Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

good afternoon we'll call the meeting to order and i'll start by reading the opening statement this is the regular public hearing of the louisville metro planning commission to hear cases as advertised and documented for hearing today public notice has been provided and materials have been available for review by the public the following rules are in place for today's hearing please silence all cell phones please be courteous and respectful to the commission and your fellow citizens For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending the messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the commission must do so from the podium or virtually. There are time limits in effect for today's hearing. The applicant or their representative should have no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. The opposition representative should have a total of no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. Rebuttal by the applicant or their representative shall be no more than five minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to the speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's forms will be allowed to speak. Procedures shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request, The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation given reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or their representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are further questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The commission may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Pursuant to KRS chapter 61 and the commission's bylaws, the commission's deliberations and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this commission.

And before you call roll, I just want to clarify something because I think we're reading our standard opening statement, but really what's on the agenda is consent and business session, and what you're reading is more if we had a public hearing portion.

That's correct. We will close the public hearing on the matter of the data centers, and then we will move right into business session. With that, can we have roll call, please?

Benitez?

Here.

Bond? Here. Lannert? Present low hand here. Step here. Here. Fisher here sister here.

Um, I'm asked the staff to stand up. So I swear you in. Do you swear affirmed that the testimony that you're going to give to the commission is the truth?

All right.

Thank you. The first order of business is approval of minutes. The first set of minutes is July 30th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioners, have you had a chance to review those minutes? And are there any changes?

This is Laura Ferguson. So I'm not sure whether two of the changes have been made yet. When I last looked at what was attached to the agenda, it still looked like it said 2027 instead of 2026. And on page 16, I think it still had a recommendation to Metro Council on the waiver when were the final action on the waiver. But everything else, all the other changes we had discussed before all seem to be incorporated. But I think those two changes still need to be made.

Can staff confirm if that changes were made in the final set?

Or if they still need to be made? No, July 30th. July 30th. Yeah.

Okay. Then with that, the motion needs to... Can I have the two changes read into the record by me? Please.

Sure, I have read them the original version of the minutes, but, um, but I'm prepared to make a motion to approve the July thirtieth meeting minutes. With the, uh, corrections read into the record by our county attorney, Laura Ferguson.

Okay, properly made motion and second roll call please.

Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Steph?

Yes.

Bond? Yes. Fisher?

Yes.

Benitez?

Yes.

Lannert?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Sistrunk?

I didn't hear Lannert. Did I miss him? Did I miss that? Did you vote Commissioner Lannert?

I believe that.

Okay, I just missed it. Okay, then the answer is yes.

Okay.

The next one is the August 6th, 2026 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioners, did you have a chance to review it? And if so, I will take any comments, changes, and or a motion.

Yes, I've reviewed those minutes as well. I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve the August 6th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Second. Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please.

Steph.

Epstein.

Fisher.

Yes.

Bond.

Yes.

Mims.

Yes.

Benitez.

Yes.

Lannert.

Yes.

Stuber. Yes. Lohan.

Yes.

Cistro.

Yes. The next set of minutes are July 27th, 2026 planning commission minutes. I'll take a motion on that one as well.

Yes, I was at that meeting, read the minutes, and it seemed to be correct. I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve those minutes from July 27, 2026. Is there a second?

Second. Properly made motion to second. Roll call, please.

Mohan?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Leonard?

Yes.

Leonard?

Yes.

The need is staying Fisher bond abstain step. Yes, yes, sister.

Yes. And the next set of minutes are August 5th, 2026 planning commission minutes.

I make a motion that we approve those minutes from August 5th, 2026.

So I can probably make motion a second. One second. Hold on.

Sorry, I'm going to, I think these are all kind of trying to keep track of which ones we've acted.

So we've done, we've done the 3rd.

Yeah, August 5th was the meeting at the yeah, I think we need to backtrack to the 1 on August 6th, the regular meeting, because the council binding element wasn't added to the general plan in the 1 case. Yeah, we'll go back.

Yeah, we'll go backwards then.

I don't have any changes to any of the other minutes, but the August regular meeting.

Whoever's taking our minutes, hold the August 6th approval. We'll go back and talk about that one. There was a motion on the floor for August the 5th, and we had a second. Who seconded that? Okay, can we continue with the roll call on that one?

Roll call, please.

Steph. Yes. Fisher. Yes. Mims.

Yes.

Bond.

Yes.

Lannert.

Yes.

Benitez.

Yes.

Stuber. Yes. Lohan.

Yes.

Systrom.

Yes. Now the next one is the August 6th, 2026 data center minutes. I'll go back to the top on the regular minutes, but this is August 6th, 2026 data center minutes. Commissioners, did you get a chance to review that? And are there any corrections? If not, I'll take a motion, please.

Make a motion that we approve the August 6th data center minutes.

Second.

Properly made motion and second. Roll call, please. Bond yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

Make a motion that we approve the August 10th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Is there a second? Second.

Properly made motion to second. Roll call, please.

Stuber? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Benitez? Stay. Fisher?

Yes.

Lannert?

Yes. Yes.

Bond? Yes. Steph? Yes. Mims? Yes. Ciceron?

Yes. And then going back to the August 6th, 2026 planning commission minutes, what was the change that was needed?

Right. So when I last looked at the, what was attached as of yesterday, so it may have changed, but in, um, the rezoning, case at Fern Creek, there was supposed to be a binding element number 13 added to the general plan regarding council review of any changes. I can read the language and it's any significant increases to the proposed structures, e.g. increases in building height, number of units, number of buildings, any increase in density on the property, any changes in use on the property, which directly or indirectly require a public hearing before the planning commission or subcommittee thereof. and or any amendments to the binding elements other than little i the addition of new binding elements little double i changes to binding elements that merely update the public hearing date or little triple i updating a previous version of this binding element to reflect the current language shall be reviewed before the planning commission or subcommittee they are of which final action to be determined by metro council there's also an email in the record that has all that language in there and you said that's for the general plan that was for the general plan make it on there for the detailed plan so the so the first thing on the detailed plan is it incorporates all the stuff that's in the general plan okay perfect

And this is for great commons.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

That's the 1 change that I didn't see as of yesterday.

Okay. So we had started. Well, we already had a motion, but we need to backtrack to amend that to include motion next to a man. Yeah.

Okay, I'll make a motion that we amend the. meeting minutes for August 6th and that was a regular meeting to reflect the changes to the case to amend the binding elements as read into the record.

Second. Properly made motion to second. Roll call please.

Mims?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Benitez? Yes. Steph?

Abstain.

Bond?

Yes.

Lannert?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes, low hand. Yes, sister.

Yes. Moving into our consent agenda. We have 1 item under consent agenda, which is 26 street closure. 0, 023, which is a closure of a public right away. The location is unnamed alley between North Peterson Avenue and Frankfurt Avenue. Our case manager was Zach swagger commissioners. Did you get a chance to review this 1? And if so, do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Yeah, that matter was on the yesterday was a very, uh, straightforward, um, alley closure along Peterson. Uh, so I make a motion that we put that, uh, put that on the consent agenda.

I'll say I should to approve the consent.

Yeah. Yeah.

We're approving the consent agenda and make a mission where you improve the consent.

Okay. Um, so we had a motion to approve the consent agenda and seconded by commissioner staff roll call please.

Steph? Yes. Bond? Yes. Mims?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Lannert?

Yes.

Benitez?

Yes.

Stuber? Yes. Lohan?

Yes.

Systrom?

Yes, moving into business session case 25, which is a text amendment to the land development code project name is data centers commissioners. I'm going to move to close the public hearing any issues with closing the public hearing. None. Okay. We are closing the public hearing next.

I would like to, and I'm going to hop in with a housekeeping measure. So, um, some of the commissioners did not attend all four of the meetings. So I was just going to check to see if you've reviewed the hearings that you were unable to attend, uh, commissioner bond, you miss the first meeting.

Yes.

So you saw it? Yes. Commissioner Steph, you missed two of the meetings. Were you able to watch? I think you were online for part of the virtual meeting. So did you get to watch the rest?

I didn't want to go on the camera. But anyway, yeah, I did my homework.

Yeah. Okay. And then Commissioner Benitez, have you watched the videos? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. With that, the public hearing is closed. Staff, I'm gonna ask if there's any comments or recommendation based on the testimony that we heard during the public hearings.

all right good afternoon brian davis uh director little metro office of planning uh 444 south 5th street 40202 uh good afternoon um Before I get started here, I do just want to thank the public for all the comments and all the testimony that we received during the public hearings and leading up to those public hearings. It's not often that zoning amendments like that or zoning ordinance amendments like that get a lot of attention around here. So it was a unique experience for a lot of us. But again, I want to just thank everyone for the comments the input that we received uh regarding this particular um this particular amendment i also want to thank you all planning commissioners uh for uh you know we've asked a lot of you all over the last month uh in terms of all the public hearings uh and and watching videos when you weren't able to make those in person uh so i appreciate the the the extra effort that you all have put in uh to the to the time that we've uh spent together here over the many public hearings over the last month And then finally, just want to give a big shout out to the Office of Planning staff. We have spent thousands of hours collectively doing research, looking at drafts, looking at other ordinances from other communities, reading articles about data centers, visiting sites. This has been a task unlike anything else that a lot of us have experienced. I know it's been unique for the 26 plus years that I've been doing this. And so just want to really thank staff for the time and effort that they put into this one. And I think that we are to a point where with some minor changes, I think that we have a draft that we can send forward to Metro Council and the legislative bodies for them to consider, but then also for them to make whatever changes that they feel are necessary also. Speaking of Metro Council, so since we last met on August 10th, Metro Council did pass a moratorium in which they, you know, basically put a moratorium on all uh the uh any kind of applications being submitted to our office as well as amendments to uh buildings like you know so like a building permit in which the uh you know someone would be converting an existing structure to a data center uh so that was passed that was signed uh it was a six month moratorium um just because they pass a six-month moratorium doesn't mean that we necessarily want to keep it for another however however long uh and so uh you'll notice that the that the agenda was intentionally kept light today uh because you know we we do have an interest to have discussions about the the draft and all the public testimony that we received uh with that and so if there are any uh you know changes that you all want to make you know i feel like we can um most likely accomplish that here today uh you know if we need to take some breaks or whatever to to be able to to knock some things out and print out things we can do that uh but that was again that was kind of one of the reasons why we kept the daylight uh so that we could kind of have a working session here uh in an effort to try and get to a point where where you all are comfortable make a recommendation to uh metro council and the legislative bodies um So what I'm going to talk about now are just some of the recurring themes and comments that we received throughout the public testimony, as well as from the comments that we received online through email, et cetera. and just offer up some potential alternatives to the draft that we've been reviewing for you all to consider. So I'm going to do that this time. You know, one of the things that we heard at many of the public hearings was talking about the Kentucky Resource Council Model Ordinance that has been provided. They submitted that as an exhibit to the case file, so you've all seen that. You know, we have we have gone through that model ordinance pretty thoroughly in terms of at the staff level. And we actually took a lot of the suggestions from that document and incorporated those into the into the draft that we prepared and did that you are considering today. you know some of the comments that we've received though have been you know they basically want to throw out the draft that we had prepared and go with the kentucky resource council draft ordinance it our model ordinance and and uh you know one of the things that that we were aware of both because it's in the document but because we had had conversations with tom fitzgerald uh while we were in the process of developing our our draft uh was that you know this was this document was very much meant to kind of be a model and and kind of something for for communities to to use As they began to explore creating data center, specific regulations on their own, and you just have to look at the 1st page here when this, this paragraph is on the 1st page. Each each of Kentucky's 120 counties are unique and planning and zoning should be tailored to meet the guide. and to meet and guide current development and future planning aspirations of the county's residents this model ordinance offers a menu of options in certain areas in order to allow local officials informed by input from county residents throughout the ordinance development process to select and adopt the options that best meet the needs and future land use plans and visions of their communities and so i think that last part is really important and it's something that we always talk about when we're talking about planning is that, you know, each community has to write regulations that make sense for them. And so, you know, again, as we were creating our draft, you know, we looked at this model or we looked at others to create a draft that we felt you know, reflects what our needs and desires and ability to accommodate, you know, potential development is here in Louisville, Jefferson County. And so we just wanted to talk about the KRC model ordinance for a moment, just because you all heard so much about that. So moving on to other comments. We heard a lot about what level of approval was gonna be permitted for data centers of different sizes. And there was a lot of objection to us allowing data centers between 50,000 and one square feet and 250,000 square feet as permitted with special standards, which would essentially mean that if someone submitted a development plan, our office reviewed it, they met all those standards, then it could be approved by the director, by staff at that level. A lot of objections to that. There was a very strong preference to come up with some sort of review process in which the planning commission and the legislative body would be able to review the majority of data center proposals. And then there were a lot of concerns about the distribution of zoning across the community, specifically The M3, which is, as you recall in the draft that you have that you've been reviewing the for for the largest size data centers that we would permit that 250,000 to 500,000, the requirements for M3 with a conditional use permit. So based on some of those comments that we've heard, I think an alternative that you all could consider would be to eliminate the proposed section 4.3.36 that would allow data centers between 50,000 and one square feet and 250,000 square feet as permitted with special standards. By eliminating that section, we would then need to amend proposed section 4.2.68 applied to data centers of 50,000 square feet or less. So, you know, only data centers that are 50,000 square feet or less would then fall into that category permitted with special standards. So I'm showing you this map so that the next part that I say to you, you don't give me like these crazy looks like your dog gives you whenever you want them to go out in the rain. So this is a map that we put together that shows the zoning, the M1 and the M3 zoning districts in the form districts in which we've identified as being potential locations for data centers. And so the red on the map is the M3 zoning, and then the blue that you see is M1 zoning. When we were initially talking about what zoning classification to place data centers in, a lot of people immediately went to, well, we need to put it in the heaviest industrial district that we have because there were concerns about the power usage, water usage and things like that associated with the data centers. And so that was the direction that we went. But then as we heard conversations more that were about wanting to have more planning commission and legislative body level review, We kind of went back to the drawing board and thought, well, let's look at, let's look at the other industrial zoning districts and see what we have out there. And so. As you can see on the map here, a lot of red on there. In fact, there's 20 times more M3 zoning in the in in our county than there is in 1 zoning. Uh, and so, uh, with that, uh, what we would like to recommend as an alternative is to, uh, amend the proposed section 4.269, uh, which applies to data centers between 50, uh, now 50,001 square feet to 500,000 square feet. so that they would only be permitted with a conditional use permit in M1 zone districts in the campus, regional center, suburban workplace, and traditional workplace form districts. So by making that change, again, there's less of it out there, and it would necessitate a review by the planning commission and the legislative body whenever we see data center regulations. And so that is some of the thought behind that change.

And Brian, just to jump in, by making it a conditional use permit in M1, like typically if whatever you allow by right in M1 then bleeds through into M2 and CM and some of the other ones, but by structuring it that way, it's really only M1. It would not bleed into the higher density. You would have to either be M1 and be able to be M1 of a size that can handle a data center. with all the other changes and buffers and stuff, or you're going to have to go through a rezoning accompanied with a conditional use permit. And to rezone to M1 would require going to Planning Commission and then a Metro Council.

Right, so, and, you know, that and that that accomplished is 1 of the goals that the model ordinance talks about was having both zoning in place as well as requiring a conditional use permit. And so we, we like the idea of having that kind of dual level of review with the associated with that. But then, like Laura said, you know, by having it with the conditional use permit, it doesn't bleed over into easy 1 and some of the other districts. So.

But with the CUP, that still, unless it's a zoning change, wouldn't go to the legislative body, correct?

If there was a property out there that someone found where they were able to meet all the conditions that are underneath, that are a part of the CUP, then yes, in theory, that would go to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. But I think just by looking at the map and kind of evaluating some of the land that's out there, there probably won't be a lot of changes. You know, those instances, uh, occurring, so, um.

Yeah, go ahead going back to the map. Can you elaborate on where these red splotches are? I have some idea, but it's hard to read that map from here.

Sure. No, no. So you've got, um. So the red is M3, which we're suggesting we go away from. But now you've got M3 zoning over in western Louisville in the Riverport area. Also in that kind of the Cane Run Road, Campground Road area, there's M3 zoning. A lot of the M3 zoning that you see here, like at I-65 and Outer Loop, that's kind of Renaissance zone zoning. zoning development areas. You have the Cosmos area down in far southwest Louisville. Those areas are zoned M3. And then you have a little bit of M3 over in the Middletown Industrial Development District that straddles the Gene Snyder there on the north side of us, a little further north of Shelbyville Road. But that is also some of the M3 areas that you see there. Yep. All right, so the next comment, data center separation. We heard a lot about the loopholes that were in the draft, in particular, where if we established a square footage threshold, then what do we have in place to prevent a data center from developing on one parcel, but then just going next door and developing another building and things like that? And so there was a lot of concern about that as well as concerns about over concentration of use in different areas of the community. So one of the alternatives that we are suggesting is to add language to require separation of data center developments based on property line to property line measurements. Did I get that right, Joe? Okay, thank you. And then our recommendation for the change would be to insert language that says no data center shall be located within 1,320 feet, which is a quarter mile of the boundary of any parcel occupied by another data center, excluding accessory data centers. This map here, so this is a publicly available map. We don't keep track of data centers. It's not like they need a license or a registration or anything like that. And so it's not like we have a database of data center locations available to us to map, but If you go online, then this datacentermap.com website, they are a website that is out there so that data centers in communities can advertise their services for people who want to utilize the data centers. This map here are the locations of data centers in Jefferson County, all of which are constructed, except for the campground, what road when which they already have a dot over there on the far left side of the photos you can see. So those are existing data centers that are operating within the local metro area that are advertising their services on this on this website. And so what we've done is we just. created an exhibit to show what a buffer may look like around these parcels that are, again, publicly identified. So it's not like we're outing a data center out there. And so this example shows the dark blue, the center there is what a quarter mile buffer would look like around this particular data center that's located on Nelson Miller Parkway. And then the lighter blue, as you get a little further out, that's what a half mile would look like. So, you know, our For the purpose of discussion, we put in a quarter mile, but again, if that's something that you all want to discuss and explore, for the exhibit, we put that together so you could see what that would look like.

And why did you start with a quarter mile, Brian?

So we tried to look at, like, what some other separation requirements that we have in the Land Development Code and what they look like. Because, you know, we have separation requirements for smoking retail shops. We have separation requirements for short-term rentals. We have separation requirements for, well, proposed for the packaged liquor stores and things like that. So we tried to find something similar, but then also when you think about the scale of like what a short-term rental is versus what the scale of the data center is. So that was kind of the purpose of like growing it a little bit. And so a quarter mile was a number that we have seen other communities utilize. And then like once we put it on the map and we got to looking at things, then I think that would kind of make sense in terms of like making sure that you didn't have that side-by-side data center development that people had expressed concern about during the public testimony. So, there are other communities that are using the right? Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you.

Oh, this is place for my, my concern is what if a developer. buys land and converts it into one lot.

Right. I mean, that is a good question that may not necessarily be covered by this particular thing. So if they're doing an expansion of an existing data center, would that constitute a second data center? We'd have to make an interpretation on that.

Yeah.

That would be my concern right now.

The developer's got his eye on the site, but yet there's land next door.

Sure.

And he buys that property and then puts it all on one property that right yeah which yeah which he can make a bigger center there right and fall through the cracks on this possibly yeah possibly yeah i mean i'm throwing scenarios out there that sure we're trying to figure out absolutely so brian real quick yes if was there anything looked at as far as potential

energy drain from a quarter mile, half mile, mile from a data center to make the boundary? Does that make sense?

I kind of see what you're saying. And no, I mean, we are not looking at power usage from the standpoint of our zoning regulations. I mean, there are entities in place to do that. And so it's not necessarily something that we're taking into consideration in the development of these. I think what you'll see though with, you know, especially with the larger data centers is that they typically like to be within about a mile or so of transmission lines. And so I think that will narrow the scope of where like your larger data centers will be able to go. But then like the smaller ones that we have a lot of, a lot of the dots that you saw on the map there are like 40,000 square feet and under. And so, you know, those are able to locate a little more freely than like a really large data center would be. And those are the types that are, you know, supporting local businesses and things like that, which is something that we've been trying to, you know, encourage with the development of these regulations.

I'm assuming most of those are telecom.

Yes. Yeah.

Okay.

Yes. I guess I'm a little confused about this. If I have a data center that I want to put in and I put it in the center of your circle there, regardless, your restriction would apply for the quarter mile, would apply only to the properties he owns?

I mean, I don't know. I think that we would have to look at a development and a development site and then look at whether or not there are other data centers within that buffer area if this were to be adopted. But if someone were expanding, if you were expanding a development, that may not constitute a second data center development. You're just expanding your existing development. I don't know.

I tend to think that if you put it... When we put in a distance restriction, it's a distance restriction to other parcels, regardless of whether those other parcels are owned by the same individual or owned by somebody else. I mean, otherwise, a person could buy, have, like, several short-term rentals near each other. We don't allow that either. I think, though, if you're doing it within the same site, you still have the general overall restriction in it of the total floor area. So I think you... I mean, so you... on the same parcel you have a floor area limit so if you're already at the floor area cap i don't think you can put a second building because you hit that floor area you would hit that that maximum for the for the development so what but what what the concern was is okay you hit the floor air cap on this site what's to stop you from subdividing that property and then putting a second one you know so so the distance limitation would solve the incentive to subdivide and build them side by side

Yeah, if you restrict it to any data center, whoever owns it, or whoever owns the property, it solves your problem. If you just say, well, you can't have anything within a quarter amount. Just wanted to make sure. Okay.

Another concern that we heard a lot about was the separation of data centers from sensitive uses. The June draft had numbers. We got a lot of feedback about that. We increased those setback requirements. We've continued to get a lot of feedback about that. And so. You know, the, the, the general comment was that the proposed separation from dwelling units and other sensitive unit or, uh, and other sensitive units, uh, you know, from data centers just was not enough. Uh, and so with the new categorical classifications, um, you know, the alternative could be for, uh, data centers, 50,000 square feet or less increase in that from 25 feet, which is in the draft that has been before you to 100 feet. And then for data centers, 50,000 in one square feet to 500,000 square feet, increasing that from 50 feet to the quarter mile, the 1,320 feet. We heard a lot of comments about the standards that we had in place regarding water usage and generators and the waste heat that may be exiting data center facilities. There were calls to strengthen the language regarding the requirement for the use of closed loop systems. There were requests to change the generating testing hours and eliminate planning director's ability to approve alternative generators. And then also there was a request to strengthen the language regarding expulsion of waste heat from facilities. So the alternatives here Regarding closed-loop systems, change the language from, you know, should to shall or encourage the, you know, make them required as part of the regulations. And then with the testing, moving the start time for testing of generators on-site back from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. to kind of get out of that morning window. And then change the should to shall regarding the clause about directing waste heat away from adjacent property. So a couple of simple things there.

So Brian. Yes. About the generators. I mean, they're not going to have a generator. They're going to have multiple generators. Right. Yeah. Would you have any requirements saying that you can't turn the switch on for all generators?

We don't have anything in our proposal that restricts like how many generators you can test it once or anything like that. If that's something that you all want to explore, we've seen samples from other communities where they've tried to limit the generator testing.

They could stage it to certain sections or buildings. The one on Campground Road has, what, nine buildings?

Seven.

Seven.

All right.

True, we don't have anything written, but we're writing it now. We need to probably address this now okay yeah before it gets away from us i mean i feel they shouldn't test them all at once i think it needs to be staggered because you've got your sound decibels in there with that um and that's just my thought and like i said this is

this is new this is new and there's a lot of gray area that we need to get established before we we turn this loose okay so they don't come back and say well you shouldn't take care of that oh sorry that's a good comment because a lot of the comments that we heard were related to noise level impacts so if you stagger that does that make an impact

If you have seven buildings, I imagine it would be one generator per building. I think it's much more than that. I think you're going to wind up with 10 per building. But if they staged it to running, you know, 10% of it at a time would eliminate or wouldn't eliminate, but the impact would be much greater.

It wouldn't hurt to have it in the regulations, but typically when you have a multi-generational system, generator set up, you're staging them anyway, because you're also testing your transfer switches as well. It wouldn't hurt to have it in there, but that's typical protocol.

We can look at some stuff and provide some examples as we continue to have discussions here today. That's something we can look up. We've seen items like restrict days of the week. It may say no more than 20%. That way you're distributing the whole testing throughout the week or whatever. Yeah, that's fine. We can find some things for that.

And Brian, these generators that you're talking about are not the diesel-type generators that have been such heavy pollutants. There are several of them listed on there, and I believe maybe the types limit the pollutants.

We continue to permit type 4 diesel generators as well as other types. I don't have the draft in front of me, so I can't remember the exact language. You got that, Andy?

and just i can go through the types but they're different types the only diesel one would be the type four as regulated by the epa and i'll just note the generator tester times that's in addition to the 65 decibel noise requirement they would still have to meet that regardless when they test and that's measured at or beyond the property line

But could it be considered to be asked for natural gas instead of diesel?

That's allowed for, I'll just go through them all so that everybody's on the same page. The type that are allowed are powered by propane, natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, bi-fuel, which is a combination of gas and diesel, or battery, or the type for diesel generator.

And the type 4 is the preferred one, or that's the one that's the most economical for them?

That's considered the most efficient as regulated by the EPA in their emission standards.

Right, based on emission standards, yeah.

Okay.

Brian, did we look at what constitutes an emergency that would allow all those generators to be fired up to provide power to the system if the main electrical feed was down?

We did not include a definition for emergency in the draft. Okay.

Well, this is like totally different, but with the permits we're issuing on a regular basis, Louisville Water and MSD, everything's an emergency. Right. And I don't want to see it being abused anymore. I don't know how we can define that better.

Right? Yeah, I don't know. I don't know about I mean, we could look and see if there if there's language regarding defying emergency. We've seen communities that risk that have a restriction on the length of time that a generator could run during an emergency. If that's something that you want to explore, we've seen sample examples of that. So, again, it's whatever we want to make of it. Right?

I think that might be a good idea.

Yeah, the question is going to be what the purpose of the data center is, is what constitutes the emergency for the data center, because it's usually based on time of power loss. So, I mean, depending on what they're servicing, right, you know.

Well, it's the idea of running these generators. What do we see the most? Is it the noise level or the admissions? The pollution, so restrict the amount of. Pollution our noise level.

I mean, I think both have been a concern that we've heard about when it talks about generator usage. And so I don't know which one we would want to kind of approach with a restriction on that. We can look at it and see.

And I'm assuming these generators are not just specific to the computers. They are the coolant pumps?

I don't know what the function of those, I would assume. So just all general operation is all they're running full load or not.

Yep. If they're running full load or they're just running set. It depends on their configuration.

Yeah. Yeah. And, you know, today, those that are, I mean, we're mostly talking about the computers and the storage, but also. the coolant pumps to keep everything cool.

Yeah. Well, they would have to, because if they're going to run the, um, the computers or the tech, they're gonna have to run the cooling at the same time.

I didn't mean that to sound stupid.

Well, what I'm getting ready to get at, I wonder if we should make them, require them to have a separate generator for far life and safety. That way they're not saying that they're running generators for FLS when truly they're running it to service their entire operation.

Yeah.

Those would be smaller generators.

You'll need some kind of feed for if something happens, you have fire suppression, you know, things like that.

Do they have multiple feeds on their incoming electric power? Is there backup? Can they back feed?

If it's available, yeah, a lot of them will have multiple feeds coming in. So it's not just like, you know, for lack of knowledge about electricity. You know, you don't just have electricity come from one direction. You have multiple sources coming in. uh you know the the some of the developers people who operate these that we spoke with uh the the computers are on a battery backup system so like that initial you know if there's a blip or something like that that those batteries are there for that but they're not meant to sustain uh the the computers for long periods of time so like if you had a massive outage um the batteries would would initially kick on but then as that gets extended then the the the generators then kind of pop on uh in order to sustain that you know if they're looking at any kind of like lengthy power outage so the generators are backup uh chargers for the batteries basically right I mean, I think the batteries are just kind of there for very temporary outages. They're not meant to sustain operation of the facility by any means, just to sustain the computers, the computer equipment, while there may be a temporary blackout. But if you're looking at an extended period of time, that's when the generators come in, and that's what they utilize those for.

Those are mainly for the brownouts and hour outages.

two hours max it allows the ats to come on and and again just just from people that we spoke with i mean the generators are there they may be able to operate for 24 or 48 hours but if you're dealing with a power outage that is that long then obviously there are bigger concerns in the community than just trying to keep a data center afloat from a power standpoint so All right, then the last thing from me, and this wasn't necessarily a comment, but between meetings on August 6th, we were all informed about an executive order that had been issued by the governor. And so the language of the executive order we've included here on the slide, it's a little tough to read, but we included a copy of it with the agenda when it was published. Some of the things we don't necessarily delve into, we've included some language that talks about ratepayer protection. A lot of that is governed by the state and all the entities that regulate power usage and power utility costs. But then the item that we focused on was the Environmental Protection Clause, which is item 1C there. And that's where there is a call for the state to get involved in terms of reviewing the potential environmental impacts of data centers. We're still working on this language too. We've been working on this one all morning. But basically, in response to the executive order requiring some sort of environmental impact study that has been submitted to the state and reviewed and okayed by them, requiring that as part of the package of materials that are submitted with the data center application so that again that you know the the state the the the energy environment cabinet or whoever uh ends up taking on that task in the future uh you know they they will basically have to review this this this study that uh and verify that there aren't going to be uh significant negative impacts from an environmental standpoint uh once the data center is constructed and so uh you know that that was the one thing that we felt um that was included in the executive order that we could do a little bit with in terms of inserting some language in. Because if you read the draft, we have some information there about environmental constraints, and so we would want to insert this language or similar language in those sections.

So do we think and this is what was confusing me with this executive order? Do we think that the state government is going to stand up basically a review board for these? Because what that just said does not really say that it has to be approved by the state. It just says it has to comply and we have to show compliance to the state. So my question is, should it say that the state must approve it? And do we know if the state based on that executive order is going to much like you have to get plumbing approval from the state or something? Do we know if they're going to do that?

I don't think we know yet. And we really won't know anything else until January when the, when the state comes back into session. But just. chatter that you hear amongst folks is that there are expectations for data centers to be one of the major topics. Just because we've seen an increase in the number of communities across the Commonwealth who have adopted data center regulations, who are in the process of data center regulations. And it seems that once communities start to adopt regulations, if we're doing something the state doesn't like, then they like to give us a correction at the state level. And so I think that You know, that that's something that we are eagerly waiting to see if that happens next next legislative session.

So should we force their hand and the 1 that was just shown our language should we put in there instead of showing compliance that it must be approved.

By Commonwealth of Kentucky, generally, when we've done other amendments, and we looked into that, we can't compel the state to do anything. So we could create a contradiction. as well if we require an approval that they don't grant. So, I mean, we can look into that, but that's been our past experiences. The state just won't acknowledge if we require something in our local code because They're the higher body and we can.

Isn't this a restatement of stuff that is already in practice? I mean, anytime you do an apartment complex or residential neighborhood, anything, you have to go through this list that's already up there. I mean, isn't this just a restatement of stuff that's already on the books?

is it for an environmental environmental impact i'm used to eis environmental impact statement um and this this could be something uh less intensive than an eis correct i i i think so but i mean again it's up to you all to kind of determine

What that level of review and study should include. I mean, we, we, again, we've been going, we've been looking at this with all morning and so we've been trying to figure out the best way to word some of these things. And so I. I think we're, we're open to, you know, if this is something that you're willing to entertain, you know, we're, we're, we're willing to work or anything new in this that wouldn't be required anyway.

I mean, level 1 environmental study on most projects is always. Steve, you think that that's a restatement of stuff that's.

This executive order is totally unnecessary because most of this is already done.

Well, that's all that I have for you all at this time. Again, we're here to help answer any other questions that you all have about comments and public feedback that we got. That's all that I have to present. So I'm going to go sit down and I can continue talking over there. But yeah, thank you all for your attention on this. And yeah, I look forward to continue to talk about this today.

Brian, it's just one kind of overarching comment. We heard a lot about the basis for evaluating data centers. Should it be based on size? Should it be based on square footage? Or should it, KRC recommended, should it just be based on the individual data center and those impacts? Could you just speak to that for just a few minutes?

Sure, no, I mean, I think having the tiered approach that we have is appropriate. I mean, you know, we have other uses within the land development code that are regulated by their square footage. And just throwing out one that comes off the top of my head, I mean, you can have a micro distillery or micro brewery that's less than 5,000 square feet of manufacturing area in C2 districts, whereas anything larger than that, you have to go to an industrial district. So we have that. In theory, residential uses are all governed by density and number of units within a certain area. And so, you know, I would be inclined to say that we do that with residential uses already. And so I don't see a problem with this. We've seen other communities that have adopted similar methods. regulations where they have tiers based on square footage. And so, I mean, I'm completely comfortable offering this. You know, we've kind of changed it up a little bit where we've lowered that one threshold, you know, so that now 50,000 square feet kind of becomes that, you know, the difference between, you know, a buy right or permitted with special standards data center. versus where you need uh you know the certain zoning and a conditional use permit so i i don't i don't see any issues with with with us having that uh you know type of structure within our land development code um another quick i got a question um i just want to make sure we're covered on data centers going into already built warehouses are we covered on that is these rules going to

I know you talk zoning, but I'm talking something like some of these major big warehouses, for example. Steve brought it up in the, the night meeting on the 6th outer loop and 65, the Amazon, you know. He's going to cover that as far as size and regulations.

Well, I mean, I think if someone were to want to change the use of an existing structure and the categorized zoning classification requires another zoning classification, they have to request a rezoning. And so I don't think that's any different here. I mean, it's no different than I own a house. I want to open a restaurant in it. uh you know even though it's the house and structures there i got to rezone to another classification to do that use and so i mean we would we would treat uh you know the the you know a change in use within the building as a zoning change just like we would any other type of change in use of a structure or a property and i'll add i think the only way that could really get through is if you had a warehouse that's an m1 zoning that's the right size that meets all the permitted conditions

And then you're changing. But I think short of that, you're going to have to go. And if it's over a certain size to get the CUT, then you still need the CUP, even if you could check all those boxes. So by doing by right, you've already pushed it to $50,000 or under. Again, that site would sort of be a unicorn if it even exists, where it already has the M1 zoning, it already has the right size, it already has an existing warehouse on it that's less than 50,000 square feet, and it meets all the setbacks and it's not within a quarter mile, assuming that gets adopted. So I won't rule it out completely, but I think it's more likely than not you're going to need a rezoning and a CUP or a CUP, even if it's M1 zoning.

And I say that because there's already one that's been brought up, but it didn't get it in time. Kramer's link. It's a dumb warehouse, but I mean, they're right. Yeah.

The one that was filed a week ago, Monday is covered by the moratorium. And I believe it's in easy one.

Yeah.

Easy one. So it would, so in the moratorium, if we put in new rules, it would have to comply with the new rules. Okay. All right.

I just want to make sure this stuff's covered that we don't go ahead and approve something. Then somebody find a loophole to come in to say, Hey, I, I've got this big warehouse, I got nothing there. Let's put a data center in it.

So, okay, thank you. And then as you all know, I mean, once it gets to Metro Council and the legislative bodies, I mean, they will be vetting out the recommendations and likely making changes there as well. I mean, that is a strong possibility. And so, you know, if there is something that comes up as we're going through the final recommendation, you know, we kind of have that second opportunity to work it out at council level as well.

I have a couple of questions. I don't know if you have to stand there.

I've got a really good stance going right now. So I'm good.

Not sure that it's all relying on you either. So I didn't notice or see if kind of going back to the noise issue, I didn't necessarily see anything. Is there a way or should we put something in? there to um like in the building materials to have specifics to not have any internal noise from the computers and whatnot bleeding out into outside is there a possibility of putting anything like that in there i mean i know the generators are the generators and they're they're going to be right but if we can limit the noise from the building materials should we should we put something in there for that

You know, we have the noise standards in there that we included that where, you know, they can't exceed a certain threshold at the property line. You know, we have not gone any further to talk about noise reduction measures from a building standpoint that, you know, whether that's getting a little bit out in front of our skis. Yeah, Joe, we got, yeah.

Just to clarify, we didn't go as far as to require we put language in the noise section to reduce any noise and impact on the immediate vicinity for generators because there's really 2 sources of sound the generators. And, um, the computer equipment within the building. We put for generators should be enclosed within building courtyards or having walls that have sound attenuation properties. So that. could clearly be strengthened with the shell and that will take care of part of the problem but there's nothing in the current draft pertaining to the existing or not to the existing to the buildings where the data center equipment is okay and the other question then i have is with all the regulations and like noise ones that we just talked about

is there an appetite to put some kind of bond or deposit or whatever you want to call it on the developer to ensure that they stay within all these guidelines? Does that make sense?

Yeah. Are we going to require kind of tie into that? Are we going to require an audit post construction to make sure they're meeting these requirements? I think we're looking at sound, we're not looking at frequency. It's very hard to find any information except that you need a distance and the distance wasn't even clearly defined that I could find. But I know we've set one for the sound. Are we going to be able to require them to do audits on a regular basis? Are you monitoring?

Yeah, I mean, that could be something that could be entertained with, you know, with either a condition if it's a CUP or a binding element that could be attached. One of the things that was included in the executive order talked about requiring or requesting that day centers build a meaningful relationship with the community. So I think there are some things that we can do. with standard binding elements, but then also potentially with some sort of community benefit agreement that the data center would have to enter into with the local government. And so I think there are some things there that we can do in terms of like annual reports, frequent check-ins with sound and things like that. We've had cases where we've talked about Topgolf a lot. you know where we we required them to come back uh a year after uh it was constructed to give us a a noise report a sound report to show what was being generated and what was being uh you know recorded at nearby locations and so i think that could be a standard binding element that that we kind of work into uh you know these types of reviews as they come in could that also apply to the data center that was just approved on campground

that kind of requirement for monitoring?

No, because that plan is approved. It's vested there under construction. I mean, we're kind of not at a point where we can require that. Now, that could be something that once we have regulations in place, if there are things like that, then we could reach out to the developer and say, hey, these are some things that have been adopted post approval of your plan. Would you be willing to come and know submit annual reports and things like that you know that which are similar to any kind of requirement that we uh are asking of other data centers as they come in so um speaking of campground say they get finished and done we can't touch them if they come back and decide to build another building

it would have to meet these requirements, right?

So that development, again, vested, so they would be considered a not, assuming it's fully constructed, they would be considered a non-conforming development on that site. But if they were to come back and try to make amendments or make additions and things like that, then these regulations would be, they would be subject to any adopted regulations that are in place.

The new building or the whole site?

uh i mean depending on what they're changing so well if these were to get adopted they couldn't add a new building right because they would already see the cap yeah and they wouldn't have the appropriate zoning so it would effectively prevent them from expanding as written

Okay, you all were talking or we were talking a minute ago about commitments to. You know, paying up the appropriate amount. One of the exhibits that was handed out to me was by John Crockett who's the president of. And he goes into pretty good detail about contracts for future performance of these people. It sounded fairly rigorous. I don't represent them, but. I'd like to point out there is some discussion about that in his letter.

I mean, the, you know, a lot of the requirements that and then ultimately the have in place or to again to separate people who are just speculating about data centers versus people who are serious. And so, like, the studies that they require in terms of, like, power usage and what, you know, what the impact is going to be on the grid, you know, they. you know, LG&E, you know, there's an application associated with that, and the fees and the cost of those types of studies are, you know, of an amount that LG&E feels comfortable that, you know, if someone's coming to them and asking for these things, then they're serious about developing those because the last thing, as LG&E has told us, the last thing they want to do I think someone's coming in to construct something that's going to use a certain amount of power. LG and he makes the improvements and then that person bails on them. And so then they're, they're stuck with those improvements. They're stuck with, you know, with that cost. And, you know, that cost has to.

Yeah, but they make them evidently make them sign a contract that they can. Right. they can perform, even if they don't ask for the energy when it's there, they have a binding contract with whoever the applicant is that says that they will pay up. So there are some protections in force.

Right, yeah, it's like a 10 or 15 or 20 year, I can't remember the number they told us when we were talking with them, but yeah, it's a lot.

Have we touched on decommissioning? We haven't. You want to talk about that?

Yeah, it was going to be my question. Okay. Go ahead.

Do you have a question, DeAndre?

No, no, no. Go for it. Go for it.

I think we need to set up for some type of decommissioning, make sure that the property is taken care of if it fails. I mean, you hear people say, well, they're going to take their equipment with them. Well, if it's like any other type of computer, Three years, it's outdated. It's old. We'll walk away and let it stay there. Let somebody else fool with it. I think we need to put something in there to cover that. What do y'all think?

Turn your mic on. No, no, go ahead. Turn your mic on.

Such a provision is unnecessary in the event that. The company stops operating. There are numerous scrap companies who would be delighted to go in, buy that equipment for whatever it's worth, and move it out. The building would be refurbished and leased in a more conventional manner, so I don't think there's a need for that. Scrap companies call me all the time looking for these types of projects, whether it's traditional machinery or electronics. The market will take care of this situation.

And what about downtown vacant office buildings?

You know, right now, you read the regulations, there are no, you know, you would not be permitted to do any kind of, like, primary data center, you know, the primary use being a data center in the downtown area. Now, with the accessories, how is that worded? You get the language there. Accessories are permitted pretty much in any district.

So the accessory would be allowed, but they're capped. At up to 20,000 square feet, or the space, or because the building of white space, what we called, we defined this data center white space or. This could be a lesser number 49% of the floor area of the total use. There is also in downtown largely C3. so C3 is kind of code for downtown and the ordinance. There's also an allowance. for a telecommunication data center in downtown. Not that there's gonna be a great need for many of those, but those would be the only two permitted downtown. A principal use data center would not be allowed under these.

I wanna go back to the decommission bonding. I hear what Commissioner Leonard is saying, the market to take care of itself, but we have a lot of vacant... um, buildings in Metro Louisville where the market should have taken care of it. Um, and it didn't, um, especially in the, um, cane run road area. Um, I would want to see a decommission clause and bond in there with set requirements that require them to not only strip the building and because I do agree they're, they're going to take their equipment. Um, even though the age may be, um, Uh, it may have exceeded his useful life, but there's also. Proprietary information that they would want to strip strip out. So I understand that part, but the actual facility, the generator reuse those kind of things we may want to think about, you know, making sure that the building is returned back to shell.

And the KRC model ordinance has the commissioning plan language in there that we can show you all. Bowling Green, I think word for word, adopted the commissioning plan language out of that ordinance. We've also seen, we have an example from Indianapolis in their draft data center regulations, which haven't been adopted yet. But the draft that they have, they also have some decommissioning language. And so we can put that up on the screen for you all to look at as well.

And then I have a question that does not derail us from what we're doing, but a general question on our authority and or Metro council authority and or state authority, much like you would have a wet dry vote, right? I'm going to use that language because I don't know any other language to use, but this is such a topic that really, really goes to the heart of a community. This is, this is, This goes to what the community wants and not just necessarily Metro Louisville. I would go all the way down to the area, the Limerick neighborhood, all the way down and say that what is the authority or who has the authority to change this to something that requires a vote by the general public? on the on whether the data center happens or not we should set standards without a doubt so that if it passes right in in my little head if it passes then we we make sure it's built to the right standards but i think the community should weigh in that's that's why i'm i'm so adamant about having it go to the legislative body because they should have a stake in it we should have a stake in it but in the day if the community doesn't want it then Why would we approve it? Right? That doesn't make sense to me.

Yeah, no. And, you know, the way we do zoning in Kentucky is basically the state tells us what we can and can't do. And so if there and so you mentioned the wet drive vote for alcohol use, that has been something at the state level. They allow local governments to make that choice. They did the same thing a few years ago with the medical cannabis. There were green and non-green votes that took place in communities across the Commonwealth because the state allowed the local jurisdictions to have that ability. So, you know, this would have to be an issue that the state would have to initiate and grant local governments, you know, say, hey, if you want to have an election to do this, then you're permitted to do that. And so, yeah, Laura.

There's a similar concept for like. um there's a special library tax but it comes if you have a certain number of people petition then it comes to a vote so there's so most of that would come i think if we wanted to have concept concept like that would really have to come from the state to authorize enable us to be able to do it okay okay so and i'll drop it after this

Is that a conversation that you and or Metro Council should be having with the state? Or could, not should, I'm sorry, could be having with the state?

It could be, yeah. I mean, that could be something that could be initiated by, you know, Metro Council could, you know, they have in the past passed resolutions to, you know, ask the state to consider things. And so that could be something or, you know, it could be something that could be taken up with like KLC or something like that. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm.

Any other questions commissioners? Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. So. Commissioners are our responsibility just to remind you is to recommend with changes, which I think we're going to have, or recommend as written to Metro, cancel the approval or denial of the changes to the land development code as it relates to. Data center construction and or and zoning. So, with that commissioners, we really kind of need to distill this down and to what changes we want to see in there based on the conversations and what Brian just presented to us. So, anybody want to start somewhere.

I have a quick question, so there's. we obviously aren't making a final decision today. So we're basically going to continue this discussion because what I say continue is I would like, and I'm sure it's in here with the ton of information we received, right? Of the comments and whatnot and Brian's presentation. And we talked about some changes that we wanted to see and we may talk about some additional changes we want to see. But can we get like a, not a final, but a final, for the lack of a better phrase, this is what, these are all the stuff that we want to put in there.

And so one option you could do is at the end of this meeting, if there's still language that needs to be wordsmithed or you really feel like you need a chance to read the whole thing again in its entirety, is you could always continue it to business session on the 3rd. And have a one last look. I mean, that's an option. That's that's that is an option. Another option is you could you could have the changes you want. Take a break, you know, for whatever half hour hour for staff to print it out and, you know, kind of make a have a version for you to look at. So there's a couple of options.

Yeah, or we can do like we do, and just correct me if I'm wrong, like when we make binding element changes, we can, and we could take a break and have staff kind of PowerPoint it for us, but we can actually read it into the record as the changes, and then they make the changes and it goes on the Metro Council. That's our other option. So we can, to your point, we can...

I'm open to whatever. I just, my brain works better as...

And it may help given the number of changes we're talking about and the fact that not everybody may agree with each of the changes is, you know, another option is to do a couple of motions. A motion could be that we want to amend the staff report, the text to include changes one, two, and three and take a yes, no vote on that. And then four, five, and six and take a yes, no. And then you have this kind of revised version and then you take the vote to recommend to counsel this revised version. rather than saying, I want to recommend Metro Council that they approve with, and now you've got 20 changes. It gets you to the same place, but I think procedurally you could take it in smaller chunks if you want, and then ultimately a motion on the full thing or not. It just depends on your appetite and how comfortable and how many changes you want to track.

So if you want, because we have a version that would reflect the alternatives that we suggested today, we can go back and print that out, bring it over, let you look at that, and then, like Laura said, go through there and decide what works, what doesn't work, what you want to change, what you want to add in, and then that way we can get to a more finished version.

If I'm the only one that would like to see that, I'm fine not doing it.

You're not the only one.

You're not. I don't know. This is just my feelings. I feel for such an important thing that this is coming down. We're setting a precedent from here on out. I just don't think it needs to be rushed. I think we need to get it right the first time because it needs to be right coming out of here because when it gets to council, they're going to tear it up.

Yeah, so I think that to your point, I think we – well, I know we have a moratorium in place, so we don't have to worry about something coming through while we decide this. I would like to hear – At least the cooperation I know we have the letter from LG and E, but during the review process, I'm really wanting to understand what kind of meet not only, but the water company. MSD, everybody is willing to participate in this approval process.

Yeah, I mean, he's the water company is is a. closed system, open system, I'd like to know the pros and the cons because an open system is going to, by the time they pay the MSD rates, it's going to be substantial. We need to find out the way it works.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure on that, well, not getting in it, but I know that they'll probably give them a different rate for the drainage versus the usage, but you know how that's supposed to work.

But I mean... The report that Brian give and Joe, and everybody else has worked on it. It's good. It's good, but. It it's something we have to understand 1st, before we. Acknowledge it to vote on it to be sure in our minds. This is what we want. Because it's it, like I said, it's it's land development code. Yeah. Yeah.

I don't disagree. For me, I think the changes that are being recommended by staff are great changes. I'm just not sure yet still that there's enough meat on this bone here for me. Just given the importance of this to our community, this is a big one. Other communities have outright banned it.

um so i just want to make sure we're not missing anything let me end it or change the period of moratorium other communities have done that most of them have done a year we've got six months moratorium but but let me throw this out here let's get a draft of it go home and look at it and come back and talk about it some more and and i'll just add i i locked y'all down for four hours today with nothing else kind of thinking that we could you know a

work on drafts and get things to you.

We could try. Like I said, Brian, it's nothing against you. It's just I don't want to be pressured to vote on something.

I think to Brian's point, I'll go to you, Mr. Lehner, but I think to Brian's point, we need to be very clear. We don't have to be very clear, but the changes that they have recommended, if we want them to go out and print it to the point, we take some time, digest it. We need to say, say that right we want to see all those changes i know we want to see this change with that in there or you know we want to add this so that when they reprint it we at least have some semblance of what we want to be staring at for the next week or two weeks um and then come back if that's what we're going to do right um at least give them direction that's my fault um otherwise we're back in the same shape in two weeks mr lantern

to give some direction to the staff, I'd like to go page by page now because I have a number of suggestions. I'd like to frankly vote yes or no on them so that when the staff goes to rewrite this, they know what to put in and what to take out. We can definitely do that. I mean, I would like to start on page eight under definitions, top of the page.

And, and, and while, while we do that and, and, and, and I'm, I'm gonna leave, I'm gonna, we'll, we'll, we'll work on your, your, your, your, Your list here, but as we do that also want everybody to think what's not in here what's what's missing that we will want to see that as we go through this page by page and we're on page 8 of 24 correct as we go through this. Yep. As we go through this, that we, we think about what's what's missing and what we may want to ask as well. So.

Well, shouldn't we start at number one? I know I'm not trying to interrupt Steve's thought, but if we could knock off what we're going to agree to right here, I might narrow it down to more specific points.

When you say number one, you're starting at page seven, top of page seven with the text amendment language?

Yeah. To, like, say, chapter 1 part 2 definition, is there any objection. Did someone would have to that page?

Yeah, I think I think Mr liner just skip that because number 1 just states what we're doing.

Okay. Well, I just. And number, it's going to be part of a recommendation.

Yeah. Number 2. well, I mean, it's. Yes, I mean, but that's our standard language with recommendations to other other jurisdictions.

Which I have a different version. That's why.

So, you don't make sure everybody's working there's should be a single staff report dated July 25th just to make sure everybody's got the correct copy. The 1 that to Mr. Fisher is, is stands for attachment 1. what's in italics at the beginning is not part of the amendment. That's just. To Mr. which that there's different versions in the other suburban cities that have zoning authority. So it really starts with chapter 1 definitions.

Right? So, yeah, so number 1 is not part of it. Right? Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Yeah. Okay.

That's what that's what I'm going to just for people following along other cities. Their codes are just different. That's the nature of it. So this is from the Louisville Metro code. If a city wants to make these changes, they might look a little different in their codes, including how the sections are numbered.

Well, where is the beginning?

On page seven of the staff report, right beneath where it says chapter one, part two definitions is the beginning. Underlines are new additions. Strikethroughs are where we're changing language and removing it. Virtually all of it's new language, so there's not a lot of strikethroughs.

Okay, let's start there. Chandra, can we take five?

All right, well, let's take a 10-minute recess. I will call the meeting back to order commissioners before we took our break. We were going to start going step by step and I'll turn it back over to Mr Leonard here in just a 2nd, but my question to the commissioners just by a voice vote staff mentioned going from an M3 to an M1. Um, it makes a difference on what we're looking at and the pages in which they have printed out is a lot clearer if we go to M1 if we read from that, um, after we hear from Mr. Leonard. So, with that, um, just about voice vote, um, all in favor of M1 going to the M1 zoning. All right. All right, so it's a majority right there.

M1 tightens it down, right?

Yes. Okay. Correct. So with that, okay, so there's a mission right now to print some stuff for us, but now I'll turn it back over to Mr. Leonard so we can hear from him as well. Because the M1 zoning may not make a difference.

So let's hear from Mr. Leonard.

Uh, Mr Fisher, I don't have any changes on definitions page 7 unless you or anyone else has anything any comments. If not, we'll go over the top page 8. The definition of prevailing wage and January 2017, the Kentucky legislature pass a law repealing prevailing wage in Kentucky. city of louisville does not have the authority to institute prevailing wage a prevailing wage only applies to a federally funded project such as the new veterans administration hospital in east louisville so that should be deleted there and everywhere else within the document yeah i agree with that that nothing against prevailing wage i mean i've been used to it all my life but

It doesn't strike me as being a land use issue. It strikes me as being something different that would be included in a community benefits agreement or something besides this document. Likewise, the local hiring requirement doesn't strike me as being a land use issue.

I don't disagree. So I guess if we want to take a vote yes or no, just informally or formally, however you want to do it.

I am curious on that because we did a voice vote before and I don't think everybody was in the affirmative, but I mean, we can do roll calls unless there was a majority, you know, but like, for the minutes, if you want these reflected. Okay, you can do a voice vote, but if everybody's not in agreement, then we got to do a roll call to figure out what to do for the minutes.

Well, and well, and just tell me if I'm wrong, because we're not approving it overall right now. Right?

We're just talking about the things that we want to consensus ideas to give direction to staff to return another draft that you then are going to act on then. I think it's fine what you're doing correct?

Yeah. Yeah. It's all we're doing right now. Yeah. Yeah. Just consensus. Makes sense. Well, we can do it. We can do a roll call. I just didn't want to slow us up.

We only need to do that for formal changes that are.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, no, we're just yeah. We're just asking you to go back and then we'll adopt those. Right? Is that what we're asking?

Well, the prevailing wage is 1 item on this page.

Noting that the striped throughs we all agreed to.

The only thing we want to change on page 8, but what I don't want to do.

I'll do whatever everybody won't think is the right thing to do, but. I, what I heard was we want to see 1 completed draft and we will vote on that. So, instead of going through and voting on each item, we'll do my thinking is we'll do a consent vote. And just say, yes, or no, if we all agree to take it out, for example, prevailing wage, I think I've heard everybody say, get rid of it. Right? Yes. Then on the new draft, we shouldn't see it. And then that way, as we vote for the new draft, we can, um, that's when we'll do our formal voting. Does that make sense?

Does that make sense as long as consensus is remove it since 1 is. It's been repealed and 2nd, as Mr. man said. That's really not our purview. We're a land use.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. No, I don't disagree with direct. So wants to do something else. They're welcome. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we're directing staff is move it everywhere. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. With that, let's keep going down our path. So, let me do let's do it again. So, prevailing wage, anyone opposed to removing prevailing wage.

Okay.

Is staff taking note of this?

Yeah, but for the record, that would, the term, the other defined term of construction work would also need to be eliminated because that's only used. Anywhere it's mentioned in the document should be eliminated.

That's even cleaner because then it's down into all the sections. I mean, rather than go dig it out every location. The second item is a little bit bigger. I don't think there should be any restrictions on size. It's use is the issue. One issue they tried to take away with this quarter mile setback, because if you have a limitation, people can buy a very large piece of property if they can find it in the county and build two 500,000 square foot buildings or four 250,000 square foot buildings and even somehow squeeze it within that quarter mile. In my opinion, 4.2.68, 250 square feet or less should be completely eliminated. And then 4.2.69 should just be data centers with 250,000 to 500,000 square feet eliminated. And then I'll stop after this. The instead of just M3 zoning to scatter these data centers throughout the city and to reutilize and recycle existing buildings. Most of which. most of which the large ones are located in the airport area. I would say the data center should be C3, which takes in all of these empty office buildings in downtown Louisville, such as the Mitinger Tower, which has 300,000 square feet. Their staff's recommended CM, M1, and PRO. I would just say have five categories, C3 for the downtown, M2, M3, EZ1, and PEC, and keep these industrial buildings and industrial areas. I made mention at the break with CM zoning, someone could potentially put a data center on the Olgividen site. I don't think that's what the neighborhood there would want. So that's a big bite and a lot of words. Also, even some of the most ardent opponents of data centers have conceded that it may be illegal to limit size of not only data centers, but any type of building. As I mentioned in a previous milling, there's really only one large site, which is in Cosmos, Stale, that can handle a large data center. So the lack of large sites is somewhat going to self-regulate data centers. There really aren't many places. As Mr. Steff brought up, there was the big warehouse at Outerloop and I-65. It's 939,000 square feet. some point it could be maybe recycled into a data center if it ever complies with the laws as a written i'll stop there and let everybody else comment on what i've said and then we can agree or disagree i don't think i agree with uh what mr leonard is requesting but i'm i'm pretty certain that what i'm going to put out there no one's going to agree with

And this gets back into why we aren't using the KRC model ordinance. And I know the staff looked at it, but it seems to me data centers are almost an entity in themselves. It's industrial hyphen data center. And it almost places them in a position where they're almost always going to be a discretionary review. If you meet all the standards and so forth, you should get your approval. And that's just, and you kind of touched on this, I think the other, one of the meetings, the August 6th meeting is that, you know, data centers ought to come before the planning commission and they ought to get approved, you know, if they meet all the conditions.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear on the hearing part. I didn't address that. I agree they should be either come before the Board of Zoning Adjustment for Conditional Use Permit or come before the Planning Commission Committee, the Planning Commission in full, and the Metro Council because I think it's important that the citizens have an opportunity to speak. Actually, you're not in agreement on that part. I just didn't take it a step further. I hadn't gotten to the hearing part of this, what I said earlier.

Yeah, and then maybe I'm confused. Can you restate what you're asking then? Because that's what I thought you were trying to get rid of is just basically making it by right. Let me make sure I understand.

I'm sorry. By using the five categories, C3, M2, M3, EZ1, PEC, those would be the errors into which they would allow the utilization of the office buildings and then the industrial sites it would not be by right they would still have to go through a committee of the planning commission where there would be a public hearing there would be a public hearing with this group here today where people could comment and then we would recommend that people would be allowed to comment at the metro council level which that would be up to the metro council to decide but if we go to answer your question i guess is I think you did.

I think the concern with that, though, is if the zoning is correct, there's not really a mechanism. The conditional use permit would go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. It would not go to Planning Commission pursuant to how KRS Chapter 100 is written. And if you've got the rezoning, then your review is really of a development plan is really a ministerial plan. review the only discretion you would have is in the connection with the conditional use permit and that would go to boza and would not be reviewed by this body if if the zoning is right if you've got c3 or whatever the conditional use permit would go to boza for its decision and then could go to court um but there but it would not go to planning commission and it would not go to metro council

Okay, so just would go to a condition, but there would be a public hearing where people would be allowed to speak at the board of zoning adjustment meeting and the board of zoning adjustment can approve or disapprove.

The conditional use permit, correct?

That's correct. So that would be a way the citizens could express their support or their opposition. So at least there is that. And I'm in agreement with that, which I think the text addresses, if I'm not mistaken. Ms. Stuber, you had a comment, and I'm...

Well, that's one reason I like the in one zoning because it will force everyone to come through for a rezoning fairly. We have so little in one and it's all developed already from what I can tell. So we'd have to chance to hear the public hearing it, go to have it go through us to Metro Council. We have some discretion and we have a chance to put in binding elements. To address is site specific issues.

And both wouldn't be part of the track because it'll be, it'll be a rezoning.

Yeah, it only go to if it was already zoned M1 and doesn't need any additional property. They don't need to expand the M1. Like, if the M1 site is sufficient. For what they want to do, and they can meet all the conditions, then then it would go to for conditional use permit. But. I think the discussion was, in most cases, a lot of the M1 here are smaller sites already developed. If you wanted to put in especially a bigger facility, you would need a rezoning. And then once you have a rezoning, the KRS-100 allows the conditional use permit to be considered by Planning Commission. It's an efficiency thing. Since you're already considering the rezoning, you can also consider the conditional use permit in that circumstance. Yes.

Thank you. Go ahead. So, Miss Stuber, Miss Ferguson, let me understand you. You're saying instead of using the five categories, the data centers can only go into M1. And since there's very little M1 ground, just like M3, data center companies would have to rezone either M2, M3, EZ1, PEC, or anything else to M1, which then brings it to a planning commission committee, the planning commission itself, and then to the Metro Council. I hadn't thought of that, but I would... I would favor that, usually I wouldn't favor it, but I'd favor it to allow the public to be able to speak to this specific use at three different levels, both at the committee, say the Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, and the Metro Council. I wouldn't want it for any other use. I'd like to keep everything the way it is, but since we're only talking about data centers, I would be in agreement with that. If these pages could be rewritten, and I'd like to hear if everybody else's opinion on that as well.

So that was the purpose of the whole M1 zoning. So originally I'd asked for consideration of its own zoning. And the purpose of the M1, and the reason why is I was trying to force a rezone every single time. Because if you do a new zone that doesn't exist, you have to come through. And what I didn't want, and so to the point of staff and Brian, they did a good job. And basically what they're saying is to the point, most are going to have to come back for rezoning. And what I didn't want is it to be on just Metro, I'm sorry, just the Planning Commission. to be making these decisions about where data centers go in our community, where I want the public, yes, to get a bite at the apple, but our legislature should be involved each and every time. They should understand this from their constituents' standpoint as well, because we're not elected officials.

To your point, Ms. Stuber's point, Ms. Ferguson's point, but using the cosmos stale example that's ready for construction it's zone easy one if they want if someone wanted to build a data center that they would apply for m1 zoning and we go through the process that everyone's just described i would be i'm in favor of that for this for data centers only

irrespective of square footage. Pardon? Irrespective of square footage.

I don't think there should be a limit on it because one, there's not a lot of M1, and two, there's not a lot of available ground as we speak. There are some potential sites, which I mentioned, but really there's one in Middletown and one in Cosmosdale to the best of my knowledge, other than some smaller ones that might go in in the airport area and a couple other smaller industrial areas. And by the fact Commissioner Sistrock, that there's very little M1, just like there's little M3. It will then force this process of rezoning for non-M1 tracts of ground.

And I think it also allows the opportunity for these for data centers to be dispersed. If we were limited in three, it seems like they're all going to be located in West Louisville.

It seems unfair to me, as I mentioned in a previous meeting, that's arbitrary and capricious to jam it all into the Saint Dennis neighborhood and West Louisville out in the campground road, West Louisville area. That's not a good idea.

So, I think three would have to be down zoned.

It's basically M1. I mean, you can use it for any M1 use now, but by having data centers go there, I don't know if it's down zoning or not. It's definitely changing it, but by recommending this, then M1 will be any current M1 use and data centers subject to to if it's M1, if they could find for a smaller data center, I could find that an M1 use, I guess, Ms. Ferguson, go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

Right. If it's paired with a conditional use permit requirement and it checks all the boxes and it's already the correct zoning, then it would still have to go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

So, Mr. Ryan, the smaller data centers could go in these little pockets of M1, but for the larger ones, and I don't think there would be a restriction, they would then have to use the M1 process where the citizens would be involved and it may pass, it may not pass. And if someone wanted to use an existing warehouse, and this is gonna be onerous for some warehouse, they're gonna have to rezone the existing warehouses, regardless of size, or it can't, locate in that area. I would like to have that quarter mile restriction stricken and just go by the 200 feet setbacks currently used by M3, EZ1 and others because as I explained to a couple of people, you can build a 30 foot berm in that 200 feet and then put trees of 10 to 20 feet on top of the high most If not all the data center buildings, because land is expensive and frankly, precious in this county, we really need a quarter mile setback. That's just a wasteland. Why not keep the 200 foot setbacks? It's. highly unlikely there's going to be too many locating together in M1. If someone did locate in the Cosmosdale area, got it rezoned successfully, then they might put a big one there. But the M1 pockets are small, and the lack of land in Louisville is going to self-restrict. The market is going to restrict data centers, frankly.

Yeah, but I think the quarter mile is only for another data center. You can still have other commercial uses other manufacturing uses within that quarter mile. It's just a separation of other data center.

That's correct. Yeah, which, which I would, I would, I would be apt to keep that. So I would just so I want to make sure we're.

Just to clarify, I think there are two different separation requirements that were discussed during Brian's presentation. One was data center to data center. Another one was there right now we're having distance from like residential properties. Sensitive uses. And so one of the proposals was to increase from 25 feet to 100 feet for data centers that were 50,000 square feet or less. And then if you were over 50,000 square feet, they were recommending increasing the distance to that quarter mile. So there's two quarter miles being discussed.

But to Beth's point, that's only sensitive data. yeah uses so you could have another industrial warehouse there you just couldn't have a residential school right those kind of things right yeah it doesn't ban all buildings correct certain things and and it sounds like we're back where we were at the top of the conversation which is m1 is what we would like for the zoning to be correct

I mean, let me know if I'm wrong, because once again, it's not ideal, but I think a goal is to involve the public through every step of the process. And it would, as again, only apply to data centers, not normal industrial uses. That's right. We're only talking about data center. That's correct. So I don't want to muddy the water. That's all we're talking about. I reluctantly agree this is the way to do it. Not reluctant from the participation standpoint. That I'm in favor of. The public needs to be involved. And so I think we may have hit on a way to work through this. I'd hate to rewrite it, but it can be rewritten. Which would then allow us to delete half of this law. But they've already rewritten it.

That's the point I was getting at.

They haven't rewritten the size. They need to take out the size limitations. And we need to discuss that.

Let's look at that. Did we print it out?

So just to be clear, because I don't know if this is clear, I have a draft that goes with that M1 idea that Brian described. But to be clear, that only applies as written the data centers between 50,000 and 500,000 square feet. As this is written, data centers under 50,000 square feet would be allowed in several other industrial zones. if they met the performance standards if they didn't meet a performance standard they needed a conditional use permit if you wanted all data centers to be an m1 across the board very easy change we just eliminate a section of code in here and we can make that change in seconds but i'll hand this out if everybody wants to see it the 500 000 the max is just a line in here that would be a relatively easy thing to identify and change if you felt that was appropriate, but it's recommended in this version.

Mr. Lowen, are we now eliminating the opportunity to fill some downtown towers inadvertently? And that concerns me. We'd have to rezone the Midinger Tire to M1. But we still have the C3 for downtown, which is what I was going to get to in a bit.

You have options again, accessory data centers. Would be up to 20,000 would be allowed. And the C3 district telecommunication data centers up to 50,000 would be allowed in the C3 district. Just the other ones. Would not you could if you only wanted to allow other data centers up to 50,000, you could just add C3 to those other uses or other zoning districts listed. But there were some concerns in the process downtown some mixed use area. It's close to residential data centers. Um, if you do add downtown, you might want to add some standards that they're not on the ground level where you expect. you know, storefronts and vibrancy and things like that.

You have to think about what downtown is trying to go to and the development authority is seeking to do, which is bring more residential downtown. I would be totally opposed to that.

This is assuming that the floors could even hold it, and I'm not sure that any of the floors could. We were thinking of ways to try to get something going in these downtown buildings, but if this is going to be too cumbersome, then I would be in favor of eliminating C3 in downtown reluctantly and just leave it with the M2 properties and hope somebody buys these towers and does something with them.

I would be totally against it. That's not what our downtown is for.

And I think it's written, it still allows some use, but it's either a telecommunication hotel, related to telecom under a certain size. But even then, it's what, you said 50,000, so that's not necessarily small. And then it also allows accessory use up to 20,000. So if you had a tenant that was a tech company that needed some sort of server to serve itself, that would still allow that in C3, which I think would be more of the development.

which makes sense, which makes sense, right?

Yeah. I would reluctantly agree to a limit whether it's 20,000 square feet in a C3 in a attempt as Ms. Ferguson described, what if Humana wants to locate Or another company located a small data center downtown that works in conjunction with what they're doing. We don't want to necessarily preclude that. So, if you wanted to keep and again, this is up to the commissioners is that. Allow up to 20,000 square feet and see 3, then. Perhaps we should do so.

And most companies are going to remote their data centers anyway. They do not want their data centers next to their corporate offices.

Correct. And that's why you see so many in suburbs or even adjoining counties.

Even here, even now, right? Right.

And that's been going on for 20 years.

So I think that's, to me, I think it's a moot point. I think, like I said, I don't think that a data center in the vein of what we're talking about now should ever be located in the downtown core at all.

Do you want to strike it in the C3 downtown area? Totally. I would.

Yeah.

Mr. Mr. stuff.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm saying it's not there now other than those accessory and telecommunication oriented ones. You don't have to change a thing in the draft that I would hand you. In regards to C3, which is the equivalent to downtown.

It makes sense. What is your objection, though, to the downtown? I mean, is it taking up space that could be residential?

Taking up space that should be residential and or commercial retail.

Correct. Because a building like the Mitinger Tower, that's not suitable for residential.

Who says? It's too big. Who says that? I'm not going to get into that. That's not my job today. But I will tell you, no, yes, it is. But it's not my job today. I have another job today.

I have a quick question. In regards to taking out the size limitation, I feel like one of the biggest concerns from the public were these mega data centers. All of a sudden, that's the word that's popping up everywhere is mega data centers. So like the telecom data centers, they're 20 or 50 or less, right? and they've been operating and working for a while. So I think we probably need to, in an effort to address the public's concerns about the size, I think we still need to keep some kind of size restriction in there, maybe not have three sizes or something, but I think we still need to keep a size restriction in there is my thought.

I, I agree based on all the public comment that we do need to have some sort of size limitation and that's something 500,000 is pretty generous.

You're saying a max of 500,000 square feet. Yeah, I want to make sure we're not just repeating because and that's why it was kind of important to have the new regulations in front of us.

Yeah. And that that remains unchanged. So the 500 is the same what this draft does if. When you want me to hand it out, is it it highlights areas of change in discussion. From the previous draft, with the exception of deletions to accommodate. only allowing data centers are greater than 50 000 square feet in m1 i just didn't want to show you pages of strike through but it effectively resulted in an entire section being consolidated with another three pages being cut out so i left that but when you look at this the blue will be areas of change that brian discussed that are not related to the m1 issue and the yellow are areas of change that remain that we did change but the 500 000 cap remains in both drafts we're keep we're treating 50 to 500 the same and they're held they're held to the same standards in the same review process correct okay

That's a big warehouse today is a 1Million or 2Million square feet. 500,000 square feet is maybe big to us, but it's not that big in the industrial world. And I think that's an arbitrary. Number, I think. It will be based on the size of the property. And I don't think if the property is big enough and if it get rezoned and if it's 750,000 square feet or if the 939,000 square foot warehouse at outer loop and I-65 can be rezoned M1 successfully, then why would we eliminate new buildings bringing in jobs and revenue and eliminating The reuse of existing buildings by picking an arbitrary number. That's why I don't think we should do that because there are a lot of warehouses and global larger than 500,000 square feet.

I might have some more to add, but the 500,000 was. we heard a lot of comments that people who had, a lot of people had concerns about data centers across the spectrum, but a lot of people had problems with the hyperscale ones. So there is a correlation between the square footage and the amount of energy that they use. So this draft doesn't get into energy use, but by capping it, you're indirectly kind of addressing that energy issue because they can't be as big as the ones that use tremendous amounts of energy. So that's one reason that we put the cap in. And it's also, when you look at M1, you're correct, there's a lot of larger industrial buildings, but in M1, Um, 500,000 is is pretty consistent with what you see on the higher end. I think we did some analysis, right? Yeah.

Well, I don't remember the break full breakdown, but we, we had, it's over 120 buildings that are over 250,000 square feet in industrial districts. And so that's why, like, when we were looking at the categories that 250 to 500 seem, you know, putting the cap at 500 and then having that. that larger category in the first draft. That was the justification behind that. In terms of building scale and character, it would not be out of character with what we have now in industrial districts.

If you look at the definition of hyperscale, the word really doesn't exist, and it means basically large, and it suggests one million square feet or more, so 500,000 square feet is not hyperscale. Even the Kentucky Resource Council indicated that putting a cap on the size could be illegal. So I think This will self-regulate itself simply because the city has very little large tracts, very few large tracts of land left.

If you go more than 500,000 square foot, you're going to run into more generators, more water, more electric usage. I think you could put a cap on it because we put a cap on building height. You can only build so high in certain areas.

We used to have the floor area ratios and some of the other things that sort of limited a building. But to the point that was made earlier, the size of the data center, you know, how much energy it uses is sort of a function of the transmission lines, the square footage. and the efficiency of the servers and the server racks that they put in it. So by putting a size limitation, you address, at least for now, some of the concerns now. I mean, there's this other discussion that sort of ties into the decommissioning, which is, you know, if you look at the IBM server room and the amount of power that a room generated in the 1960s versus the amount that's in your computer today, you know, it may be that in the future that that's part of the decommission is that you may not need that amount of size.

Well, the Public Service Commission regulates rates. LG&E wants to sell power, but in any site search, you meet with all the utilities to determine if they can supply you. And there's been a number of site searches where they cannot and they move on to other states or other communities. So again, the market's gonna tell these big or small data centers if they have the capacity and LG&E has it now at Mill Creek and Wise's Landing in Trimble County. If LG&E can't handle it, they'll tell them and tell them they need to find another community or another location. So this same situation happens with water. Same thing happens with natural gas. And of course, MSD is probably the tops trying to get them to approve what you want to do i think we've reached a point where we should probably vote on the m1 part and then vote on the size and so we can move on unless anyone else wants to speak well i think we've we've we've crossed the bridge on the m1 we've we've had that vote and it was unanimous on the m1 um

Well, just one follow up. I'm uncomfortable with the decision on the M1 and opening this up to more discretionary approvals. I think that takes a lot of the concern that I was having relative to the limiting the size. But I think one caveat to that is that That all, in my mind, has to come about with more intensive scrutiny on the kind of major infrastructure aspects of data centers. I mean, I think you've got to have a detailed power plan that says explicitly what the power plant is, not only for the primary power, but for the secondary and backup power. Secondly, I think it needs to have a detailed water consumption plan. These things ought to be closed loop, all of them, no question. And, uh, and then also, uh, how the makeup and turnover water is, it needs to be a detailed plan. Uh, thirdly, it, it needs to have a detail noise plan, uh, that, uh, each side is different. You need to have a, a, uh. a noise engineer, acoustical engineer, prepare a study. And not only a study, but a plan for monitoring the implementation after it is in place to make sure that it's doing what it says it's gonna do. So those are the types of, and at that point, I don't know that the size is so much of a factor. And that's where the KRC, Um, model, uh, was was right on right on target in my, at least my mind, you know, because it did kind of give greater detail as to the level of these studies. And even, you know, even the, the governor's executive order, you know, alluded to the fact that these things need to have detailed plans and and almost like environmental impact statements.

Yeah, and I agree with you, Mr. Mims. You know, one of the things that I liked about the KRC recommendations was the monitoring component, which may be in here. We'll see. But I felt like that was something very important that we should consider. And the other things that you mentioned, water consumption, energy, would all be included in the environmental impact study?

that would be you know part and parcel to you know a discretionary review as mr lantern has said you know relative to if we adopt m1 is kind of the default zoning for uh data centers and they're coming in for rezoning application and and they're coming in with a very thorough eis agree

Yeah, but I think even with that, that was my issue with what was put up earlier. I think you need to have some standards set because otherwise it would be arbitrary each and every time. I mean, much like traffic, right? We know what we're looking for when we're looking at a traffic study and what our expectations are.

Yeah, and I thought, again, KRC did get it right in terms of recognizing the difference between day and night level, sort of like the airport. You know, I mean, airplane lane at 3 a.m. is a lot more intrusive than one in the afternoon. And so having, you know, 40 and 60 dBA on the A scale and 40 on the C scale makes sense, you know, for evening hours.

And then to your point, then I would agree with Mr. Leonard. As long as that doesn't slide by size, then I would be OK with removing the square footage.

Anybody else got any comments?

All right, so the question on the table is removing square footage. Yeah, as the 500,000 square foot cap. Now, I will, I will tell you that I was. Assume or think that the community would have a huge problem with that because that's a. That was a big, big topic that was big.

i think with with with both draft you know with with the initial draft and the and the follow-up draft that was submitted with the staff report i mean you know the one of the big things is that you know we we've heard the community we we're not going to allow you know these large hyperscale data centers as we are calling them over 500 000 square feet and so i i would be concerned about removing that just because we've had that restriction you know that in there all along

I don't know that that's just my 2 cents and is that 500,000 square feet of server space or 500,000 square foot total building space and official interpretation has not been made because it's not an official draft.

But the thought is that that would be the building space.

Clarified in the 2nd draft that we did if we didn't want. them to not do office or something like that because they didn't want it to come into their square footage so there is a carve out that that is space for the data center which would be the white space which is the server rooms and any of that supporting space that they might have like some of them have cooling rooms and other rooms that don't necessarily have computers in them it would qualify for that space but they could potentially have more space for other uses, which would probably be Office in most contexts.

So you're saying it's just for the data center space, but excluding office space, like an extra office appendage of the building and an exterior cooling room that's attached to the building? Is that what you're saying? That's what I'm saying.

500,000 square feet was all in. It's 500,000 square feet of the data center use. So I would look at a site that has a data center and an office that's kind of a mixed use site. Um, no different than residential on top of a commercial shop. You look at each a little bit differently. If you look at page 3 of 14 on the document, I just gave you it. You can read it as it's written and maybe you might have some suggested changes there, but we wanted to clarify that. Office was allowed because again, we had a similar fear. And it sounds like some commissioners that they would just build up to the 500,000 and stop there and we wanted to still have that office and accessories. type of development.

Which I guess to me it makes sense. It's like that bowling alley bar we looked at a little bit ago, right? Exactly. Yeah. So it makes sense to have the two uses. And that's what I was afraid of. We should set the white space at the 500 and then whatever the square foot of the office.

Whatever else they put in there. So for the appendage of 20,000 square feet was built on the front end of a 500,000 square feet of data center, then that would be allowed basically be a 570,000 square foot building. Correct.

Total square foot on data center uses.

I still don't think there should be any limits, but the spirit of cooperation to move this along, I would be in agreement reluctantly.

Okay. Anyone opposed to leaving the cap at 500,000 square feet? Okay, so 4.26, 4.2.69 will stay as standing. I want to go back to 4.2.68, which is data centers of 50,000 square foot or less will be allowed in EZ1, M1, M2, M3, PEC, MPRO, and CM.

So to read this section, you kind of got to go ahead to go back. You might want to read section 435 first because, again, what we did is for data centers under $50,000, you're permitted by right if you meet all the stated performance standards. If you fail to meet a standard, then you need the conditional use, which means you go back For whatever reason, when they drafted our code, they put what's by right with standards after what's allowed with the conditional use permit. So you kind of cut it. You can read it the other way, but it might be easier to look at 4.3 first.

Make sure I'm following you here. So you're saying these data centers will be allowed by right in those zones if they meet the standards in 4.3.35, right?

yes and if they fail to meet any one of those standards then they need that conditional use and what that conditional use does is say some of the standards are off limits that you can't get relief like the foreign district so we've been talking a lot about m1 zoning or what the other zonings are but there's also foreign districts that are unwaverable in this too so you need both to line up

Yeah, as I read it at 1st, I didn't read that as I thought it was anyway, and I'm okay. I think I'm aligned with that.

And since we're in that section, are you taking the.

The footage out for.

Setback you've got it in blue. That's that's that's changed.

Hold on where are you at commissioner stuff?

Okay, well, the fifties in blue too. So doesn't even learn to it. All right. All right.

Okay.

All right. I'm at four point three point three five.

Oh, okay. Okay. Yep. Yep.

I'm with you.

Yeah, so those are the increases that we talked about.

Okay. All right. I see the line now.

Yep.

I apologize.

So, I guess, are we okay with the concept and we, we will get to 4.3 in a minute. Are we okay with the concept of a 50,000 square foot data center in these locations? I'm in the zoning that meets all of the standards and 4.3.35. Yes, I'm okay with anybody not okay with it.

It's had a question for Joe of these existing centers of the existing centers that we have out there. What kind of size range are they in this range?

So we did some analysis. Based on what we saw using PVA records, most of what's out there are under 50,000 square feet with one exception that was under or around 100,000. It wasn't completely built out. I don't know if they had 100,000 square feet of data center space. And most of them are in those districts. So that would... those existing data centers. I don't know if they would meet all those standards. They might become nonconforming to those standards, but they wouldn't be a nonconforming use because they would be under the square footage and permitted in that district.

But we have ones out there of that size in the wild right now that apparently are not.

I showed that map earlier, all the dots other than the campground road site that's under development and another one in East Jefferson County. it's our understanding that they're all under 50 but those are the co-located ones the enterprise ones that businesses may own like a humana we we don't know where those are because they don't advertise them those may be over 50 but for my feedback we heard is nobody told us one that's over 50 so we think it will cover those as well at least in terms of square footage maybe not zoning

The ones that are under 50 that don't meet the special standards would require CUP, which does involve, brings the public into the discussion phase.

Yeah, but in this context, because it's not coupled with the rezoning, except unless they needed to change the zoning as well, it would go before the Board of Zoning adjustment. But there'd be a public hearing and they could deny it or approve it with conditions that mitigate concerns that they hear. Yes.

All right, so we're going to keep four point two point six eight as written. Great. Okay. Two point six nine. Okay, so in four point two point six nine, we've said that the five hundred thousand square feet is okay. We'll keep the cap and then one district. There was some talk on the square footage. I'm sorry the radius from another data center. which is found in D, any structure containing a data center generator and utility substitution shall be at least 1,320 feet or a quarter mile from any structure containing a dwelling unit, nursing home, let's just call it, sensitive uses in existence at the time of conditional use permit approval, which also stand for rezoning. With that, commissioners, anyone got an issue with that quarter mile? from a sensitive use location?

Not from sensitive uses, but I don't think it should be from another data center.

Hold on. Sorry about that. That's double I. We'll get to that in just a second.

Go ahead. Anyone has an issue? We did hear quite a few comments about proximity to other industrial uses that are already constructed that might pose a risk or a hazard if something were to, there were to be an emergency at a data center.

Yeah, and if we were to do something like that, because I like the way I is written, it's very clear that these are sensitive uses contributing to society or a neighborhood, right? I agree with what you're saying, because we we've talked about that. And I think that would be like an eye or, or, or something. So can we pause that just for a brief second? Yeah. And so the sensitive use anyone has an issue with a quarter mile from a sensitive use for one up to 500,000 square feet? I've got a question about that. Yes. What's the reason for that? Oh,

I think a lot of it might be noise.

Noise, environmental issues, or the concerns, the perceived concerns of environmental issues.

And I think part.

Really don't know.

And part of it tied to, I think, some of the complaints regarding existing data centers throughout the country where there's a concern about a background noise or some other disruptions to the neighborhood from the existence of it. And maybe some of that can be mitigated with maybe some of it can be explained by they had different regulations that didn't. buffer better but it's that's part of the conversation is how much of the buffer can be through things like plantings and fence and quiet materials and so forth and how much of it can be achieved through distance or a combination of the two and you're right we don't know but I would tell you we built things in this community that we did not know and they've caused tremendous harm I'll just add um that one is the standard that's what they have to meet

as with most other standards as part of the process, if they feel that they have mitigating circumstances, they can make a case for a lesser separation. If there happens to be a, say a forested area in between or something that, you know, is mitigates not having the full quarter mile, but the burdens on them to make that case, the burden's not on the commission or council to ask for a greater separation. This is the standard they have to make their case as part of their application for less.

And we have other uses that have 1,000 foot separation requirements. So this isn't much more than the 1,000 feet that some of these other uses have as a separation requirement from these kind of uses, you know, dwelling unit, nursing home. So it's not, this isn't like setting a precedent. We've got it in connection with other uses.

I think we just did one recently, right? Package liquor stores.

And it also falls somewhat, fairly close in line with KRC model. It's a little, I have a couple hundred feet less, but it's right there with that, which was another thing the public was really concerned about.

And if they wanted something different, they'd have to come back in for a waiver? Yes.

I think that's what Joe was just explaining.

It's a conditional use permit. So the way those work is they can ask for relief as part of the conditional use process. So they would ask for it at the time that they were asking for the conditional use permit and have to justify it.

Right. And either the either the border zoning adjustment or if it was paired with rezoning, the planning commission could either decide that they're not going to grant relief from those standards or they are going to grant those relief from those standards because there's going to be an additional condition of approval as part of the conditional use permit of what mitigation they're providing so that you would get that as part of the deal. You can be closer. But here's the mitigating factors. And if you don't provide those mitigating factors, we can revoke.

And we will put those mitigating factors in the binding elements, correct?

If it was tied to rezoning, you'd put it in both. There's nothing that says you can't put it in both, but if you had just a conditional use permit, you can make it part of the conditions of approval.

Okay. So with that, anybody got any concerns with leaving I as written, DI as written? No. Okay. DII, which is the separation from any data center at a quarter mile as well. Does anybody have any issues with that one?

And like the previous one, you could still, nothing in the language as written prevents you from coming in and making the case that you should get a waiver, get relief from that standard.

So if we pass this, they do have the opportunity to ask for a waiver of the quarter model.

Or a relief from the standard as part of the conditional use permit, yes.

I think it's the part that I like to keep it is because I think it's protection when you have, you see this a lot with development, they develop on one lot and then suddenly they've got the ability to purchase neighboring property and they want to expand into it. I think this is a way to safeguard if we do get one in here that's a significant size of them expanding.

Well, I think Mr. Fisher brought up, if someone buys the 77 acres in Cosmisdale, if if basically if it's a quarter mile from the boundary so they could build two 500 000 square foot buildings a half mile apart is that correct or the quarter mile apart yeah okay yeah yeah they're half a mile yeah to your math yeah half a mile apart if that's possible at that site or any site as long as when they get to that other half mile they're not next to it i think this is still like the 200 feet like easy one and others where it's a bunch residential but it just seems like a awfully a waste of valuable land to have them that far apart when they're identical uses i understand people don't want them clustered but that's that's a big distance yeah and Oh, I'm sorry.

They might have other M1 uses on the site besides that. You know, if it was part of an overall industrial development, it could be one of the buildings is that, and then they have other buildings on the site which carry other M1 uses.

So let me ask this. Say I own a business warehouse, and I have a data center strictly for my needs, right? There's a warehouse next door. Can they build a data center?

Well, you explain what your needs would be if it's an accessory data center, because those can be very small. We didn't want them to trigger this requirement. So if it's classified as an accessory data center, you just don't consider that this is for a principal use data center.

Okay. All right.

Another principal use data center.

Excluding accessory data centers in that sentence. Just wanted to make sure.

Yeah.

Okay. All right.

All right. So.

So we vote.

Are we okay with leaving II as written? Anyone not okay, so then back to commissioner bond on separations and this is where I said, we may need to I, if everyone agrees, but there was some talk about the data centers being. Next to other hazardous or next to hazardous uses that could trigger a. Catastrophic on environmental concern. So, should we have a separation.

from other hazardous materials or hazardous uses do we need to define the hazardous issues yes definitely you have an option there's you can define it however you want to define it but there's also a conditional use type that's required for certain hazardous and nuisance uses that rise to a certain level so you could say from on property having that approval or you can be more restrictive in how you want to define it

But I think we need to define it in a way where an enforcement officer would be able to go out and say yes or no. So, I mean, some of this stuff we might not know. So we need to give them some guidance. This would be easy.

That would be very enforceable. Yeah. And so just for my own knowledge, just give me one example of what would be considered a potential hazardous or nuisance use. Just one example.

Chemical plant. Chemical plant. Okay.

Slaughterhouse.

Slaughterhouse.

Chemical plants, places where they store fuel in a non-accessory manner. There's all kinds of stuff. I mean, there's a list in that section that we can read you and nothing will surprise you. Okay.

No, no, I get it. I get it.

What if I build my data center and somebody takes the warehouse that's within a quarter mile and comes in and starts storing hazardous material.

So typically the separation requirement applies to what's existing at the time you come in. If a sensitive use comes in after the fact, if a hazardous use comes in after the fact, you get to keep operating. Yeah, it's based on what's the snapshot of the land at the time you're building the data center, and if other sensitive uses move in after the fact, or if other hazardous nuisances move in after the fact, you would hope that some of their analysis in moving in after the fact is they know this data center's right there. Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to code. But it won't make the data center shut down.

Okay.

Well, what he's asking is kind of important, too, because if we set it for the data center and the chemical plant moves in next door, is it not reciprocal, meaning that now they can't be within a quarter mile from a data center?

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to do.

No, you would need to change those regulations. Right.

It would just make the... Data expansion of the data center potentially non-conforming, but yeah, we can't. Yeah, we wouldn't regulate it the other way unless we change the regs.

And then likewise, now it has me thinking, so like if the data centers are first and a school wants to buy some property and move in, they can't?

The school can move in, but the school moves in with the knowledge that that data center is right there and that by moving in, they're not going to cause the data center to shut down.

It ain't for today, but that doesn't make much sense because you're not really mitigating the problem. Yes, you see what I'm saying? Because the problem is to keep the kids from the data center.

Right. So the thought is, The whole mitigation is you have an existing neighborhood and you don't want this data center to move in and disrupt an existing neighborhood. Now, if some group wants to move up to the data center on land, then that's presumably a decision that the school leadership is making that they're okay moving next to this data center and the taxpayers are okay with and all the like but you're moving into a known problem or a known use that's a concern but you can't move in and then say oh data center you were here and now there's a whole lot of land use of of nuisance type things where people move in and then complain about what they move next door to what they move next door to has been there all along and gets to keep operating

Yeah, no, I understand that. I guess what I'm afraid of, and let me, let me take the schools out of it for a minute. What I'm afraid of is if we're trying to separate things that go boom and things that come go boom, can move, are able to move next to the data center, they can still go boom. You see, and, and so it's, it's not a matter of us trying to protect the, the, the community, because it goes out the window if we allow the uses to still co-locate.

And maybe the answer is at the end of the day, once the dust settles on this, is that there's a resolution passed to start taking a look at the hazardous uses and whether there needs to be some sort of separation requirement on those.

That's what I was getting at.

Okay. I was about to say that or the Board of Zoning Adjustment in granting a CEP for the hazardous use, if there's a data center next door, they could use that as justification to deny it. Okay.

All right. Perfect. Thank you. With that being said, we have a proposal for an III which reads a data center should not be located within a quarter mile of the boundary of any parcel occupied by use that could qualify as a potential hazardous or nuisance use as described in Section 4.2.42 of the Land Development Code.