Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Metropolitan Planning Commission will call the meeting to order. And first on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. And so this was sent out commissioners to you earlier and is there a motion to adopt? So moved. There's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And the agenda is adopted. Next is item C, which is the approval of the June 11th, 2026 minutes, and those were also sent out prior to the meeting. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? So moved. There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And the minutes are adopted. Next is item D, which is our public comment period. And Lisa, this is still relatively a new rule for us, but if you could remind the audience about this portion of the meeting.

Sure. So per Tennessee Code annotated, we are required to have a time at the beginning of each meeting for persons to speak on items on the agenda. This generally is not applicable to the Planning Commission because all of our items have a public hearing, but for items where the public hearing is closed or where there is not an otherwise required public hearing, this time is set aside. So we did have several closed public hearings on the agenda this week, and we do have people that are signed up. Each person will go through the list and call out names. Each person will get two minutes, and the time is limited to no more than 20, so I will set a 20-minute timer once the first person starts, just to make sure that we stay within that 20 minutes.

Thank you, Lisa. And so we're going to go as folks signed up on the list, and so everybody will have two minutes, and you'll come up to the podium, and the timer is right up here. And so first we had Drew Small. Welcome. And then let's make sure his mic's on.

Hey guys, thank you for your time. I'm here to speak on BL 2026, 1391. And it sounds like you guys are gonna go ahead and recommend that. And I thank you for that. I did want to address, it seems like there's some intention to waive the restrictions on gas generator use to the duration of whatever power outage may require their use. And I just wanna say that right now, Gas generators are one of the most insanely polluting tools that data centers utilize, and there are not really any regulations or restrictions on the air quality emissions from those. And so removing that creates a significant public health impact that we need to be considering. if we're talking specifically about DC Blocks' facility, this is not essential infrastructure. And so to allow non-essential infrastructure to have significant and long-term health impacts on the children that go to school in the vicinity, the children that are attending the zoo as a whole is not a good move in my opinion. And I would urge you to reconsider that recommendation and put stricter regulations on these gas generators. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you coming down next. We had Zach Mansfield. Welcome.

Good afternoon and thank you for your time. I would like to second Mr. Smalls comment. We have already been told in our schooling the effects that a normal exhaust from the various automobiles will have on the environment going forward and to use something like a gas generator and something as consumptive in an AI data center next to a breeding ground for some of the most endangered species on the planet, it doesn't feel like a good idea. And I thought that this zoning regulation was to prevent the DC blocks facility from being built there in the first place. I'm confused as to what might have changed during the previous meeting that I spoke on. I'm still in favor of a zoning regulation on these AI data centers, but it does concern me that we already seem to be giving ground to a group that for the life of me does not seem to have any kind of benefit to Nashvillians and seems to only serve a corporate interest that is not even present in this city. Growth for the sake of growth does exist in nature. It is called cancer and it kills people. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Next, we've got Manning Hall. Welcome.

Thank you, chair. Today, the national scene reported that mayor O'Connell's office knew about the DC blocks data center by the zoo in February. DC blocks did not pull a permit until mid-May. The mayor had three months to protect Nashvillians, yet all he did was deny providing DC blocks incentives, the bare minimum, and told DC blocks to talk to the zoo and the district council member. The zoo said they didn't talk to them. Did they talk to the council member? In those three months, a moratorium could have been passed, regulations studied and implemented, but that didn't happen. Freddie let DC blocks function as business as usual. How many more data centers was Freddie going to let to be built in our neighborhoods? Why does he not support these regulations on data centers? Now is the time to act. Place strong regulations on generators. Data center generators cause noise and air pollution and negatively impact communities. Guarantee that any diesel generators are tier four. Make the definition of emergency in the code strong. Something like when the primary source of energy is not available due to an emergency outage. And specifically prohibiting use for peak shaving or supplying power to the grid. Please ban surveillance centers. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have John Bull.

Welcome.

Thank you for your time. Support the resolution of item number one. The comments about the air quality are excellent. Like to add the noise issues. The zoo data center in particular is just too close proximity. And we certainly need to do better than locate that data center there. There's a moratorium on item two that's also on the agenda, but if you will, one unicorn at a time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Allie Maresco.

Welcome.

Hello. Similar to what my fellow constituents have said, I have grave concerns healthcare concerns about the data center and a lot of concerns over these gas generators. When I started looking into these centers and the center in Memphis caught my attention, I really realized that this is not simply an energy issue or an economic issue. This is a huge threat to public health I'm chronically ill. I got sick basically overnight 10 years ago and have gotten really involved in that community. And now three out of four people in the U.S. are chronically ill. And those are the individuals that are the most vulnerable to these emissions and this fine particle matter that these gas generators like to emit, unfortunately, and they contribute to a massive amount of air pollution and That's how we see this rise in these cardiac issues and lung issues and sudden onset asthma. And I just don't think we deserve to live with that. So thanks for letting me talk to you. And I would love to support 1391.

Thank you. Next signed up on the list is Doug Sloan.

Thank you, Doug Sloan. So none of the speakers today, nor anybody that's done any presentation to this body or to the council has actually said what the problem is. DC blocks will not make more than 65 decibels worth of noise at the property line. The limit in the code is 80 decibels. It is quieter than any other business in that area, any other business in that industrial area. It should be noted that the zoo is surrounded not by some farm or pastoral setting. It is in the middle of an industrial park adjacent to the third largest rail yard in the nation. The noise that is made by air conditioning units, which is what the noise is, that sits on top of the buildings, doesn't make even 65 decibels. That only happens when the generators that have been talked about are running. They are run once every two months for 20 minutes. That's just to make sure that they're working well. and then they're run for four hours once a year. And we have been able to meet with the zoo and we are trying to understand what their concerns are and find ways to mitigate any of the concerns that they have from finding independent monitors on the sound and other issues to trying to figure out whether there's a place for the zoo and DC blocks to work on the property together. This is unfortunate. Your staff at the planning department refused to meet with us to talk about this bill or talk about any of the industry standards or how we build our buildings or how we manage the business. The council has also likewise refused to meet with us to learn the facts. This legislation is being driven by fear and not facts, and we need to take the time to understand the facts. One last thing. This building is vested. They're going to build it there. We already have the permits in hand. We just want to work with the community to find a solution.

Thank you. And that was everyone who had signed up on the public comment period. And so now commissioners, I want to say thank you for everybody coming down to speak. Now we are on to item E, which is the recognition of the council members. And as y'all know, we do the council members as we see them come in. And so I first saw Courtney Johnston. You were welcome. Council Lady? You're first. Creve Hall, you're first.

Creve Hall, exactly. Thank you. So I think we're agenda item two is the moratorium that I was going to speak on as lead sponsor. And so I really want to... say thank you to the staff. I think they did a great job and I appreciate all of their, um, the substitute that they're, that you guys are, are, um, putting forth. I agree with all of that. I did want to say there's been some talk about this moratorium being sort of an either or to 1391, which that's not the case. It's, it's a both and it's very complimentary to, um, there's a possibility that the moratorium doesn't even go into effect if both pieces of legislation pass at the same time. This is an insurance policy. As everyone in here knows, you never know how long or what the track of a piece of legislation is gonna be. It can be delayed for any number of things. And so I would rather have this moratorium in place if I need it, but I don't wanna be in a situation where we need it and don't have it. There were also some concerns about some legal things. I had a legal opinion before I filed it. And then it's also in your staff report. So I guess you got the same one that I got from Laura Fox because it's almost verbatim that we do meet both criteria for the state of Tennessee for moratoriums. And it is extremely temporary in nature, no longer than 90 days or when BL 2026 1391 passes. So it could be zero minutes. The Oh and it does not apply to data centers that are already in use. So if you already have a data center and you were up and running it does not make you halt any sort of in any of your activity. This is only for things that are going through the building permit process in general. I just also wanted to thank staff. I know they worked really, really hard on their work for 1391. It was on a very expedited, text amendments are really hard. And a text amendment on a data center is extremely hard because there's really not sort of an industry standard. And I think that's why there's so many people in the country that are, you know, freaking out about it because there's so many unknowns and not anybody, nobody has like the solid policy in place that is generally accepted. And so it's a really hard thing to do. And so I appreciate your hard work on it. And so thank you for, I'm sure you worked overtime. So I just wanted to give you a shout out for that. So thank you for your support. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilor Lee. Appreciate you coming down. Next, we saw Councilman Kupin. Welcome.

Well, thank you so much for having me. I will not be speaking about data centers today. I'll let y'all handle that, although I do appreciate the feedback and the public jumping in on this, obviously a very important issue and big supporter of the zoo here. But I'm here to speak about the East Bank DRC legislation, creating a new design review committee for the East Bank area. I appreciate my colleague who you'll hear from soon for bringing it and appreciate the planning department's work to kind of move it forward. I think we're close. We're not quite there yet in the existing substitute. I had some concerns about some of the seats and how they were structured, but it sounds like there's some kind of coalition coming on. So, you know, overall, just running through them, the only two seats that jump out as problematic for me or could use more work. One is the East Bank Residence Association seat. obviously as a big fan of neighborhood associations, I've got many great ones in my district. I support that, but that association does not exist right now. And it also has a trigger point of a thousand residents, which also don't exist. So given the fact that both the residents and the organization doesn't exist, what I would propose is to remove that seat for now and potentially bring it back later if and when that association comes up. In this legislation, the IMAGINE EAST BANK AREA DOES HAVE A SEAT ON THIS COMMISSION, AND SO THAT SEAT COULD COME FROM THE EAST BANK AREA, BUT IT GIVES SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SHORT TERM. AND THEN THE OTHER SEAT THAT I THINK COULD USE A LITTLE BIT OF TWEAKING IS THE UZO SEAT. AND AS I'VE SAID THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OF EAST BANK AND EAST BEND, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME THAT EAST NASHVILLE DOES HAVE A VOICE IN THESE THINGS THAT DO AFFECT THEM. SO USING THE EAST NASHVILLE COMMUNITY PLAN BOUNDARY, To me, as opposed to the UZO, I think is a better fit because that includes all of East Nashville. It does pick up River North. So I would say exclude that area, take that piece out because it's already covered by the IEB. And so give East Nashville their own kind of seat on this commission and potentially have it be picked by the district council members that are in that area. It's currently, I think, slated to be confirmed by the council. I think that's fine. So a little bit more work. I know that you guys are likely going to pass the substitute today. I think it's important to keep this bill moving. but did want to get on the record some changes I'd love to see. But again, appreciate everyone working on it. Appreciate y'all's consideration. And thank you for having me as always. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Councilman. Appreciate it. Next, Councilman Vick.

Welcome. Good afternoon. It's good to see you all. Thank you for your volunteer service to the city. As I always say, I know what it's like. I don't know what it's like to be in your chair, but you certainly put in a lot of hours. So thank you for that. And also with great recommendations and great feedback for us. To that end, at the last commission meeting, I was unable to be here. Well, at the commission meeting when this was heard the first time, I was unable to be here. So I know that you like hearing context about why the council members bringing something forward. Speaking of number four, the East Bank Design Review Committee. And so my apologies, I had a conflict over at Budget and Finance Committee that night. So glad we're through that now. Council Member Coopin just described a lot of the changes that we've run through today. Mr. Hammer and I actually spent a lot of time working on this, including over the weekend last weekend, the holiday weekend. So I just want to say thank you very much to him for that work. Through that, we came up with a good plan, and that's in the substitute that has been put forth so far. The changes that were described by Council Member Coopin just now are ones that I think that I'm supportive of in the bill. And particularly, I wanted to make sure that East Nashville had a voice. And so following the East Nashville Community Plan and selecting a resident from that area is crucial. And it's one thing that we heard during THE PASSAGE OF THE SUBDISTRICT. SO EAST NASHVILLE WANTS TO REMAIN A PART OF. THEY FEEL LIKE THE EAST BANK IS THEIRS. AND CERTAINLY THEY'VE BEEN TOLD THROUGH IMAGINE EAST BANK THAT IT WOULD NOT BECOME A SECOND DOWNTOWN. SO THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE A PART OF THAT DESIGN. AND SO I'M EXCITED TO, YOU KNOW, NARROW THAT DOWN. THE UZO FOOTPRINT WAS SOMETHING THAT WHEN MR. HAMMER AND I DISCUSSED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, TOO BIG. AND SO COMING UP TODAY WITH THE EAST Nashville community plan makes a lot of sense. I also, so anyway, I just want to say that, you know, what's in the packet, I'm very supportive of. We are going to continue to make those changes as we take it to third reading at council and our second reading this next time for public hearing and then third reading after that. So I appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Lady.

If I may say, I'm so sorry. While I have the microphone, not to grandstand, but I am supportive and a co-sponsor of 1391. And so I appreciate all of the hard work by the department and also all of the hours that you've put into this as a commission as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Lady. Always good to see our council members. I want to make sure. Oh, Council Lady Toombs, you're hiding back there. Okay. I WASN'T GOING TO SAY IT, BUT THANK YOU, COUNSELOR LEE. WELCOME.

THANK YOU, AND GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE TWO ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY, ITEM NUMBER 5 AND 13. I AM IN SUPPORT OF BOTH AT THIS STAGE IN THE PROCESS, BUT I WANT TO SPEAK IN PARTICULAR ABOUT ITEM 5, WHICH IS THE LOCATION OF A VA CLINIC ON THE CAMPUS OF AMERICAN BAPTIST COLLEGE. We all know the storied history of American Baptist College and its importance to the community. It has been in the community for over 100 years. If you've been paying attention to what's going on in the world lately, you know that a lot of our HBCUs are struggling financially. This particular project allows the college to lease its land to the VA. It creates a... a steady and consistent revenue stream for the college, which is very vital to its continued existence. It also brings healthcare services back to the community. If you are familiar with Young's Lane and the Haines Trinity community, you know that Riverside Hospital was on Young's Lane from 1948 to its closure in 1983. So having a healthcare facility is not new to the area. The VA clinic also brings a number of infrastructure improvements to Baptist World Center, as well as Young's Lane. I think that it is a net benefit for the community in that our beloved American Baptist College can continue to pour into the community and into its students. And it's bringing in healthcare services back into the community with those NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, AND FOR THAT, I AM IN SUPPORT AND URGE YOU TO VOTE FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL LADY. APPRECIATE IT. I DON'T SEE ANY. MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. AND IF THEY WALK IN, WE USUALLY WILL RECOGNIZE THEM AS WE ALWAYS DO. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL COMING DOWN. Next is item G, the consent agenda. Recognized.

All right. I will read through the items for deferral and withdrawal. Starting on page four, item number six.

I apologize. I'm getting ahead of myself. It's items for deferral withdrawal.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Starting on page four, item number six, 2026SP-011-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. On page five, item number eight, 2026SP-023-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. Item number nine, 2026SP-027-001, Staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. Item number 11, 2026S-087-001, staff recommends to withdraw. On page six, item number 15, 2026COD-001-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Item 16, 2026 COD-002-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. On page seven, item 17, 2026S-083-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. Item 21, 2003 UD-003-012, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. On page eight, item 24, 2026Z-044PR-001, staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd, 2026 meeting. And item 25, 2026Z-045PR-001 staff recommends to defer to the July 23rd planning commission meeting.

Thank you. And so commissioners and make sure we get these correct. These will be the items for deferral withdrawal items. Number six, eight, nine, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, and 25. Is that correct? Correct.

All right, commissioners, you've heard the items for deferral withdrawal.

Is there a motion? There's a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. Ayes have it. And those items are deferred or withdrawn. Now we're on to item G, which is the consent agenda. I got ahead of myself there. Go ahead. You recognize.

I will read through the items on the tentative consent agenda and ask if anyone is here is in opposition. If so, please raise your hand and then item will be presented in the order they appear on the agenda. If no one is in opposition of the item, it will be on the consent agenda. Please note that items on the consent agenda will be voted on at a single time. All right, we're starting on page three. Oh. As information for our audience, if you're not satisfied with the decision made by the Planning Commission today, you may appeal the decision by petitioning for a writ of cert with the Davidson County Chancery or Circuit Court. Your appeal must be filed within 60 days of the date of the entry of the Planning Commission's decision. To ensure that your appeal is filed in a timely manner and that all procedural requirements have been met, please be advised that you should contact independent legal counsel. All right, starting on page three, item one, 2026Z-012TX-001. Is anyone here in support of opposition? In opposition?

Concern regarding one component of it, I'd like to retain for discussion if that's okay.

And council member, what we'll do is let's go through the list and then when we call for the vote, we'll be on discussion. Would that work for you? That's perfect, thank you. Perfect, okay.

All right, on page two, item 2BL2026-01448, is anyone here in opposition? Okay, this item will stay on consent. Item 32026Z-010TX-001, is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item four, 2026Z-011TX-001, is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item five, 2025SP-044-001, is anyone here in opposition?

This item will stay on consent.

On page five, item seven, 2026SP-022-001, is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 10, 2025 S-0203-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. On page six, item 12, 2026 CP-007-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 13, 2026SP-021-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 14, 2026SP-029-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. On page seven, item 18, 2026S-095-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 19, 2026S-096-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 20, 2026S-101-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. On page eight, item 22, 2024Z-052PR-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent. Item 23, 2026Z-027PR-001. Is anyone here in opposition? This item will stay on consent.

So you'll read through the captions. But we can, before you read through the caption, well, we're not in discussion yet. Just go continue. I appreciate it. Then we'll get to the councilman.

Okay. So I will read through all the items that are on consent, the full caption. Sorry, on page three, item one, 2026Z-012TX-001, This is for data centers. This was a request to amend title 17 and staff recommends to approve with a substitute ordinance. On page two, item two, BL 2026-1448. This is a data center morandum. Staff recommends to approve a substitute as outlined in the memo. Item three, 2026Z-010TX-001, underground utilities. This is request to amend chapter 17.28 of the code and staff recommends to approve with a substitute ordinance. Item four, 2026Z-011TX-001, east bank DRC. Staff recommends to approve with a substitute ordinance. Item 5, 2025 SP-044-001. This is the U.S. Department of Veterans Affair in Nashville. Staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions, including the updated conditions in the memo. Item 7, 2026 SP-022-001, Hobson Heights SP. This is request for Resume AR-28 SP located at 6334 Mount View Road, and staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Item 10, 2025 S-203-001, Harpeth overlook phase two. This is a request for a concept plan approval to create seven lots utilizing the conservation development standards on property located at 7934 McCrory Lane. Staff recommends to approve with conditions, including an exception to section 3-5.2 as outlined in the memo. Item 12 is the West Nashville Community Plan Amendment. This is a request to amend the West Community Plan by changing the community character policy from district industrial policy to the urban mixed use neighborhood policy with conservation policy to remain in place. Staff recommends to approve. Item 13, 2026SP-021-001, Riverview Townhomes. This is a request to rezone from R10 to SP for property located at 2401 Buena Vista Pike. Staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. Item 14, 2026SP-029-001, the McNeely Center SP. This request is to rezone from RM20 to SP for property located at 100 Meridian Street. Staff recommends to approve with conditions and disapprove without all conditions. On page seven, item 18, 2026S-095001, Larkin Springs Road. This is a final request for final plot approval to create seven lots on properties located at Larkin Springs Road and staff recommends to approve with conditions. Item 19, this 2026S-096-001, Final plot of the Tammy Fuller property. This is a final plot approval to create one law on property located at 7568 and 7586 Old Charlotte Pike. Staff recommends to approve with conditions including variances to section 4-2.5 of the Metro subdivision regulations. Item 20, 2026S-101-001, 313 Emory Drive. This is a request for a final plot approval to create three lots and remove the reserve status of property located at 313 Emory Drive. Staff recommends to approve with conditions. On page eight, item 22, 2024Z-052PR-001. This is a request to rezone from RS 10 to R 10 zoning for property located at 1616 Ashton Avenue. Staff recommends to approve. Item 23, 2026Z-027PR-001. This is a request to rezone from RS 7.5 to RM 20 ANS for properties located at Lofton Avenue. Staff recommends to approve. And item I under other business, we have item 26, new employment contract for Riley Putney. Item 27, historic zoning commission report. And item, sorry, item 30, accept the director's report and approval administrative items.

Thank you. And so commissioners, these are the items that we'll approve on the consent. And then once we go through these, I'll recognize Councilman Horton. So make sure we get these correct. So the following items are on the consent agenda to be passed all at one time are. Items number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 30. And so the first thing I need to make a note of is that Commissioner Marshall needs to abstain on item 5. Is that correct, Commissioner?

Okay.

And Councilman?

Thank you, Chair. I had two questions. hopefully quick comments. The first one, to take the more simple one on item four, I was wondering, question for staff, if there's any way to incorporate the feedback that we heard from the two council members on the design review commission.

Um, yes. And so what I heard from, um, both council members, um, coupon and Benedict was, um, around the East bank residents association member and around a member from the UCO. Um, I had talked to both of them separately earlier today and, Um, and what I heard from them tonight as well was a desire to, um, remove the East bank residents association member for now, because that's not a, uh, a body that exists, but to add some intent language, um, that says at such time that there is an existing and operating and functional residents association that a member that it would encourage membership to be added amended onto the commission. Um, So I think we can easily handle that with the substitute and then, um, to change a member from being pulled from the urban zoning overlay, which is a much broader area to only two specifically from the East, uh, Nashville community plan area. So what I might suggest is that, um, we, as you're adopting the consent agenda, that it be with an added condition to modify, um, to remove the East bank residents association member and to change the UZO to the East Nashville community plan. And then staff can work on that language for the substitute. Okay.

Thank you for that. I don't know if I would make a motion at this time or subsequently for that additional item. Yeah.

And while we're on item four, we'll just continue the discussion on item four to make sure we got everybody. So commissioner Hanley. Just noting my recusal on item number four.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion on item four? And so when the motion comes up, I'll recognize you on that again. So you're recognized on your other item, Councilman.

Thank you, Chair. On item number one, the data center zoning legislation, first I want to thank staff for all of the hard work they did on the substitute language. I think it's a significant improvement over the original bill and add some important clarifications to make sure that we're as tight as possible in certain areas that the application of the rules are clear and that we're not inadvertently capturing school computer labs as part of this. I think it's a significant improvement. and I apologize for bringing this up late in the process, I did have one concern. So the legislation prohibits for large data centers the use of emissions causing power generation onsite and allows backup generators only in a limited context up to 72 hours. The recommended substitute waives that 72 hour limitation in the context of emergencies. The question whether that's something we wish to recommend, I think we heard from a lot of people, hundreds of them at the last planning commission meeting who were concerned about air pollution of which gas turbines are the primary source. And so question like in an event of something like winter storm Fern, where power could be out for a long time, whether we wish to have backup generators, gas turbines running for an extended period of time, my thought would be to keep it at the 72 hour limit. And if that expires before the, emergency ends and they would shut down or find some other way to power themselves with renewable energy or non, some non emissions causing one, but would welcome the rest of the commission sought on that as well.

And at least you recognize, do you, or any other discussion?

Thank you. Amen.

Sorry about that. We always make sure that we abide by the law. And so we had to consult with our attorney and councilman, I think. after talking to the attorney that since generally on consent items, you know, if we're discussing a bigger issue and that seems kind of like a big issue that we should pull the item from the consent agenda and consider the item.

So is that what you're requesting? Yes, please. Sorry to derail the process.

No, it's fine. So, but to be clear, the public hearing has already happened and it's still closed. So we're just opening the public, not opening the public hearing. We're having discussion amongst commissioners. All right. So there's been an objection to, by the councilman to pull item number one off the consent agenda to be approved and will be heard by the commission, even though the public hearing is still closed. All right. And so that item will be, considered item one. So, Any other discussion? Councilman, any other discussion?

I'm sorry. No, no.

All right. So commissioners, these are the following items that will be on the consent agenda and passed all at the same time. Items number two, three, four, five, seven, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 30. Is there a motion to approve? And also, Councilman, we need to make the motion on item four, if you'll clarify.

I'd like to move for approval, including an additional condition on item four with the recommendations made by staff.

By Lisa.

By Lisa.

By Lisa earlier. That's a proper motion. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. So that means that we will, the commission will consider item number one without a public hearing. Just for clarity, did we have a second on that motion? Oh, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Those items are adopted. Sorry.

Thank you.

There's a second. All right. Now, We appreciate everybody coming down. And so the only item for the viewing public is item number one. We'll have a brief update by the staff and then we'll consider the item in the commission and not take, we already had the public hearing last meeting. Thank you. And if everybody could exit the room, that's thank you.

All right, go ahead. Hey, Dustin Shane, staff planner, an update on the data center text amendment. So this was heard public hearing at planning commission, June 11th. We've coordinated with several Metro agencies since then. And also the new buildings Institute. And we have a substitute that we feel addresses some of the raised concerns. So the proposed amendment, again, creates regulations and a framework for data centers, including where they're allowed, performance standards, permitting standards. So we know that data centers are expanding standalone data centers. The impacts can vary based on their size and the technology, but there are tools to enhance predictability and community protections, which is part of the framework we're recommending. Um, so looking at the, um, analysis that we did, we did a lot of research on separation distances and environmental impacts and pure city practices. Um, so we found on the separation distances, they were generally about 100 to 600 feet. There were some outliers, um, uh, in certain places here in Tennessee, Jonesboro is doing a 1500 foot, um, distance. That is, that is quite an outlier though. Um, Staff proposes keeping the separation distances as written in the ordinance. The small and medium size distances are right in line with pure cities, but we are continuing to research best practices on that. We do recommend adding another separation for major transit infrastructure. That's a practice we're seeing across the country. So we're recommending a further half mile buffer from any choose how you move all access corridor. This is to preserve that valuable land around our quarters where we have decided to invest heavily as a city for housing and services. Existing data centers in the county, their data center maps identifies 12. Some are not online yet. Some of these may become non-conforming with the ordinance. We also are recommending some future study around accessory data centers that are integrated into principal uses. The definition as written may be overly restrictive with these types. looking at their impacts environmentally. So noise is the most cited impact that we've seen. Our standards as proposed align with pure cities, what we're seeing emerge. We looked at the World Health Organization and the National Cancer Institute on EMF electromagnetic field research. We did not find evidence we could use or cite for residential-based separation distances based on that. Looking at stormwater impacts, it's a similar stormwater impact to other large industrial uses. An update to the manual as a whole would be the way to address any concerns there. And then we do recommend more study into annual monitoring equipment for any onsite pollutant generation. Um, looking at trade-offs and distance buffers, this one thing we're asked to look at, um, they're, they're just because of the newness of the scale of this, there are no proven or accepted metrics for substituting out distance buffers for performance standards. Um, so we retain the distance buffers, but then have also enhanced some of the performance standards. Um, We also can't, talking to NES and Metro Water, we can't really vary the standards across the county based on location because they have to study each location and that study is usually funded by an applicant. Looking at their efficiency, so power usage efficiency is something that has been somewhat standardized. Water usage efficiency is still emerging as a standard, so we recommend keeping the closed-loop cooling requirement. That's standard across, pretty common across pure cities. We do add in our substitute the ASHRAE 90.4 standards as a reference and requirement, and that's from a national body of certifying engineers in refrigeration and heating and air conditioning. We know large facilities can draw a lot of power, so we're retaining the requirement for the verification letters. We've strengthened those through talks with NES to make sure they align with their processes. We're strengthening the renewable energy requirement up to 15% and then clarifying that you can meet that with off-site options as long as those are additive to the TVA grid. as a whole. We found that clustering has mixed utility impacts, so we're not advocating to change the separation distances, as I said. We do have new standards to prevent aggregation over time that's meant to avoid the standards, so that will not be possible. Hub Nashville will be the point of collection for violations to this ordinance. Violations will be handled through environmental court, just like other zoning violations. And existing nonconforming data centers, though, will be allowed to continue under the standards they were under, and that's based on state law regarding those types of uses. The ordinance legal helped us look at some state law public chapter 961 that prevents grid upgrades that are caused by data centers from being paid for by other users. So that's an important piece of this discussion and our ordinance aligns with that one in its definitions and terms. And then the generator emission standards, we did not alter those as we received them except to reference evolving EPA standards. Metro cannot exceed federal law in this area of regulation. Some other clarifications with the distance measurements, making those more clear, revising some of the definitions, adding correctional facilities to the list of sensitive uses that require buffers, updating the lighting and facade waivers, and then having the parking standards adjusted to prevent unnecessary impervious surfaces. Overall, we find it's clearer, more enforceable with our tweaks that we are proposing. There may be more amendments that come at council and planning will review those for consistency at that time. So we recommend approval with a substitute. And then I want to point out that the public hearing is scheduled for July 7th at Metro Council and there's not another planning commission before that date. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And so commissioners, we've already had the public hearing on this item, so we'll open it up for discussion. Councilman, you want to start us off?

Thank you, Chair. And I would just like to reiterate thanking staff for their exhaustive review of this and all of the questions that we asked them. at the last council meeting or commission meeting, excuse me. And I think this is a significant improvement and clarification to it. As I mentioned earlier, the one small concern I have, and again, I apologize for bringing this up late in the process, regards the operation of backup electrical generations. The original ordinance is drafted allows for large data centers emissions causing power generation only for emergency and backup use, and then imposes a 72 hour limitation to it. The substitute as provided here adds the language outside of emergencies or without the permission of NES, then they're limited to 72 hours, meaning they can exceed the 72 hour threshold if there's an emergency. And I think, A lot of the public concern about this and a lot of the policy concerns about data centers is specifically regarding the use of power generation, specifically we're talking about gas turbines, which cause a lot of noise and also a lot of air pollution. So I had concerns even in the event of emergency of allowing them to operate in excess of 72 hours. So questioned whether that was something that was appropriate to include in our recommendation to council.

That's a good question. I think, uh, the staff has, uh, some original thoughts on why they did that.

Sure. Um, so when we were looking at and reviewing, um, the standards, one of the things that we do anytime with text amendments is, is sort of try to stress test where we think that there might be, um, something that creates either a challenge for Metro, um, or for citizens or for, um, any sort of regulatory standards. So when we were looking at that, based on the fact that emergencies can exist for longer than 72 hours, we had included that language because of the wide range of uses of data centers, including, and it impacts accessory. So including things like a data center that may be an accessory to a healthcare facility or a hospital, we wanted to provide an opportunity for facilities to exceed that in the case of emergencies, given that there's a broad range of uses.

Any other discussion? Councilman? Sorry to use up so much of our time. That makes a lot of sense on things like hospital uses. We're not trying to shut down hospitals in a blizzard or something like that. Is there staff's view that we could take any type of more nuanced approach like in the event to carve out hospitals or critical functions like that and focus more on the type that we're intending to so that if there is an emergency that the burden of the emergency of running these backup generators doesn't fall on the public but falls on the data center operator itself so we're not you know if the one by the zoo for example if there's a some future large ai data center that if there's a storm it's not burdening the the surrounding community with air pollution while at the same time not requiring us to shut down hospitals or something like that i mean i um i think that we can obviously think through during council process if there are other ways to to think about that um

as we were doing our research and looking at sort of data centers across Davidson County, it's relatively easy to, um, identify the types of data centers that might be ones where it's a buyer and a seller of space that are, that are using those facilities. Those are, those are pretty well or pretty easy to find from a public database, but the types of data centers that are maybe built for a specific user, um, not like a large AI data centers, but something like a built for a specific user. I know there's a healthcare agency here in town that has a standalone data center that was built for their users that would be classified as a large data center by these definitions, but it is sole sorts only for their use. And so, I think we have to try to figure out when you're looking at something that is emerging where there's so many different kinds of uses that it's, it's there's, there's not a sort of one size fits all that can get at all of the issues that people are identifying. We can certainly consider continue to work at it at the council level. But we did feel like it was appropriate to have some language in there, just understanding that emergencies can, can go beyond that time period.

And councilman, I feel real comfortable that with you handling it and the, and the staff team that y'all could, that could be a discussion in the council. I think I feel very comfortable with y'all working that out. It seems very good discussion. Any other discussion? Commissioner Dundon.

I think it's, and to the both points that have just been raised, I think it would be extremely hard to say, okay, these data centers have to shut down after 72 hours and these don't. And to identify, I mean, I don't know for sure, but as you said, I think data centers support many uses and can probably change on the fly too. So, you know, you don't know what information is that the traffic lights that are being run in that data center. Is it your, GPS is at the hospital. I mean, I don't know how we would ever start making decisions about who has to shut down after 72 hours and what that would impact in society and who's dependent on that. So to me, the more important focus would be on getting the generators to run clean and run on clean energy. And right now it sounds like this is a start. I'm also not clear if they're natural gas generators or diesel, because that's a huge difference in terms of air pollution and health impacts. you know, either, I think, you know, either one is going to produce some air pollution, but my understanding is it's natural gas. But the more we can, and I think we talked about this last time, but the more we can incentivize moving away from any backup generator that produces any air emissions, that would be a goal, I think. So just adding that comment. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Smith.

Thank you, Chair. I think it's quick. First, I think the, the substitute bill is, um, represents a lot of work, a lot of good work definitions, uh, prisons, uh, the all access corridors. I think a good, a good find and a good way to reserve important land for important purposes. Um, one thing I'm not exactly looking to make a change in our recommendation, but kind of we're on the record and hope maybe a thought might be taken to council. Uh, the separation mandatory separation between data centers I know there's a note on here on making it tough for the electrical load maybe in specific areas that's not my area of technical expertise so I will of course defer but I think with beefed up utility verification letters and the aggregation guidelines, as well as the half mile from the all-access corridors, which I do like, but I think that, again, shrinks the area. And if NES is verifying, they can... they can service it. Uh, and, and we're making sure that we're not smallie smallie. We're not, uh, bit by bit aggregating to, to, uh, miss a, uh, a definition. Uh, clustering seems appropriate for, for, for zoning regulation. Um, that's just my kind of two cents on that. Cause I don't think, uh, I don't think it's going to be easy to bring this back and loosen regulations. I know that's not anyone's desire here in the crowd or among us is really to increase looseness. But I do think that it's probably easier to tighten it than loosen it from a political and planning standpoint. And we'll just throw that in there. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other discussion?

Commissioner Henley. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to echo my fellow commissioners and council members. I think the amount of detail in the staff report is great, and I know there wasn't a lot of time to do that in a very intense environment to do it, and so I appreciate it. My question was specific to lighting and light trespass. It looks like in all categories, we moved away from what I think is maybe a specific definition of light trespass for data centers to an existing regulation. I don't know if that was just because it's more standardized or was there some type of research that we found that just made more sense to shift to that? It seems to be slightly less restrictive, but I don't think it's an extreme transgression. but it does seem to be less restrictive than the language we had before. So I'm just curious if the benefit of changing it was just so that it's a standardized policy instead of something that has to be checked and mandated very specifically for data centers.

Yeah, we consulted with the zoning administrator and he said it would probably best to have a standard across the board. Okay. No, understood.

Understood. Yeah. I pointed out because I think it's, I don't think it's negative by any ways, but it does allow for there to be some light as opposed to none. And it seems like the intention in the original text was none. And so I just wanted to identify that. It seems like, again, with the zoning administrator being consulted, it's theirs to administer in the future anyway. And so I know a big part of our conversation was making sure that we're actually putting in place policy that can be enforced and enforced in a way that our community can count on. So I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you, commissioner.

Any other discussion? I do want to say, um, I want to thank the councilman and thank, um, The commissioners, for all their hard work on this, and especially the staff, you know, the team works really hard. And when we go real long hours, it's really tough on the team. And so, not tough on the team, but they work a lot more. And I want to say thank you. And I'm going to pass it over to Lisa to recognize some of the team members working on it.

Sure, I was answering questions, but I do want to say that Dustin really carried the load on this one. Probably worked exclusively on this for the past couple of weeks. And so I do want to just give him a shout out for his really hard work for identifying some things that we hadn't thought about in regards to the regulations. He's the one that found the distance from transit corridor, which I think is just incredibly important. forward thinking as we're moving forward as a city and so thank you to Dustin and also thank you to Amelia who also carried a heavy load with this one so I'm grateful for the entire team and especially when we get these sorts of really complex text amendments it is a learning process for us but it's one that we it's a challenge but it's one that we accept and sort of face head on so Thank you to you both.

Thank you, Lisa. And we appreciate that the entire team works hard and we appreciate everybody working on this important issue. And so that leads us to any other discussion? Seeing none. Is there a motion?

Councilman? I'd like to move to adopt a staff recommendation to approve with a substitute ordinance.

That's a proper motion. Is there a second? Second. Any other discussion? Saying none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Ayes have it, and item one is adopted. We want to thank everybody for coming down. We really appreciate y'all being here and taking the time to be here. Thank you.

So that leads us to our last remaining parts, which is other business.

And we're on item E under item 27, historic. Commissioner Smith.

No major update, Chair. All right. Parks? Commissioner Hanley? Thank you, Chair. No major update since our last meeting.

All right. And so the Executive Committee report, I do want to say that... Commissioner Dundon, that we always remind the commissioners, July, we only have one meeting in July, which is July 23rd. So mark your calendars. And then we have two meetings in August, August 13th and August 27th. And that's all I have for executive committee. Commissioner Dundon, anything else? All right. And so director's report, Lisa, is there anything, anything, any updates before we adjourn?

I don't have any updates.

All right. Well, Councilman, legislative update.

No updates from the Council.

All right. Well, seeing no other business, is there a motion to adjourn? We're adjourned.

This has been a service of the Metro Nashville Network. If you would like to see this presentation again or for more information on this and other programs, visit nashville.gov.