan going forward they indicated that they there was a sincere distrust that we were making rules for the neighborhood and that their public input was not taken into uh into account with this plan during the conversation we brought up some of the things that directly came out of our conversations however there's still a distrust and a not want for us to be involved in the the development of the neighborhood's future the specificity of things that were in the plan or not in the plan were they what what did they say to you about that i think there was a lot of conversation about how at the initial meetings they were not interested in being involved and they felt not heard with some of those elements and that there is a real issue continuing with the development that is occurring there the continued increase of taxes on homes in those areas because of the valuation of the properties which is leading to a lot of involuntary displacement. There was a real concern of whether or not a lot of this plan was going to get at those things, if we were going to be able to solve those issues. And all of those are real issues, and all of those things are brought up in the plan. They are elements of the plan that we make recommendations through implementation strategies to work with the elected officials to push those policies forward. But it is really a way for us to start the conversation and then let the elected legislators move that forward. Hey, Hal, could I give just one bit of context for Ms. Worth, too? I want to make sure that the commission understands our purpose today. We don't want to speak for the neighborhood, what their concerns are specifically. We wanted to point out in advance of the public hearing where I'm sure the residents will come and speak for themselves clearly on what they heard. So I don't want to give any impression that we can parrot their exact concerns. What we wanted to make sure we pointed out was changes that have been made in this interim since the draft went out that we've continued to meet. We're still listening. And that, you know, an effort has been made to address some of those things, but that there are still lingering concerns. Do you want to stress that this is a draft until the day that you adopt? So we will always be willing to continue to review this plan, make the updates that are necessary to this plan to make it the best thing possible for Lexington. You have a couple questions. One involving the neighborhoods and the areas around on this plan. And coming at this from a slightly different perspective, but sharing some of the concern. So one of the concerns related to the vision of the plan, there are areas that are mapped out where you all have mapped certain thematic themes, whether it's for tourists just to be drunk walking from here to there, or whether it's for the campus town. whether it's for artists there's those like there's that map of certain areas yes there are significant residential areas in this downtown master plan that are not mapped with any sort of thematic theme and i don't necessarily have a problem with that but i do bring that up because it does leave a little bit of vagueness there. And, you know, addressing maybe one specific one in that sort of campus area, we have that juxtaposition of this plan calling for student housing around campus. And then this map showing it in a very limited area, much more limited than we're already seeing the activity. and I didn't see that really reconciled in the plans. So that's one element I wanted to ask you about specifically. Yes, and that is something that we can clarify a little bit more in the text if we need to review that. But I think much of that is to focus in on where we would like development to occur in our downtown areas. All too often, if we are talking about the Rupp Arena parking lot or something like that, we targeted areas of residential development rather than targeting the areas in which we think that things could go, including parking lots or areas that don't have high-density development on it. And with this plan, we tried to flip that on its head by also providing policy recommendations that are specifically targeted at the neighborhood areas. So whereas the map specifically shows what we would like to see, the infill, the type of development, high-density development, the policies in the plan are targeted at the preservation and protection of the neighborhoods themselves. So in kind of flipping what we did in the past of focusing in on the areas that could be developed and then focusing policies for protection for neighborhoods. Boyd, would you like to add anything on that? more. Yeah, so if you look at the student housing specifically, that goes back to the engagement we had with the UK. The UK master plan called for student housing, and when you look at how student housing is popping up throughout Lexington, being closer to campus and saying this is priority, let's start from here and get this parking lot for student housing was helpful. So those are some of the things the consultant looked at. And then there's the art district well let me ask let me just ask regarding student housing yesterday for example i received a text message from a resident of the neighborhood who has been given 45 days to vacate their apartment it's been purchased it's in an area where i presume we might see a proposal but it's not one that we have seen or heard about yet. This apartment complex where this person lives is one of these sort of middle-sized apartment complexes that's providing people rent in that around $900 to $1,000 range. the I'm not going to say the area but just it is not it is close to campus but it is not in the area this downtown specifically shows is that sort of case study example what I guess my concern is you can read the plan in those two ways that you just sort of described, where you can read it in the preservation of neighborhoods or historic structures, and you can read it in the supporting student housing in the campus area. And I guess what I'm getting at is I think it would be beneficial if the plan offered a little bit more guidance in dealing with these proposals that essentially almost require you to choose one emphasis over the other. We could definitely look at that. And then the sort of other component, my other question, has to do with the downtown zoning. And I think this is a concern that I've heard from residents about being included in the downtown area because there's an association with downtown when we think of zoning as either sort of the main downtown or the downtown frame zoning. which comes with different both use flexibilities, but it also comes with different tree canopy requirements, meaning less different green space requirements, meaning less building-to-building sort of lot lines. And as we're moving into what historically we've looked at in placemaking as second-tier urban, And there are some lines in there about preserving historic structures or historic aspects or preserving the neighborhood. But I'm looking for maybe a little bit more guidance on, as we're entering these second-tier urban neighborhoods and starting to include them in our downtown boundary, the appropriate application of zoning as it relates to the downtown zones. And that is an element that we will be following the adoption of the plan with. So with everything that we are doing with our master planning and our modernization of our zoning ordinance, we're trying to follow that up with the zoning ordinance text amendment to ensure that we're getting representative or reflective regulations to what individuals have asked for. There is the element that is talking about trees and open space, things like that, from the master plan itself. but there will be hopefully a whole nother round of public input and conversation about those elements specifically so that we can get our downtown zones modernized because they are representative of around the time that it was built that it was constructed put together yeah thank you Boyd in an earlier presentation mentioned a possibility of a school out on the west side. Has there been collaboration with the school board? Is that a wish up there? Yeah, so that was one of the things. Going back to why that specifically site was picked, that was such a big site and there was the new school that is opening this fall around Masterson Station. And there was the whole thought process of workable So that's in a neighborhood where, because the way they were looking at it, some of the major barriers for these schools is crossing major roads. They don't want kids walking across major roads like Newton Pike. But when they looked at that site, it was big enough to accommodate a school. Talked to FCPS. They said this can work if you can show us that the school fits there. And so kids from around that neighborhood can actually walk to the school. And this master plan, our recommendations, these are not things. that as soon as this is adopted, we start making these changes. Even the zoning question that you asked still go through the same process. We are not changing any zones. We are not changing any neighborhoods. We are not changing street names. People still have to go through the same process for any changes. So even that was shown as it was a catalytic site. It was shown that this can happen here. It doesn't mean that this is what's going to happen here. We don't own the property. The property owners decide what they want to do with the property. It's just a recommendation from the plant. But it is a wish. It is a wish. And after the study. For the school board? Yeah. I wouldn't say it's for the school board, but we had their blessing because we discussed it with them. Not the school board, but FCPS. Okay. One other question. We've seen groceries and markets come and go. And it seems like that's always been a discussion as to groceries or markets downtown. Where are we with that? So one thing that I learned this more in detail during the whole process, retail follows rooftops. We don't have enough rooftops to support some of these things in the downtown. So that's why this plan really emphasizes on a wide variety of housing. So the more people that will live in the downtown area, they'll be able to support retail, dining, restaurants, grocery stores. So we just need to bring the population downtown. It seems like they hit the restaurants pretty hard. But, you know, like I said, the groceries, you know, we've seen them come and go, and it's still tied to rooftops, though, for the population. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm a little hesitant to ask this, but if I don't ask it here, I'm going to ask it. meeting with the full board, so full commission. When you all met with UK, I'm going to be very careful with this. When you all met with UK, how close are we to providing what they need? In other words, is this going to be an ongoing thing for the rest of my lifetime, or are we getting close to what they need? They're not giving us specific numbers. And, Mr. Penn, I'm going to give you another answer. As soon as a student moves off campus, they are Lexingtonian. So if they're provided housing on campus, fabulous. If they don't want to be on campus or can't find housing or can't find the housing that they can afford on campus, that is on us to try to provide that housing opportunity for them. I think one thing that we're hearing is that there probably does need to be a variety of price points for that housing, especially for students. So I think we are looking at opportunities with our affordable housing density bonus, our workforce housing density bonus to look at where that fits. How do we provide those options for students? And I think as time goes by, we'll probably figure out, or the university and the student population and the multifamily housing industry will figure out what they need to provide for students. But we also have a glut of, or a need of housing for everyone in our community. So if we get to the point in which we're just building multi-family housing that isn't marketed for students. I hope that we will be getting the housing that we need for our Lexington residents to give people opportunities to live downtown as well. Well, that's my wish for the whole city. Okay, thank you. I don't know whether to say this here or not. I went to the Fayette Alliance meeting on economic development last week, and one of the speakers was from the university high level in terms of what the university is doing about economic development. And the question came up about student housing and the fact that we're relying on the private market to produce the student housing. The speaker said that, I can't remember the exact words, but the university has heard that criticism and they are in conversations. but we don't know where the conversation is going. So I'm just... I'll also say that the university specifically highlighted that they also need housing for workforce-level housing. They brought that up during our conversation, and that has been talked about within that student section that's there, that they are also needing to provide some housing for the people that work at the university, that work at the hospital, that provide all the things that the university needs to provide. All right. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we'll talk about data centers. Daniel. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. This will be the first opportunity to kind of speak to you all as a larger group. We both had conversations with the subdivision and zoning committees a couple weeks ago regarding data centers, the ongoing work to kind of codify those regulations. So the kind of intent of today's session was to just give a really quick primer on kind of what we talked about previously But then set the stage up to get comments from you all as some and go over some of the pieces that came up during the committee level In advance of this planning commission hearing on the 30th So once again, just retreading some of the old information But the purpose behind this the zoning ordinance text amendment is to address these data center uses Now this is a very vastly growing and evolving use, but we're talking about these uses that are devoted to the storage management Processing and transmission of digital data that is the the core intent of these particular sites These are not really businesses that have a core function and this is you know The computers are involved these are the the sites where this is the prime principle use of the land And so they include the the networking systems the equipment necessary to function and then come with infrastructure upgrades or other facility increases in order to accommodate sort of that list. Historically we had those listed as computer and data processing centers. Once again this is not necessarily a new concept but a concept that has evolved over time and has had new impacts so we are responding to those through this process now. Once again this was in response to an urban County Council initiated ZODA. That means that we have a a very compressed time window to discuss. Normally we have a six-month period to talk through new regulations when we have a application that is initiated by a member of the public. However, because of the Urban County Council initiating this, we have to act on this by the end of this month. And so it is a much quicker turnaround than we're normally used to. In addition, this was initiated without a sort of set of backing text. We were given a directive to create a proposal for data centers but did not have a sort of starting point recommendation so in order to generate that planning staff took a look at review of other best practices existing legislation model ordinances that were being developed at the state and federal levels as well as recommendations from the consultants that were involved with blue sky small area plan as well as kind of future efforts to update our zoning ordinance the kind of underpinning behind all of this is your planning staff are not by no means subject matter are experts when it comes to the minutia of these data centers, but we took a look at these these practices, these other resources to get a baseline to kind of set forward and set a stage to have these discussions as to what's most appropriate for Lexington. So once again the initiation text that was sent out as part of the public outreach at the beginning of this process, we bring before you all for your comments, your consideration, your concerns. Ultimately this proceeds to the Urban County Council for them to act on it during their timelines. But just talking through some of the things that staff was really most, thought was most essential in order to address were aspects of data centers that once again can scale wildly based on the type of center that we're talking about, the purpose, the electricity demand, but what the impacts this can have on power grid and the impacts that it has more specifically on ratepayers. Things like consumption of energy, consumption of water associated with the use. Things like noise levels, how those facilities are cooled or how those specifically operate can have impacts not just within the facility itself but on surrounding property owners. The impacts from lighting, the impacts of developing large sites of impervious services and replacing what would normally be otherwise functioning industrial land with those jobs. So that's just sort of a snapshot of all of the different land use impacts that when staff was looking at the literature that based on the size of the facility could or could not show up. And so taking a look at kind of the information and the concerns that we wanted to make sure we were addressing within this language, staff generated a framework that, once again, we went over with you all at the committee level, but at a very, very large picture, set a framework for major and minor data centers centered around the size of the facility, something that could be identified on a plan, legislated to you and monitored very accurately. we found that or our recommendation did not recommend that major so greater than 50,000 square foot facilities be recommended within any zones and then facilities less than 50,000 square feet would be a conditional use subject to a number of restrictions and information that they would have to provide regarding the energy being consumed, water, noise, other externalities that can come from these uses. Ultimately that would be presented to the Board of Adjustment as a part of a conditional use permit where they can make a site-specific evaluation if this was having a negative Or detrimental impact to the communities that they are located in once again These are uses that can vary wildly But these were sort of the considerations that staff thought that the Board of Adjustment should be looking at as they kind of make each and Every one of these context sensitive Designations the last piece was the server room piece these are not describing uses that are primarily data centers. These are the aspects of almost any business today that's going to involve computers, server rooms, rooms that help facilitate the overall use of the business, but the use of the business itself is not a just formal data center. So it was mentioned in the previous Planning Commission sessions, things like banks, other offices, medical facilities are going to have corresponding areas where very critical computer networks are there. We are not trying in any way, shape, or form to make that any more complicated. So we have recommended those as accessory uses. Once again, when they're combined with another use. If the use on your site is a data center, then we're going to evaluate those on the framework we kind of showed here. So summing up some of the committee comments, once again, the conversation around server rooms. So there are specific square footages that were included to kind of hone in on the fact that this is not supposed to be the main use of any given building, but we wanted to make sure that that was either scaled to the size of the facility or that there was a baseline to make sure that we were legislating kind of the right thing. One of the things that staff did want to point out, that there was a graphic associated with the text that was circulating when it was initially sent out that incorrectly left server room as an accessory use. So within the I2 and the P2 zones, that always was supposed to be an accessory use. Once again, the intent behind this was if you have a business zone or industrial zone where these users are operating, we want to make sure that they can meet their day-to-day computer needs without needing any type of approval at all. But there was a larger question that came up out of the committees if the current framework where we limit it either based on a square footage or a percentage of the size of the overall use, if that was large enough to make sure that we were accommodating all of the users within that umbrella. There were also some questions that came up regarding kind of the square footage limitations on the actual data center use itself. There was some questions about raising or lowering that to kind of more adequately meet the demands, as well as questions on what the impact of that is on economic development. So those were sort of the pieces that came up for the benefit of the, once again, the two committees that didn't really get to fully hear each other's comments. So really from this point is just an opportunity for you all to give some feedback to staff Once again to raise any questions or concerns that you're hearing Planning staff once again is is receiving comment from the public as well Ultimately with the goal of bringing this forward at the end of the month Due to once again that accelerated time schedule that we have because this is an urban County Council initiated text But once again, wanted to get any feedback on any of that text or aspects that you all had interest in in advance of that hearing on the 30th. So with that, I'll turn it over to you all and happy to kind of answer any questions that staff can. Go ahead. All right. Thank you. This is wonderful. This is a hot topic. It's a hot topic. And my understanding, it's a hot topic, not just from a planning and zoning side as we're looking as we're best using our land. What is different now, not just the square footage, we're looking at an Amazon warehouse that then has additional concerns. And the concerns that need to be addressed to protect the community you've outlined are around power, water, and noise. That is very important. Those are the things that make a data center different than an Amazon distribution center. So when we're talking about data centers, I think because it is a different use, we do need to address the concerns of power, water, and noise. The ultimate proposal would be pay for your own water, pay for your own power, and we set a noise restriction that they have to meet. Where the business is going to move in the future is that it's called behind-the-meter power. So we're going to have data centers or industrial parks that are using high energy use facilities are going to be adopting technology that allows them to generate power on site, which is behind the meter. So that's where the market is going. And we want to make sure to be able to encourage that. Imagine an industrial park that has industrial uses, an Amazon center, a data center, and an advanced manufacturing. if the developer has the ability to provide on-site power through a small nuclear reactor or whatever it may be. This is where it's going, guys. I mean, this is happening right here in Lexington, Kentucky. We have a company that is doing this. That is going to happen. And if we can allow the developers the ability to generate power on-site, that solves a lot of the problems with data centers and their differentiation from standardized to usage. So we're on the right path considering power, water, and noise. This is what we need to be concerned about. And one thing that we found out is that one of the unintended consequences is noise. So we're really going to have to figure out how to solve the noise problem and put that burden on the developer to meet the requirements for noise. As the data centers are moving now, if they're generating their own power, not using any water, which that's where the market's going as well. We're now dealing with a more contained new use going from an industrial warehouse to a data center. So I like where we're going there. I think we are going to have to do some continued research to figure out what determines, we've already decided a major, or excuse me, what is being proposed in this. We have many decisions. What's being proposed in this is that majors are not going to be allowed in our community. Then that leads us to minor. Right now we have minor at 50,000 square feet. We're going to have to spend some time understanding is that the right number. Is 50,000 the right number? Is 120,000 the right number? Is 7 the right number? We don't know. We need to investigate that and have data that gives us the ability to make that decision. and in my opinion as we're looking at the size of the binder it is my opinion we ought to consider the possibility of making it a principle permitted use if we meet the requirements of power water and noise the next piece is the server room piece it is my intention to promote business growth in our community as we're entering in this new world of AI. We want to encourage as many of our citizens to have the ability to participate. My belief is that if we categorize a server room, then we allow, and that's based on scale and size, I think that's going to limit potential economic growth for our community. So in my opinion, I would eliminate the server room requirement, but eliminate the server rooms, scale, and make it permitted. So those are the kind of three components that I'm looking at. As the miner, we need to size the miner. And most importantly, in the miner data centers, I think it's important to have it as a principle-permitted use if we meet the power, water, and noise components. And on the other side of that, we need to make sure we don't limit our citizens' ability to provide services through their own business, which could be generating tokens and doing computer work with those tokens or providing software as a service with those tokens. So we've got a lot to think about. I love that we're focused on power, water, and noise because that's what differentiates a data center from a logistics center. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Bruce, in your world and in your mind, do you believe that atomic will drive this or hydrogen will drive this? Damn, I stumped him. I was getting ready to say, what do I have to do? I am censoring myself to make sure that I'm not too far out there in the future technology that's coming around. We are going to be able to power with small modular reactors. The nuclear company here in Lexington is solving. They're designing and providing logistics and construction management for larger systems. But there are many other companies throughout the United States that are providing small modular reactors that are delivered in a 40-yard container. That is doable. We're going to start seeing those delivered in 2028. So nuclear may be first, but I think the way that we are opening up, the way that there's a massive race to reach our power requirements in any way possible. Hydrogen is an option. Geothermal is an option. Nuclear is an option. and then there's additional new technologies that are going to emerge to allow us to generate more power. The way I think about it, if these technologies come about and someone wants to put a data center and it meets all of our requirements and they can generate their own power through one of these small modular reactors, that is a major benefit to our community because they are not participating in our power grid. They're generating their own power. So to me, I think we're first going to see small modular gas turbines and then move into, I know in Japan they're doing some really cool stuff with hydrogen. The world of energy is a new frontier right now. It's very interesting to see what's going on. But the entrepreneurial drive is occurring because the demand is so high for the power. So now we've got many people trying to figure out how to generate that power on site in an economic way. Well, to follow up just one minute on this, I don't want us to get in a situation where economic development gets way out ahead because all you have to do is drive to Nashville and look at that big expenditure the state put up. And, you know, it's not even being used half of it and there's no reason for the scale of it. but the amount of money that's being put in other communities to buy the land to put one of these data centers on, I mean, money's no object. So the return has got to be huge for that because they're taking options that blow your mind. And Farm Bureau's going to come out with a thing that tells you what kind of options, and we're talking about huge amounts of money. So I'm not trying to get ahead of it. What I'm trying to do is to figure out nuclear's got its own public relation problem. And, you know, I didn't take much chemistry, but I know hydrogen's part of water and it's a renewable resource. So that's why I wanted your recommendation. What concerns me most about this is that the council put a moratorium on until October, and yet we've got to get it back to them 1st of August. you know i mean if we don't have enough time to do what we need to do we need to get this right thank you so i have two questions and one is a real fundamental educate me because when i see the pictures of the data centers they're all appear to be single story acres acres acres why don't they go up yeah in in some instances they and and as a part of some of the things that I trimmed from my original proposal, or my original PowerPoint that got presented at the committee stages, showed some examples of like in Chicago, where they've repurposed a sort of multi-story, I think former printing press, or printing facility. I've seen that. So really, I think it's a, each one of these is a very site-specific on what type of data processing center or data center we're looking at, and then just logistics of cooling and how that works when you have a single story or you're containing, you know, floors and floors of floors and a single building in a more urbanized context. So, you know, 100,000 square feet for an enterprise center versus 100,000 square feet for a center that's doing sort of the very high level AI, very intensive processes can be worlds apart in terms of energy use, externalities, noise, et cetera, because ultimately the more intense of the processes that running, The hotter those machines get, the more energy it's needed to cool. So really I think it's what the market is dictating on the types of AI demand or computer processing demand is needed, where land is cheapest, and what existing facilities they kind of have. So it really just depends. But where we live is land use. Yes. So that's a question for me. That's your point. Yeah. I agree with that. Land use, we have done a good, we may be a little over restrictive, but it's protecting us in our community because of our land use regulations. So we luckily are not going to get in a position where we have, well, because of our land use restrictions, our land is more expensive. So we are less attractive for data centers. We aren't going to end up with an Indiana data center. Virginia. Well, Virginia, that's a national security issue. That's a totally different battle. But we're going to – we aren't really on the radar. Some of the surrounding counties are on the radar. But Fayette County is not really going to be on the radar. But if we could craft a plan that encourages local businesses to participate in this new revolution, that would be great. So if there's a way we can find – if we can find a way to protect our land use and then allow for opportunities for our businesses to succeed, we may end up with a new, this minor data center could be a thing that could be replicated amongst other communities like ours. So my second question, I don't know that everybody had a chance to read this, but we got a document shortly before the meeting today from a group called No AI in Kentucky. And I don't know to what extent what's here, and Bruce, I don't know if you've seen this or not. I don't know to what extent it conflicts with what you're talking about, but there are pieces of this that get to a specificity on things like site selection, siting and decommissioning and that kind of stuff that contain some specificity that I wish we had included in the solar. We talked about it. We didn't get it included. So my question to you all is have you had a chance to look at this because it's come out since you developed this. And what are you thinking? Yeah, so we are aware of that document. We saw it earlier today, actually. So, you know, taking a look at it, the things that we have in our, once again, the initiation ZODA, the ZODA, the staff is provided for you, is really sort of a framework. So if the Planning Commission is reading some of the comment that they're seeing, the information that you're getting, and you'd say, for instance, we would like to be more stringent on the type of generators that these facilities have, for instance. You can do that. Once again, it varies wildly from municipality to municipality, but there are ways to absolutely make this proposed text more inclusive of more specific requirements. Really what we introduced was a starting point to make sure we were covering all of the bases. And then ultimately, as a conditional use under the framework that we're putting forward, a lot of flexibility is given to the Board of Adjustment to ask and create conditions that would really apply on the really granular micro level. So if there are things within those that the Planning Commission thinks are important protections or clarifications or tweaks, absolutely those can be incorporated moving forward on the 30th. Thank you. Daniel. in, in what, 30 days time. Are we, are we able to stay ahead of this? It's moving so much. I mean, when we started talking about, or I started hearing about it, it was like megawatts. Now they're talking about gigawatts. And I mean, not talking about 20 acres. We're not talking about a hundred acres. They're talking about thousands of acres. And it's, you know, can we, Can we really get ahead of this, particularly in the time frame that we've got to do it? Well, I think really what we – I think the most important piece is right now we have an existing moratorium, so nothing new is coming in under the table now. We have in front of you a set of legislation that would set essentially a cap or a floor. So if we're saying that 50,000 square feet or whatever that number is is our threshold point, it sort of precludes the large-scale, really evolving hyperscale that we're talking about in places like Indiana, and we've got Virginia as well. So really this is an opportunity to set the baseline standards to the comfort level of the Planning Commission, the Urban County Council, of what we think is necessary to protect our local communities, as well as kind of give these uses, if they can operate harmoniously, an opportunity to kind of do so. but once again it is important to kind of get some of the threshold issues right and then as we saw for instance in say short-term rentals there can be subsequent you or you know follow-up text amendments to kind of tune these these uses further one of the things that is very difficult to do from a land use perspective is to dial things back once they are allowable again so this is a baseline that staff based on kind of best practices the consultants and other kind of best practice literature, we were comfortable as a starting piece to kind of get a floor set for data centers in Lexington. So Judy mentioned multi-story, you followed up as well. If we're talking about a number of 40,000 square feet minor major, is that a 40,000 square foot footprint or that's total area so yes yes every floor of that counts yes multi-story as well okay all right then um i guess the last thing well no i've got one other thing but in in looking and reading in what new information is coming out obviously we've got setbacks and so forth. You know, one, I think right now it may be difficult to find a place for a data center, to tell you the truth. I'm just wondering, does that mean, I hate to put it out there, but could you see residential land being encroached just to create that thousand foot setback or whatever setback there is. So I'm trying to follow here. The taking of residential land just to create that setback needed for a data center. Well, in order to make a change from that, to make it non-residential, it would take a zone change. So that's within the realm of, you know, that was one of the pieces that was sort of talked about was sort of when we're looking at the zones that these could locate in, this is done with the understanding of zones can change. So I would say that a proposal to remove housing under this, you know, with our current needs would not be met with support. The language will be by zone, not necessarily that there is or isn't a house there. Yeah. Okay. Last thing. um i know early on which i think is very good uh i guess you all put out on a engagement type thing by internet by website and so forth i presume it's going well you you alluded to it a moment ago yeah the urban county council i believe is facilitating the engaged lex um information we also get through our standard channels you know the planning mailbox the actual submitted comment directly on this but urban county council has once again is not just politely waiting for us to get through they're you know taking their steps as well we're we are always asking you all to bring us information from citizens and so forth much like that is that website can we get to that public engagement, public comments section to view what everybody is saying? Yeah, we will definitely interface to make sure that we can get you all. But I believe all of those comments are, it's almost like a forum. You can see what other folks have posted. That's what I'm asking. Yeah, I know just enough about that end of it would be dangerous. But if any of those comments for some reason are not available to you all, we can make sure that all of that kind of gets included so you can get the community sentiment. Were you sitting at that website again? I think it's engagedlex.com. We'll send out the link. Thank you. Daniel, Bruce made a comment that I want you all to pay attention to. It's called behind the meter. It's hard for me to believe that a utility company as big as we have in Kentucky is going to let that go on. with lobbying in Frankfurt with the kind of power they've got, big multinational company, well, not multinational, multi-state. I'm very interested because I'd rather have behind the meter than in front of the meter. And I don't know how you get to that point, but if it's in front of the meter, we're all going to pay. If they're generating their own power on site, I don't know how you're going to stop them through the PSC but in front of the meter. And that's something that really needs to be thought about, not only for the benefit of the people that are doing these projects, but if you've got to commercialize and retail all that energy, I mean, I don't know how you stop that. I just want to kind of frame this the way I'm looking at it in order to frame what we're talking about. My understanding, so what we see in the media, where we hear from the press, and what we see images of are picketing and protesting and pitchforks and the whole deal with communities saying, we do not want a 10-acre building that is a data center in our community. So luckily, knowing, being a part of this for many years, we are not going to be participating in that from the recommendation from the staff and me just understanding our community and those sitting around here. So we can kind of take that, in my opinion, take that off the to-do items. I do think that there is a real opportunity to get a solution for a minor data center that ends up being a principal permitted use that meets our land use requirements, solves the power, water, and noise problem, and then allows for organic growth of our businesses here in Lexington. That's the way I'm looking at it. Very good. Well, thank you so much, Daniel. I appreciate it. And once again, as we're moving forward to the 30th, If there's individual questions, things that you all would like clarified, please feel free to reach out to our staff, and we'll once again try to get the very best product of this information to you all in time for the 30th. Wonderful. All right. Thank you. Thanks. We've got a lot coming up. Okay. Do we have anything else? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to punctuate what you just said, remember we have a regular zoning public hearing next week, July 23rd, and that is also the hearing date where we'll have the downtown master plan will be presented for your consideration. And then one week later, on Thursday, July 30th, the date that was ordinarily scheduled as a work session has been recast as a public hearing for the one item of the data center. Yes, you need to take action that day so we can forward this on. And speaking on that, of course, council then, once they receive this, they're under their own schedule at that point. And I would expect that they will take the concerns of the planning commission, the concerns of the public, that you may or may not hear on the 30th as they incorporate their final decision. This is not an item on the agenda. It's a topic that I would like to raise. my colleague has already told me that we can't fix this. But I'm concerned about the number of situations that I've seen recently. Mercer County is one. Virginia is another. Data centers, other things. Property that we made one ruling on and things changed, where we have property aggregators. who come in and convince property holders as a group, one by one by one, to make choices that they would not have made probably individually and complicate things, I think, for us in terms of land use planning. And I don't know, you know, the government wants to limit the number of properties that investment bankers can buy, a number, you know, that. I don't know what there is that we can do or should do in trying to think about the role of property aggregators and what happens in our community. So I'm just putting that out there. Are you talking about specifically for the purpose of data centers or for other purposes? No, all of it. Well, of course, if you've read the federal housing bill, there is discussion about how to limit that, and we'll be very interested to see how that can be implemented at the local level. Specifically for data centers, I think you all have already done the most important thing. We really only have thousands of acres for two uses, residential and agricultural, and there's no other opportunity to do that. Somebody could come in and buy 10,000 acres in the rural service area, and they're not going to get a zone change to put a data center out there. Well, the case I'm thinking about in Fayette County, I just heard this on the news, was that an area in the community had made a decision to restrict multi-unit development. And then along behind that, an aggregator came in and brought all the properties. And there's a, I think, permit for destruction at this point. Am I? I don't know. And you may be getting into a zone change discussion, too. but certainly the private covenants that most of our neighborhoods since the 1980s have put on their neighborhoods restrict multifamily development. So that already exists and has existed for years. But as far as the government is concerned, of course, we don't believe that's a good policy, and we'd like to see housing integrated in all of our neighborhoods, all types of housing. I agree with that, Jim. That's not addressing my question. But if somebody buys up housing that is restricted, if they own all the land, they can remove the restriction on that land. Yeah, and what I'm saying is, can we do anything about that from a land use planning perspective? Well, and we're interested to see, at least from a housing perspective, what the federal housing bill enables us to do. We're very interested in that. Yes. Can I share something I learned after our meeting last Thursday? the applicants, the 800 acres or 1,000, however you want to do it, they had been paying what he called option fees for six years, betting that this was going to happen. It turned into a lot of money. But my point is, is that the data center numbers that they're throwing out there are way higher. because the return on investment is way higher. So we dodged a bullet on the 1,000 acre, or I hope we did. But I will tell you that there was a big money that they paid options for six years. I didn't know that until after the meeting. Okay. Everybody good? Okay. All right. So we'll see. Okay. Okay, well, we'll see you next Thursday. I love you too And for all of my life And there's nowhere in the world I'd rather be Than here in my room Dreaming with you Can I dream With you tonight I'll be holding your time And there's nowhere in the world I'd never be Here in my room I'll be dreaming About you tonight And I'll be holding you tight We met with you tonight Thank you. Thank you. I've been working so hard I'm punching my car Ain't earth for work Won't tell me what I got I've gotten this feeling That the time is just holding me down I'll hit the ceiling Or else I'll tear up this town Tonight I gotta cut loose Foot loose Can't you go with me Suck in their shoes Please, Louise Pull me off of my knee Jack, get back Come on, before we crack Lose your news Everybody cut for loose You're playing so cool Oh, playing at the rule There's a way down in your heart You're burning, you're burning for songs Somebody to tell you Life ain't passing you by I'm trying to tell you You will never, you don't even try You can lie if it only cut loose But you're kicked off the suddenness Oh, we worry Shake, shake, oh, we Oh, my lord Come on, come on, let's roll. Lose, you're loose. Everybody cut for loose. Cut, cut, loose. Cut, cut, loose. Cut, cut, loose. You forgot to turn me around. And put your feet on the ground. We'll take a hold of all. I'm telling you to lose You're losing Kicking off your Sunday shoes Please, Louie Pull me up on my knees Attack, get back Come on, you're both weak Lose, you're blue Everybody cut the footloose Footloose, drink from a Sunday suit. Please, Louise, hold me up on my knees. Jack, get back, come on before we crack. Lose, you're loose. Everybody cut, everybody cut. Everybody cut, everybody cut. Everybody cut, everybody cut. Everybody, everybody cut footloose. I'm not alone. All day I've been thinking about you, baby, you're my one desire. Gonna wrap my arms around you, hold you close to me. Oh, baby, I wanna taste your lips, I wanna be your fantasy, yeah. Don't know what I'd do without you, baby, don't know where I'd be. You're not just another lover No, you're everything to me Every time I'm with you, baby I can't believe it's true When you're laying on my arms And you do the things you do You can see it in my eyes I can feel it in your touch You don't have to say a thing Just let me show how much I love you I need you I want to kiss you all alone And over again I want to kiss you all alone Till the night closes in Till the night closes in Stay with me, lay with me, holding me, loving me, baby Here with me, near with me, feeling you close to me, baby So show me, show me everything you do Cause baby, no one does it quite like you I love you I need you Oh baby I want to kiss you all over And over again I want to kiss you all over Till the night closes in On the road again Just can't wait to get on the road again Life I love is making music with my friends And I can't wait to get on the road again On the road again Going places that I've never been Seeing things that I may never see again I can't wait to get on the road again On the road again Like a band of gifts as we go down the highway We're the best of friends And it's just things that the world keep turning our way And our way is on the road again I just can't wait to get on the road again The life I love is making music with my friends And I can't wait to get on the road again We'll be right back. The life I love is making music for my friends And I can't wait to get on the road again And I can't wait to get on the road again One way or another One way or another, I'm gonna win you I'm gonna get you, get you, get you, get you One way or another, I'm gonna see you I wanna meet you, meet you, meet you, meet you One day, maybe next week, I'm gonna meet you I'm gonna meet you, I'll meet you I will drive past your house And if the lights are all down I'll see you now One way or another I'm gonna find you I'm gonna get you, get you, get you, get you One way or another I'm gonna win you I'll get you, I'll get you One way or another I'm gonna see you I'm gonna meet you, meet you, meet you, meet you One day, maybe next week I'm gonna meet you I'll meet you. One way or another I'm gonna lose ya I'm gonna give you the slip A slip or a hip or another I'm gonna lose ya I'm gonna trick ya I'll trick ya One way or another, I'm gonna lose ya. I wanna trick ya, trick ya, trick ya, trick ya. One way or another, I'm gonna lose ya. I'm gonna give you the slip. I walk down a mall, stand over by the wall where I can see it all. Find out who you call. Lead you to the supermarket. Check out some specials and rap. We'll get lost in the crowd. One way or another. Where I can see it all fine and beautiful. One way or another. Where I can see it all fine and beautiful. One way or another. Where I can see it all fine and beautiful. One way or another. Where I can see it all fine and beautiful. One way or another. I'm on it. You can dance, having the time of your life See that girl, watch that scene Dig in the Dancing Queen Friday night and the lights are low Looking out for a place to go We're the flavor of rock music Getting in the swing You'll come to look for a game Anybody could be that guy Night is young and the music's high We're the beer of rock music