I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. Good evening everybody. The March 25th, 2025 Loudon County Planning Commission public hearing will now come to order. And as is our custom, let us stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. What do we need to do to flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands? One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Members of the public who wish to comment on any item on the public hearing legislative agenda tonight may do so. If you are in the boardroom, please fill out a speaker slip and hand it to the Assistant Deputy Clerk of the Planning Commission at the end of the day as to my left. If you are participating electronically, please call the number on the bottom of the screen. If you signed up to speak after 12.30pm, please confirm your name is on the speaker list as public comment sign up closes around 12 noon is indicated on the website. Indicate your name and the agenda item that you want to address. Each speaker, whether speaking on behalf of an organization or as an individual, will have three minutes per the commission's updated bylaws. Written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Deputy Clerk who will make copies for the planning commission members. The commission may vote on applications tonight and send its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, or may forward the item to a work session for further consideration before taking a final vote. Our procedures for public hearings are as follows. 10 minute staff presentation followed by commissioners questions to staff. Tonight each commissioner will be given three minutes to ask questions of staff. 10-minute applicant presentation, one applicable, followed by commissioners questions. Once the hearing is opened for public comment, each speaker will have three minutes for comments. After everyone has had a chance to speak, the hearing is closed. The applicant and staff will have a final opportunity to provide any response to public comment. Finally, there will be a motion, deliberation, and vote by the commission. First item is we do have minutes from the January 28th public hearing and if commissioners have had a chance to review those do I have a motion. Second. Motion to approve minutes by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Any comments on the minutes? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed or abstentions? I'm abstaining. I wasn't present at that meeting. Okay. Then that motion will carry 7-0-1-1 with Commissioner Banks absence and Commissioner Frank abstaining. Next, I will go to disclosures. If you have any disclosures, just hit your light and I will call upon you. I see no lights to my right. Commissioner Myers. On March 19th, I had a virtual meeting with the applicant and his attorney regarding quantum park At the today I had a phone conversation with my mic Romeo representing the applicant on the hidden wood lane Mr. Frank On March 24th, I had a video conference with Tony Calibri's How we do and the train? The team representing the applicant regarding the quantum park application. Commissioner, I'm out of ready. On March 11th, as well as March 21st, I had calls with Micromia on hidden wood assemblage. On March 20th, I have a staff briefing with on Hiddenwood on March 24th.. I might with how we allow and applicant team on site on the quantum park. Thank you. Yes. And for myself today, I had a meeting with the applicant and their representatives for the Luxstone Cochrane Mill data center that will be coming back to a future work session. And I had a meeting with Micromio regarding tonight's hidden wood assemblage application. Okay, that's it for disclosures. All right, our first public hearing item is Ludgy 2023-70. Hidden wood assemblage, ZMAP 2023-4, and staff, happens. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Allison Britain and with the Department of Planning and Zoning and I'm here today for a hidden wood assemblage At the February 4th 2025 Board of Supervisors business meeting the board demanded the subject application back to the Planning Commission to receive Staff review proper notice and a commission recommendation due to the scope of the proposed changes Staff have reviewed the revised application and bring forward to the planning commission revised analysis here tonight. As a reminder, the subject property is located east of Delas, West Boulevard, north of Hiddenwood Lane and southwest of our Colomills Road in the Delas election district. It is 28.92 acres in size. It is currently zoned countryside residential, legacy zoning district and is is located within the suburban neighborhood play site of the 2019 general plan. The applicants requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the property to the plan development industrial park zoning district. This application is a grandfathered application. At the Board of Supervisors public hearing on July 10th, the applicant was requesting to rezone the property to allow for up to 756,024 square feet of data center uses. And since that time, the applicant survives the application and profford out data center uses among other permitted IP uses. The request is now to allow a range of possible PDIP uses on the site. Additional changes to the application materials include the elimination of data center related proper commitments, limiting building height to up to 39 feet, a reduction in the proposed FAR to up to .27 or 337,000 square feet, elimination of noise mitigation, trail and trailhead connections to the South Forkin Broadrun floodplain areas, and other several site and building design changes, including an increased building footprint, elimination of setbacks and buffering on the northern and eastern portions of the property, and other landscaping commitments, reduced architectural commitments and reduced tree conservation areas. The board had heard two development options. Here's the original concept development plan. This is configuration one. Showing two proposed building areas with mechanical equipment yards, fronting on hidden wood lane. Tree conservation area on the top right identified in green. And here is the original concept development plan for configuration 2, showing three potential building areas and mechanical equipment yards more interior to the site. This configuration shows an area highlight and peach as a possible expansion of building area, parking area, and equipment yard based on a potential future law consolidation. again tree conservation areas in green primarily on the northeast portion of the site. Here's the revised concept of plan configuration one showing three expanded, oh yeah potential building areas and mechanical equipment yards running hidden with lane. This configuration, sorry, this configuration provides parking areas along the northern eastern and western property boundaries and a reduced through conservation areas. So this is configuration option one on the top and the current CDP here on the bottom as a comparison. And here is the comparison between previous configure option two and the current CDP. Staff have identified outstanding issues for planning commission consideration related to the proposed land use, building and site design and transportation. The 2019 general plan anticipates the suburban neighborhood play site to develop with primarily single-family housing integrated into a walkable street pattern with no more than 15% non-residential uses such as retail and service commercial to serve the needs of the immediate neighbourhoods. This of a neighbourhood place type does not anticipate the use is permitted in the PDIP zoning district, specifically uses such as industrial uses, they are not considered either core complimentary or conditional uses in this place type. In addition, for planning commission consideration, staff note, the existing condition of the site as single family housing is consistent with the place type and removal of housing units to the county's housing supply may impact affordability in the county, the development pattern and uses envisioned in this area and may make residential neighborhoods more susceptible to conversion to non-residential uses through zoning in the future. The applicant has proffered out several incompatible uses within this place type, including those listed here and most notable data center as previously proposed. However, staff recommend the applicant proper additional incompatible uses such as wholesale distribution, warehousing, and other light and medium industrial uses to remain consistent with the play-type and compatible with the surrounding area. Outstanding issues related to compatibility or broken out into categories, building design and site design with building design the applicants Proffords several commitments for principal facades consistent with the 2019 general plan. And in addition for buildings over 36 feet in height the applicants committed to provide Facade similar to that of a multi-story office building which staff do anticipate maybe consistent with the general plan. But staff recommend the applicant provide building renderings for staff to fully evaluate for conformance and assist with implementation of the described proper commitments. And staff also recommend the applicant provide specific commitments for facade of buildings under 36 feet in height. The general plan into space development would be blended within the context of the surrounding area and additionally the revised night to the three zoning ordinance goes a step further and specifically requires parking areas that are located between non-residential buildings and residential areas be screened so that parking is not visible from residential areas. Staff recommend the applicant provides street views from different vantage points to ensure or the proposed landscaping meets the zoning ordinance requirements and based on the context of the area staff, additionally recommend additional buffering adjacent to residential uses to assist with compatibility in particular due to the use proposed. Here is that area in particular. Transportation impacts are a factor for planning commission consideration. The transportation impact study provided scopes and analyze the transportation impacts from a 785,000 square foot warehouse use. Staff recommend the app can provide a transportation impact study that scopes the highest potential trip-generating use on the site at a density proposed for staff to fully analyze transportation impacts from the proposal. At the Planning Commission work session, there were questions related to the lines of site from the residential areas based on the topography. And the applicant has provided this cross-section, has profited this cross-section, from the vantage point of a residential cul-de-sac over here in Ashby-Hotten Court or Ashby-O Court. This line of site cross-section identifies an approximately 16-foot retaining wall and also demonstrates that topography may mitigate some of the proposed building height. And here is an update on nearby construction activity. I also have graphics here showing two different vantage points from the south and to the north with data from November of 2024 with what the area looks like. As an update, Delus West Boulevard is now open to traffic from race field lane to North star Boulevard. North star Boulevard is complete in open to traffic south to Tall Seater Parkway and the segment of Delus West Boulevard from race field lane to our Cola Boulevard is currently undergoing rightway acquisition and utility relocation phases of development with an estimated completion of spring of 2028. Here are the remaining lists of permitted uses in IP. These are primarily light industrial uses, they contain office uses, and they can contain some retail and service uses as anticipated in the general plan. Staff cannot support a recommendation approval due to a number of outstanding issues and find the application is not consistent with the 2018 general plan or the countywide transportation plan. Staff are happy to answer any questions and I do have DTCI on the line as well. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Questions for staff? Vice Chair Miller. Okay. It is a slide about recommending certain uses to be excluded that have not been yet. One of them is distribution, which I actually agree with. But warehousing and storage. On the list of things that could still be there, warehousing and storage fits, that's kind of what a flux building can be though. We're having these three items here, we're also distribution and warehousing and storage. It seems though the intent is that they're all lumped together sort of. I think it's very different. Why are they all lumped together? This warehousing and storage, to me, is not as traffic or vehicles intensive as wholesale distribution. This is one use identified in the zoning ordinance. This all is correct. All one use. Correct. That's interesting. Those should be silly different. Okay, my real question though, my main question. And I may be completely unfounded. Last week during the board's discussion on the data center zone. I paid attention as much as I could. I believe there was some discussion about applications that had been subject to a rezoning to a district that allows data by right, but did not specify that that application was going to be data. May or may not have been grandfathered to that zoning district slash use. What I'm getting at is the holistic view is JK2 grandfathered for data, or does it have to go through a specs process? Because it was re-zoned to a district that allows data but didn't specify it. So the JK did specify data centers. It did. And it laid out those buildings, I believe, as a part of it. Mr. Oh mr. Romero's here is part of that could probably correct me if I'm wrong But that was an instance where data center was specifically it was specifically identified and put in part because of the Reduced trip generation and other implications. Okay, so but you're right other applications. It's simply Hey, I get to have any use in the future IP districts. That may be data center unless they showed a specific layout on their plan. They would have to come through for a special exception. It was in the JK2, is grandfathered for data because they did do the things necessary. Because it was too established to write to data center use. Okay, thank you. Mr. Monter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alison, can you go back to the slide that has both the old plan as well as the new plan? And can you just explain in little more detail how the buffers, like what was there before and what they are right now in terms of numbers? Like on the north side, I remember it was like at one point, almost like 200 yards, 200 feet. Buffered now, it's kind of ready. Can you go through those numbers, please? That's correct. There was a building, an enhanced building setback provided of 130 feet feet and there was enhanced buffering and screening but primarily in this graphic you can see the area highlighted in green was proposed to be tree conservation area so using existing vegetation to meet the buffering area. And I'd have to defer to the applicant I believe that was around a hundred feet of the buffer. And then here was the second design proposal, very similar site design in a sense that the tree conservation area was same. And I also read a note that the trail heads have been removed. Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I. Thank you. The Minister, can you recount for me the allowable uses under current is there a name? You put the allowable uses. Commissioner Jasper, can you pull the mic closer to your, thank you. It's A little off to the side. Can you enumerate the allowable uses again without the relief asked for here? To clarify, Commissioner, are you looking for the uses permitted by right in its current zoning? Yes. Yes. Generally, the countryside residential zoning district allows primarily residential uses. They also allow, once I can. I don't have this slide, but also allow uses such as agriculture, nurseries, stables, bed and breakfast, schools, parks, and special exception uses can include things like congregate housing, continuing care, kennels, veterinary services, daycares, religious assemblies, public safety, library and community uses and public services. Okay. And the current I was looking on the noise contours for Delos airport and the current it appears that this is in the 60 decibels based on the 2019 airport noise map. That's correct. It's actually split. A portion of the property is in the 60 to 65 LDN noise contour and the other portion is in the 60 or the one mile within buffer. And, and when I look at the map, it appears that there's quite a bit of housing in this particular area of the in terms of noise contours. Is it trying to read, is it unusual to have housing in Loudoun County in the noise contours similar to this one? Am I misreading that or is it your correct? Okay. Okay, I think that's all I have. Thank you. Commissioner Barnes? Yes sir, thank you. How far is the closest house from this development? But they're going to build. How far is it? Commissioner, I'd have to follow up with you on that. I'm going to hold that question. Maybe the applicant will have the answer too. Okay. So. She's measuring the distance right now. It's from the… I McHughers, have it helps I have the answer to that? I'm going to say the distance from this house here to this building is about 240 feet. development was much farther than that. That they proposed and then they have to change to this one. The building setback from the previous option did include a more significant building setback. more right? Correct. Almost 800 feet. It was quite a bit. Yes, the building setback in the previous design options was 130 feet. Now this one is 130 feet. This is proposing a building setback of 75 feet. 75 feet, the pump the houses. From the property line. From the property line, yeah, the housing. Okay, thank you. Okay. Commissioner Frank. Thank you. I don't know, Alison, if this is you or DTCI and I realized that North Star did just open fairly recently. It's not a year old or anything like that. But do we know what impact Delas West and North Star opening have had on the hidden wood community? I mean, I know the traffic and the construction traffic and the emergency vehicles and all that was a big source of concern the first time we heard this. Do we know if any of that, those roads opening is offset? of that? I'm not sure if perhaps Bradley might be able to answer that question. I guess the follow-on to that question while they're clicking their buttons to log to speak with us. Would that, would something like that be captured in the traffic impact study that we're looking for? Generally, staff would anticipate a revised traffic impact study to take into account the existing condition of those roadways. Yes. Okay. We just because in this case we're looking at a different use and we're also looking at road conditions that are constantly evolving down in that area. It's too soon for us to be able to make that determination. We would need time for traffic to normalize in the area. I figured as much. Thank you. Mr. Myers? Yes. Thank you. Great report, else, by the way, I forgot to tell you. We have gotten an email that I know you guys are also on from the applicant on my three minutes is an off-already on March 24th. Does this address some of the concerns that staff had in regards to some of the outstanding issues? The intent of the email provided would address potentially several of the outstanding issues from a quick look and without reviewing revised materials. It's hard for staff to give a full confirmation of that. In any case, staff anticipate still for planning commission consideration the issue of land use and to some degree compatibility with the proposed site design. Okay. How am I down to 41 seconds already? Okay. Secondly, in regards to the height of the buildings. So the one that we've been talking about here and the original application, what was the the height of that verse, building versus the height of the buildings. So the one that we've been talking about here and the original application, what was the height of that building versus the height of the building now? The one that's that Mr. Barnes was asking about that was like 200. It ranged, the original proposal was proposing though up to 55 feet in building height. Okay. And these are note can be no more than 39. Correct. So there are almost 20 feet lower of what you'd be looking at vertically, I guess, is the best way to put it in regards to what somebody could see across the property. Correct. Second question or third question is in relationship to the abutting property, which I'm talking about what I guess you guys call the JK2 property. When that property was before the previous whatever board and whatever planning commission. Was that property also when the suburban residential area, was it in the non residential area? What was that abutting property? That property is in the suburban employment police type. And so, the non-residentialary, what was that, that abutting property? That property is in this suburban employment, please type. And so the hidden wood road, which is part of that, was actually part of the employment, but then the other part of it is then on the residential. Here I can pull up the graphic, that's correct. So there was no separation then, usually when we use roads and stuff to separate that wasn't done in this case. I mean the road that serves as property is then because it's on the rezoned property, it's in the employment but that same road also serves as residential with no buffer. Hidden wood lane. Right. Correct. Okay. So I just think that's a big decision to make because there are buffers on the other side of this to then the other residential but this particular one actually shares the road that is zoned for the other use. Am I correct? I'm not asking you to agree that that should be considered. I'm asking you would you agree that that hidden would road that we've seen that alignment that the majority of it is on the non-residential property. Extraterals aligned between the two, yes. Okay. All right. I think that was. Oh, in regards to the reduction, so they've talked about reducing down in this email, and I know you need to look at it more. But in reducing down the office uses, they can't exceed more than 64,000 square feet. Would that help to eliminate some of the concerns of the transportation issues that you guys had? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. Just a couple things. Going back to the trip generation, I guess DTCIs on. So are they looking for another review for a potentially higher number of trips based on this current application? So staff are looking for the traffic impact study to scope the potential highest traffic generating use that may be permitted within this list of potential IP uses. In this case, it would be office. And based off of a quick analysis, without running numbers and doing a full analysis, staff anticipate office may have a somewhat substantial differentiation in trips generated than office or then warehouse which is currently scoped. So staff are looking for the traffic impact study to be revised to have a more accurate depiction and to potentially scope the full extent. Not to say the worst case scenario, just the maximum impact possible. They use the most intensive of their options. Right. What would that traffic impact be? That's what you're looking for. Correct. Okay. The issue about the buffering, particularly to screen parking from the adjacent residential. Along the back, I know that the topography changes, but for example, at the one end where the building is 16 feet below grade, I mean the tallest vehicle is still going to be below ground level. Does staff still anticipate that having screening or more just where it's above? I think demonstrating whether that would be a sufficient screening from a few different vantage points is what staff went anticipate. So the cross-section provided does show from this Ashby Oak court, but just demonstrating in areas where tree conservation and preservation of existing vegetation is proposed also in areas where it is not proposed that in all cases across the board it would be sufficiently screened. So you're looking for more of those viewpoints that show that it's screened and if not they would provide screening there. Correct. Okay. And lastly, this has come up a few times both with data centers and other non-residential applications is. The county has gone to ask for certain criteria and design to meet a higher standard. But we're still asking for renderings of the buildings. Is that's going to be typically the county's looking for both? Because again, I was always on the impression when we went to all the different language, like especially data, the fenestration, all the different things. As long as those were met, that would preclude the need to actually have a physical. Here's what the building is going to look like. Is that kind of the case here? Are we still looking for? It ranges. It's actual. Based on the level of detail. but based on the level of detail and the description in the proffers set for this application, staff anticipate it would assist in implementing that to say whether those two things are matching. Okay. I think another way to say it too is in this context, being close to residential, to have a more definitive idea of what those buildings would look like, a more detailed rendering would provide that. Okay. Would you describe it by right? Has those standards, but it applies to any sort of situation Okay All right, we'll go to the applicant. I'm assuming you have a presentation Yes, wecia. you Thank you. Thanks, Marchion. Yeah, it works. Thanks. Good evening, Chair curious. Members of the commission, my name is Michael Romeo. I'm a land use plan with Wolf's Cloutier and Leesburg. With me this evening is Mr. Renementue from Wolf's Cloutier. Also Mr. Clay. Clayton, talk from Urban and Mr. Aaron Steele from Grosslade. If there are any specific traffic questions or site plan questions, then they can certainly answer those. But I do want to start off on the top by saying thank you to staff and particular Allison for working with us on this application. The staff report isn't fully representative of the collaboration we've had with staff since we resubmitted As Allison mentioned we went to the board for a remand in on February 4th and then on February 28th We resubmitted all of our materials since that time we've received updates from staff on things to revise and things to change And we've had very good conversations throughout this process Also, and say and up a schedule for this application to move forward as efficiently as possible, taking to new count the Planning Commission review and then getting into the board as quick as we can. And it goes without saying that the residents who we represent or the applicants and property owners for this application who are behind me this evening are certainly there. They've been waiting quite a some time to move this application forward. So whatever we can do to move forward efficiently and address all the comments and questions I greatly appreciate them. As Allison mentioned, data centers, the primary use that we've prohibited, that is the main reason we're back before you today. We actually had a plenty of commission public hearing last February in which we presented an application that was somewhat similar in terms of all the uses being proposed at that time when we came back to the May 9th work session where the planning commission thankfully provided a recommendation of approval. We have proffered outdated center at that point and that gets to the point that commissioner Miller was mentioning earlier about specifically stating certain uses to be vested if certain. application provisions were to change in the future, such as a special exception being implemented. For the building reduction, this site is proposing 55% less building area. This is a different site. I think it's difficult to compare, and it really is not appropriate to compare data center use versus the other uses in terms of layout and what can be done and what was done. We were able to remove an additional building site with the data center plan before when we got to the board level, but that cannot be done with this plan, where the buildings are, where they're proposed to be. Even though we cannot really have much flexibility with the footprints, we have reduced the square footage by 55%. And we've also reduced the building height considerably down to 39 feet. I would note that we do have ample open space and buffers on the site. But I would note that we're not requesting any modifications. What we're proposing is purely entirely in conformance with zoning ordinance standards. This is really a rezoning from the CR-1 district to the PDIP district. In terms of the building height, it did reduce from 55 feet and 50 feet in some locations down to 39 feet. If you look at the old CR-1 district, the maximum building height was 40 feet. So we were actually one foot below where the old CR1 district was allowed. If you look at the site from Ashfield Court, you'll be looking through existing trees to the building. It is only 22 feet as viewed from Ashfield Court. We have a mockup rendering of what that would look like. I would not pay attention to the vegetation. That's a computer simulation. But what you do not see is the building because it is lower than the actual heights of the homes themselves. The building design is an important feature. We did remove the previous data center building design standards. We have since added those back into the proper statement and we have worked with staff and discussed this rendering in particular with staff to create a better appreciation for what actually will be built on the site. This would be a proper image. We'll probably still do some tweaks to it if we move forward tonight. And we can modify that in closer conformance with the building design proper, which is on the screen here. So there are certain elements that we have required to do. The fenestration which would create a second story of a 15 feet in height among other elements would all be included in the building design requirements. The construction commitments are something we did not remove. When we removed the data center aspect of the application, we felt it was important to keep those in place because it is an unresidential use against a residential use. Optimize performance standards, another data center proffer. We removed the generator language for liquid cooling and air cooling, but we kept all the other provisions for more efficient building on the site. A number of miscellaneous profferers, I'll just focus on a couple of these. The tree conservation area is still over two acres in size and will serve in buffers where it can be preserved. In the open space easement, we preserved two acre open space easement along the far eastern side of the site, which actually will include a trail head parking area and trail access down to the floodplain now that is something we were adding back in to the application. Just to kind of take a rewind to where we all started from, Hiddenwood, South of Asian occurred in 1954. This is four years before Delos Airport was even chosen to be a site. It was established in 1962. And one of the reasons that this site on the left hand screen in the revised general plan was always planning for business and industrial uses is to preserve the airport. The image on the right is the 2019 general plan that considered this area to be superb neighborhood as we learned through subsequent applications this area is no longer suitable for residential development. The airport noise contours, the yellow lines are the old ones, the gray lines, or the new ones. Even though the airport noise contours have changed, which removed 60% of the site from the LDN 65 noise contours, the flight patterns did not change. There's still flights that go over on a regular basis every single day, and they're very noisy and loud in this area. As Allison alluded to, there's a lot of data center construction going on in this area. Some of these yellow stars are now orange stars where they have been completed. There are still data centers directly across the hood that have not even broken ground yet that will do so in the near future. In addition to the extension of dollars, what's Boulevard? Those what's Boulevard has now been completed to the intersection of race hill in the hidden wood lane, which creates a bottleneck for existing traffic. There's a lot of construction traffic that goes through this area. The data centers are up and running in close proximity to the site, even though they're not the closest ones that are approved near the site. And there are existing construction issues that go on every single day. I would like to take this time to invite Shermin Khan up. She is one of the residents and property owners within the hidden and issues that go on every single day. I would like to take this time to invite Shermin Khan up. She is one of the residents and property owners within the Hidden Wood Assembly. I would invite her to speak at this time. I'm speaking to you on behalf of myself and my neighbors who are the applicants of the proposed rezoning application. And they're all right behind me. As always standing together. We were last before you in May of 2024 when you recommended approval of our application. We sincerely appreciate your support. Due to the changes in the application, namely the removal of the data center, we are back before you this evening. We still find ourselves in an untenable position, data center construction inches closer to our home every day. Each day brings with it new construction activity and prospects of continued disturbance. We are seeking removal of this unbearable situation through this application. We have significantly reduced the density in building height and incorporated a number of the mitigating measures to create a transition from data center to residential use. We have created an application that respects the county's policies while recognizing the broader picture of the site's suitability for non-residential use. We could have signed up a number of people to speak this evening, but we know that you have heard all of it before. We want to respect your time, but please know that we are all here this evening in support of this application. We humbly request that your support and we thank you again for your time in your consideration. Thank you so much. Thank you, Shermin. That concludes our presentation at this time, Chair Kier. I would just like to focus on one of the points that Shermin mentioned, which is the transition. The toy and inting general plan does focus a lot on transitions between uses. The transition between the data center on the JK2 site versus the residential and bar field through hidden wood and what we're proposing is a transition that we've worked hard on. And hopefully this is up to the standard of the commission. So at this time we would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Questions for the applicants. Just one question. In regards to the redoing the transportation study or traffic study, I'm sorry, that staff was alluding to. The uses that you did still have in your old application, are they pretty much the same uses that you have in this new application except for data centers? So the traffic study that was submitted for this application was submitted before we removed any uses. So it included all the uses that are in front of the commission today, including warehousing, which was kind of the higher use that was evaluated. The issue cropped up when office was considered a more trip generation heavy use. And as a result of that, our consultant, Grove Slade identified a maximum cap of 64,000 square feet per office on the site. If we agreed to that, the issue would be resolved. And we did discuss that with Bradley in a previous conversation and as I'll some mention that would resolve the issue. Okay. So I just wanted to clarify because I know the other application had over 700,000 square feet. This one is in the 300 range and it did have for my reading almost all the other uses we're talking about. So really the idea is we've kind of reduced down with the traffic and should impact should be not increase what the traffic impact should be. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, are you ready? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mike, just if we can go back to the slide that has all those stars on the map. Of the existing. Oh, yeah. Yeah, there you go. So if I'm seeing this correctly, we still have the same problem as we had before. There are two developments in there that have pretty much similar problems. So we are trying to fix one neighborhood, which will even make their brownfields even more problematic in terms of where they are going to end up when we fix this thing. That's how I'm seeing it myself. The reason being, again, I know the recent email that you sent is definitely in the right direction. You are trying to fix a lot of issues. So let me ask a couple of questions. I know you did profit out a lot of use as including data center. Are you willing to do profit out where I was distribution and wholesale distribution and warehousing? Like the staff is requesting. So that's the use that we may include on the site. I would have to get back to you on that if we could proff out maybe elements of that. But that is the use that we were proposing to retain on the site. Okay. The second question I have is related to the buffer as well as the distance from briar free list rates. Because if you remember, the biggest conversation last time is the proximity to the neighborhood. Based on what I saw in the presentation, now it's a lot more closer compared to what it was before. So I mean, I don't think I can proceed unless you are going to commit that the footprint can be kind of reduced back to where your original footprint is. That was what your previous application is. Are you willing to work with us on the footprint adjustments? So, unfortunately, we cannot change the footprint. I would note that the footprint that was proposed to the Planning Commission included the third building that was recommended for approval last May. But we unfortunately cannot remove that third building at this time. We did again reduce the square footage considerably. It is a totally different application from that perspective in terms of reduction in square footage. It's reduction in height, but we cannot change the footprint at this time. I do apologize. No, I appreciate the direct response because height was certainly an issue, but the proximity to the neighborhood also was an issue if you remember all these conversations. So I mean, that's what we thought we worked with the applicant last time to pull back those buildings as far as a way with a bigger reconnervation area in the buffer zones. Now, it almost feels like we are, we kind of forgot all those conversations and expanded the building plan to get closer. Again, that might not be your intention, that might not work for you economically, but that's what exactly what we did with this application right now. So thank you. Mr. Jasper. I want to thank the applicant for trying to accommodate some of the concerns that the commission raised previously. You mentioned that the land was subdivided in 1954 before Delacere Port was even selected as a site. But, you know, just kind of listening to that, I decided to poke around in the public records on the web while we're sitting here. To see when most of the houses were built and most of the houses were built in the post-2000 era, it seems. Have you got comprehensive that? Yes, so most of the houses were probably built, I would say, 70s to 2000s. There are some more recent ones, both 2000s. It's kind of a mix of different ages. That is correct. So, you know, people certainly knew the airport was going to be there when they built their houses. Yes, and I mean, there were, I mean, those are vested lots. Those were lots that you can build houses on, even though the noise contours were implemented in the early 90s. But yes, some of the homeowners were- Yeah, and similar developments are in that same 60 to 65, so which is what Allison shared. What is the compelling policy reason for changing the zoning? I understand the data center proximity has been burdened some. Although the data centers it looks like they're starting to get close on the construction of the roads and construction of the data centers and serving substations. I, you know, what? What I would respond to that with Commissioner Jasper is that in 2019 or leading up to the 2019 General Plan adoption, this area was overlooked. The area was identified as existing residential and staff. To the credit, said let's preserve existing residential to the best we can. Not realizing that the dividing line between existing residential and future employment was not sufficient. And so there's a policy argument to be made that as a transition, which is a principle included in the plan, makes sense of this location, where you have existing data center versus the bar field homes to the north. And I would argue that the previous plan we had for Hidden Wood did accomplish that. That plan is obviously no longer an option. So we've tried to find other ways to create transitions through less density and lower building height to create that transition. Okay. Thank you for that. I think I would feel the same way that Commissioner Reddy does than about the impact of changing the law. Commissioner Comes. Thank you, Chair Cures. You might have mentioned this mic, but what is the building height maximum in CR1? So it was 40 feet under the revised 1990 through ordinance. For some reason it changed to 35 feet in the current ordinance. I'm not sure why. Even though it's a legacy district. Even though it's a legacy district, that did change. I looked it up the other day and I was a little surprised to see that it did change Okay, and so And so somebody could build there right now up to 35 feet correct, okay, and what are what's the required setback the zoning requirement for the setback from For CR1 I believe it's only about five or 10 feet for the rear property line. If you're building a home on one of the lots, it's minimal at best for housing. And if you're doing a non-residential use in CR1, the step back would be greater than that. I imagine. No, I believe it would be very similar. The buffer would be different, but the setback would be the same okay Okay, and so your setback is it what's your setback? Our setback is 35 feet for parking and 75 feet for building and that is the required setback for the IP district against existing tier ones so then building height is 39 feet so four feet in excess of the current 35 feet. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Comes, one point of clarification, the rear yard requirement in the CR1 zoning district is 50 feet. The rear yard is 50 feet. And Allison, thank you for chiming in. You might wish you didn't. Do we know what else might have changed in the CR1 zoning district during the recent rewrite of the zoning ordinance? I don't have that information. Did we, does anyone, maybe Brian remembers better than the night? Did we change much in other legacy districts? Our intent was not to make many changes. If we did make changes, it. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. quick. The old CR1 legacy, did that have any kind of open space requirements? I mean, obviously, residential is a very different product. And I don't know that we used term open space however many decades ago that was. Yes, the CR1 zoning district, I believe, does have open space requirements. And in particular for subdivisions, I could circle back with you. Yeah, I'd be curious to know what those are. Commissioner Reddy asked, I'm not ready. Kind of went down the path I was going to be about that they're building. In that same vein though, I'll ask the applicant. The closest corner of the two building plan in the previous iteration, it was west of where it would be now. How close was that corner to the nearest residential? If I recall correctly it was over 200 feet. I don't have the exact number though. And we're measuring building to building there. Correct. So not property line, okay. And what could that height have been? Was that where the 50 feet was and it was 55 feet farther east or was it because we had that topography issue that there were varying heights? Yeah, so the topography, so the way it was drafted was it would be 50 feet at the building the property line. Those two western most buildings could be 55 feet in height, but they had to be viewed no higher than 50 feet at the property line based on dropping it down. The building furthest to the east building sea was at 45 foot maximum, but no higher than I think it was 24 feet above the ash bill court cul-de-sac. So that building was 45 feet was capped at 45 feet in height before we now have a building closer that would be 39 feet and I know we have a great change there and we went from 130 foot setback to 75 I do want to clarify on the setback portion It went from 100 feet on the farthest western building for a building setback to 130 feet for the building or the middle building in the far right building or building C was 180 feet for the setbacks. That's where we ended up on those setbacks from the property line. So it was 130 feet. Currently or the one before? The one that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the May 9th. Right, okay. So that building was 180 feet setback and 45 feet tall and now we're looking at 39 feet tall and 75 feet. Correct. So we've cut that set back more than 1.5 feet. That is correct. And we've changed it 5 feet. That is correct and that's purely due to the use change. Data centers are required to have 200 foot setbacks in these situations under the new ordinance. The IP uses are not required to have a level of setbacks because the impact is different. Yeah, well they're not always right next to existing residential either. Okay. I just want to make sure I got that. Allison, do you have a magic number? Yeah, I do. The zoning ordinance required that open space be provided in an amount sufficient that gross density of one lot per 40,000 square feet is maintained. I believe that means about 40,000 square feet of open space per lot. Per lot and we have how many? I mean, hold on. Now, transfer that to what we have on the ground now. It hadn't put all these parcels. How much? Were it to be developed as CR1 now, this assemblage? How many square feet or acres or how much open space would that require? Do we know? I'm asking math now. What's the plan? Planning and Okay, do not. I'm okay to wait if you want to move to somebody else and we can get it when we get it. Mr. Chair Miller. So, Mike, the building height in the examples that you showed, that essentially looked like a, essentially like a two-story class B office building building That's the intention to make it look like a two-story ability even though it's a one-story building The idea is that the clear height is much higher for flex industrial or warehouse type use okay So which leads to the next question if it's not intended to be two-story class B office The The two largest flex industrial landowners businesses in the county in the region build 18 generally and sometimes 24. If they believe there was demand for more than 24 feet, surely they would have built some of the 3 million square feet they have in Loudoun County to that height. So if the intent is flex and dust gel like buildings, why the need to go 15 feet beyond what any major flex and dust gel player has really ever done? Well, and it's a good point. Flexed Dutchels not the only use being proposed would be my answer. There could be other uses that would take advantage of the 39 feet. For example, warehousing, that's a use that's proposed for the site. So, and that's why we came in with the 39 feet. Okay, back to the warehousing issue. This is a question that maybe I also might have to jump in on. I asked when Alice and Alice of Alice earlier about the fact that the use is where is distribution warehousing and storage is all one use. Could you, and I don't know if the county goes along with this Proffer out portions of uses I don't want to Distribution is where I have a little bit of a hang up because of the nature of what distribution can be which is it can be a 24-7 operation I Recognize you cannot have distribution without warehousing and storage. But you can have warehousing and storage without 24-7 distribution to the extent that the whole point of that comment is last mile package delivery. Which is what we would try to avoid. So is that, is it a possibility, Allison? And if it is a possibility, is that something the applicant would consider? I would certainly say we'll consider it and we can take a look at it to see if we can find a way to separate out the use. It is one use in the ordinance now. Used to be separated uses in the old ordinance. I can certainly look at that and get back to you, Commissioner Miller. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Miller, staff would anticipate there's a creative way to craft a proffer or specific, especially because while it is one use in the zoning ordinance, distribution facility is particularly itemized in the definition. So certainly there's opportunity in there to be specific. Okay, and that would be something that I would hope that we could at least at a minimum offer that out as well so we don't have to deal with the potential effects of a last mile package delivery service being operated out of these buildings. Okay, my turn. Just like I think I heard this clearly about the traffic impact study. The previous traffic impact study done was to the highest possible you. This is the first time it was done when it was a data center. Now we're one of the other uses, but that traffic impact study was at the highest use. At the time, staff is determined that well office is actually more intensive. so there's a different number for office square footage, so you have profored to reduce the office to a number that would match the current traffic impact generation numbers. Is that right? I hear that correctly. That's correct. Staff, is that your understanding? Correct. Thank you. Also, the previous times this application has come before either the Planning Commissioner or the Board of Supervisors. There was a significant number of people that came out to speak. His have you reached out to the adjacent community about having a meeting about this revised application? Yes, I did send a member or an email to a member of the H way board. I did not receive a response. I will say, in fairness, he emailed me when I was on paternity leave in December. I got back to him. I think it was earlier this month, but I've not received a response. Okay. The other, well for staff, the applicant mentioned they're kind of recommitting to the design and that picture. Does that meet what you are looking for as far as a building design? I believe from a rendering standpoint, with respect to staff's recommendation, they provide a rendering that that rendering would satisfy. It was staffer looking for and from a quick look staff did determine that almost all the commitments identified in the proffers match what is shown on that. But one thing that's still missing is the Render the sightline views that would indicate that all the parking areas are adequately screened from the adjacent community That's something you're still looking for correct is that something that the applicant Is willing to do I don't believe it was in your letter specifically addressing that concern? Was the concern I'm sorry screen for which as a parking parking. From the adjacent community that there's an adequate screening buffer. Obviously, when it drops 16 feet below, that probably addressed it. But obviously as you go farther down, it gets more ground level. And the staff was looking for like sightline views that show different vantage points. And if there's- I understand what you're saying. Yes, we certainly are going to do that. And there's one area between the existing trees that we're preserving that we showed a berm and fencing before that wasn't entirely clear on the resubmission, but it will be on the next submission that we provide. So it will screen the parking from the Northern Property Boundary. Okay. All right. So everybody's set a chance. Can I just ask one question? Sure, Mr. Myers, go ahead. So you can be looking while all the people are talking. And I don't want to debate or say that something that Commissioner Miller said isn't correct or anything. But in like on noxble of art, when I go down towards way drive in those areas, there are also flex buildings down there that are in the same kind of old zoning that this is in. And I believe there are a lot of buildings down there that are 35 and 39 feet tall because what they did is on the backside of them is where they have the areas where the trucks can pull in and then they have a space that kind of looks from when you go inside, you can see it's where they do all the storing of the equipment and stuff until they need it. So they definitely aren't just 18 or 24 feet high. I believe the majority of them are all between 35 and 39 feet high. And I don't know if that's something that you can just look to see what it look like. If you see where we've seen this flux use and stuff in the office use. And I know even down off of what is that red red where was building you see red run drive the dar building red run drive there's also buildings down there that are 36 and 39. Because I just want to make sure we're comparing that we do see that that's been done here not that we're asking for something that hasn't been done before was the reason why I want to give you a few minutes to just look at it instead of me saying hey Allison thank you thank. Chair. Okay. This time we'll open up the public hearing. We have one person signed up to speak. And that is Jim Bingo representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. Good evening, Chair Kerr. Sorry and commission, I'm Jim Bingo speaking for the Piedmont Environmental Council. We are sad to see Hiddenwood back before the commission because this situation represents a profound failure of local zoning. To prioritize the residents, it's intended first and foremost to serve the long range planning, smart growth planning over the years, it's flipped back and forth and we all see the outcome here for this neighbourhood's unfortunate current circumstances. And while we understand staff's assessment of the inappropriateness of these changes given the overriding place type, the suburban neighborhood, we also understand the difficult position. These homeowners are in and feel it's important to recognize the reality of our zoning on the ground for what it is, not what it was intended to be. But also relative setbacks, it's important to recognize that CR-1 uses our less intense than PDIP. In our previous statements to this body and the Board of Supervisors, we expressed concern for the impacts of non-residential development on the neighboring subdivision and emphasized the need for both setbacks and buffers to mitigate these changes if any adjustments were to be approved to avoid passing along harms to those residents. We continue to have those concerns with this current application and agree with staff's assessment that there are adjustments that still need to be made to further specify and build up protections for the quality of life for the neighbors. We feel it is vitally important to address the Northern buffer before between this site and the neighborhood which will be the greatest impact by such a change in the underlying zoning. We also are in agreement with staff and it is our opinion that in order for the county to understand what's being approved detailed images, site plans and building designs and some of that's already being done should be propered so the county can understand what is being agreed to and those protections can be assured. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this application? Do we have anybody in the sky, you know, in there either? Okay, the public hearing is now closed and this application is in the dullest districts, so I will go to Commissioner Monterey for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move the Planning Commission forward, ledgy 2020 2023, 0070, hidden wood assemblage, ZMAP, 2020, 004, to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation of denial. Based on the findings provided as a task for the March 25, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff report. Okay. Second. Second. Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Maderati, seconded by Commissioner Jasper. Commissioner Maderati, do you have an opening? Yes, sir. As I mentioned, my conversation with the staff as well as Micromia. First of all, I would like to recognize the hardship the hidden wood is going through with this application. But unfortunately, this application, where we kind of approved as a planning commission before, I think we are going backwards from that stage. I think commission Frank put it in the numbers. How drastically we reduce the buffers? How drastically reduce the setbacks? It's a worse application than it was before. So with the right conscious, I don't think I can move forward. Thank you for being direct and telling me, Mike, you might not be able to adjust those footprints and sit back. So with that, I would like to move the motion for denial. Thank you. Commissioner Colmes. Thank you, Chair Kieres. I'm not going to be supporting the motion. We've seen a lot of this application before. We've sat with these concerns before. I think we owe it to the folks of Hidden Wood to send this to a work session to help them improve this application to the extent folks up here feel like it's not doing enough. Yes, there are impacts to the prior field. The intent is not to pass harms that hidden what is experiencing onto the folks at the prior field. And I know that's not what anyone is looking to do. So if there are things we can do to improve that to make sure that doesn't happen, that's the least we can do just by sending it to a work session. I can see that this application has done a lot to try to improve those impacts. They've dropped their density by over 50%. They've dropped building heights significantly down to almost CR1 by right building height levels. If there are concerns with the intensity of the use as commissioner Miller or vice chair Miller suggested, let's fine tune those. I think there are certainly some things that we can do to make this better so that it can move forward in a better posture than what the motion is suggesting. So for that reason, I'm not going to support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Myers. I'd like to make a substitute motion. I move that the Planning Commission for LEG 202-3-0070, hidden wood assemblage and ZBCP-A202-3-004 to a work session to hopefully be done in April. Second. Okay. All right, so that subsidy motion has been made by Commissioner Meyer seconded by Commissioner Comes and he discussion on the substitute motion. What's your? I remember once. Commissioner Meyer's do you have an opening? Thank you. I would like to say a lot of what Commissioner comes just said I agree with O'Hardley but I think also more importantly whether it's in the day people at the end decide they want to support a motion of denial or not. I think part of our duties here is to make sure that we make this application as best as it could be as we send to the board of supervisors by taking a work session and looking at the things at the staff and the county and the applicant are willing to compromise on. I think it serves everybody better because even at the end of the day if it's a recommendation of denial, at least we've made this a better application on both sides of the aisle. I'm going to say that it is tonight. I think we actually, I mean I'm going to say this. I think we actually, I'm not going to say this, I think we actually owe it to the residents of Hiddenwood to really try to make this better than to simply pass it on. And I say that with all due respect to you, Commissioner, I don't mean this as anyway to be disheartening to you or not respecting your position as the commissioner of that district either. But I do think that there is the opportunity that we should take to work on this application to see if we can make it better. I also find it fascinating that not one single person from the abutting community has showed up tonight either. It means they think they just need to go to the board or whatever. But we don't have 35 people here tonight telling us not to support this application either. So I find it very difficult to set here and I'm not going to work on it. I'm not going to try to make it better. I'm just going to send it forward with a denial without trying to find a compromise. So with that, I would ask that people support the motion to go to a work session. Okay. I want to clarify. In your motion, you specifically stated the April 10th work session? In April 10th well, what I actually said was, A work session in April because when I was talking to, or as Jess has brought, he was saying that even our public hearing, which is at the end of the month, is very light. Because I want to make it clear that I'm not asking anybody to go back and rework this application. I'm saying we look at what's been brought up tonight at what they've already given us so that it's not like we're sending it out for a full blown referral. If it can't happen at that time. I understand. I just wanted to make sure I didn't hear that because otherwise I would have said something further. Discussion on the motion commissioner, Maude ready? I am confused really. I mean, my two years on commission, I never seen somebody actually not voting on a motion rather than doing the substrate motion. So, I mean, what happens to my motion right now? Well, right now your motion isn't being discussed. It's the substitute motion to go to a work session, so we will discuss that and vote on that. If that motion passes, then we go to work session. So the substitute motion will basically replace your motion to deny. So it's replacing mine without knowing it? Correct. I don't have any saying that one. Well, you have it, you have say now in discussion on the motion to go to work session. I'm confused. So. Go ahead. If the motion, if the substitute motion then fails, then we revert to the original motion, which was your motion to deny, which was seconded by Commissioner Jasper and debate had already begun. Then we go back to continuing the debate on that motion, and at which time we would take a vote on that motion. Thank you. Mr. Jasper. I am concerned about the conditions that the people at Hindenwood assemblage and on Hindenwood Lane have had to live through. My concern is that we do not incentivize. I'll go back to something that supervisor Turner said in speaking of the situation that Hiddenwood Lane is in, and he said that this was the decision to put the JK Tech project to Jason Tid and Wynn Lane was the worst decision he's ever made on the planning and the board of supervisors and I do believe that the fault here is with county planning policy making action, etc. And because of that, I believe that the remedy is is a remedy is one that is implemented by the county. And I've certainly spoken with supervisors about it. And it is to find a solution that the county participates in. To leave it to land speculators to fix these issues by up zoning properties adjacent to other residential properties does not seem like the right way to solve this from a policy perspective. And it incentivizes the kind of land speculation and residential property that I think is very damaging to the county. And that is the reason I support the original motion advanced by Commissioner Madarade. I mean, yeah. So not out of lack of concern for the residents. Thank you, any other discussion on the motion to work session, Commissioner Frank. I'm not supportive of going to a work session and really I'll say it comes down to one thing for me as I Would expect either the removal of the eastern most building or a dramatic increase in the setback than what's currently proposed The applicant has said that's not something they're able to do so I'm not sure You know, I we can talk about it some more, but if those things aren't moving You know, I don't see the reason to do it. And now it's part of the original folks that were opposed to JK2. And we do- more, but if those things aren't moving, I don't see the reason to do it. And I was part of the original folks that were opposed to JK2, and we didn't do the work. So I don't take that lightly. I always prefer to make it better even if we can't support it. But for me, there's two big things that move the needle and the applicant doesn't seem willing to do either. So. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Barnes, I will not be supporting the motion to send it to work session. So there you go. I don't think it needs to go back to work session. And so I think it's the motion. Originally made I I will support that. Not to go to the book session. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else that hasn't said covered in? Michelle Miller, did you speak? No, okay. Okay, so for myself, I'll support the motion to go to work session. I think the applicants made a number of additional commitments that staff has gotten and said would resolve a number of these issues, but they haven't had a chance to review it yet. Should this motion pass, my suggestion would be to have the work session after on April 22nd after our public hearing that night. The problem with that only gives the applicant about a week to turn around any information if this goes then would that be sufficient? Okay. All right. So we have a motion to move this application to work session. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. So I believe that's Myers, Kierce, Miller, and Cones and all those opposed to the motion. And we have four opposed, so that motion does not pass, which means we move back to the original motion for denial. And I would ask commissioners if they have comments to make on that motion. Commissioner Myers. Yeah, I think it's very sad. I don't know, I don't have the right word. I'm not going to say what I think. I think it's unfortunate that instead of taking the time to try to negotiate, which we do with every application to make it better, that this goes forward with the remeccionation of a done an aisle when we really haven't set down to say here's what we could do. I would understand if we were in this position, if all of a sudden we had it like the last time and there were 35 people over here and spoke against it and there were 20 people over here and they were landowners that spoke for it, but we don't have a single email We don't have a single person showing up here tonight We don't have a single person calling in to tell us they're opposed to this application. That's an a budding neighbor That is so different than the last time around here and it doesn't feel like anybody's even taken that into consideration. They've decreased everything, the people said they didn't want, they've decreased the square footage, they've decreased the uses on the property. It's a one-story building that's going to be shorter than the, you know, what they're going to get, probably now, is they're going to get the nurseries. And those things they don't want could guess what? know allowed by writing that. And that's exactly what their budding properties have now that they complain about the numbers. So I just think that this is very unfortunate that we're making a decision not to work on this application when we have nobody here with all the respect to Jim Bingle. But no budding property owner here that's telling us that this application is unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Jasper. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. And Commissioner Mauder, you made the motion. So let me go around to anybody else. Vice Chair Miller. Yeah. So I supported the motion to go to work session because like Commissioner Myers said, I think there are some things that we can work on to make it better and it doesn't mean that I am going to support the application. But I think there are things we can do to make it better, especially if we can figure out how to eliminate distribution, at least hours of distribution, so it's not a 24-7 operation. On a sort of related note, when this came before us a year ago, there were eight members of this body up here, and we were hopelessly deadlocked on three different votes, until one prescient observant, fourth thinking member, chose to abstain to let the motion pass one or the other I don't want to have to be the one that does that again but I think we're in a tight spot with this but I do think that this can be improved Whether or not we ultimately vote forward or against it It can be made a better application and I think, I've said this on many things, I think she'd go to work session because I want to see things as complete as possible before we send them off to the board of supervisors. And I think we have an opportunity to do that, whether we send it forward to the recommendation of approval or denial. I think we can do that with a better application. And that is why I supported work session and while we'll not support this motion at this time. Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Chair Kieres. Question for the applicant. Mike, are there things that you all would consider doing with respect to that Eastern most building? And when I say things, I mean height or massing or setbacks or characteristics of that sort without putting any specificity on that right now. But is there some amenability to working with how that third building is cited and where it's cited? I think we can certainly work on some items to mitigate impacts of that building. The issue with square footage, we've reduced significantly to where we are today. Removing an entire building is just not feasible. However, to your question, I think there's certainly things we can do if the commission has any suggestions for options where we're certainly all ears. Okay, thank you. Then, you know, I'd still feel the same way I do with respect to the motion to go to work session. I think there's still work for us to do. I take Jim Bingo's comments to heart. There's been just a colossal failure at the county level to the folks at Hiddenwood. And we owe them anything that we can do to help them mitigate any of those impacts to the north. And again, supporting denial here to deprives us of that opportunity. Mr. Jasper? Okay, yes, sorry. The reason I support the motion of denial is I actually believe it gets us further down the road to a suitable solution. One that doesn't actually export the problem to the head and wooden neighborhood. I mean the Breyer Field neighborhood. I have tremendous respect for my colleague, Commissioner Myers. I do from, from my perspective, I feel that the Briar Field Estates folks came and made their testimony. It's part of the record. I'm not ignoring it because they're not here tonight. This is an application for hidden wood and so I'm not surprised that they hidden wood assemblage. That is the proponents of this application are here. So I make that distinction at my hand, I understand your position that you think the other folks should be here too. But I do believe that we can get to a solution that's an appropriate solution, not a compromise solution. And but we can't do it if we accept this application and send it forward and export the problem so we're facing the same problem again with regard to prior field. So that is why I remain in support of the original motion. Okay. Everybody spoke except me. So I won't be supporting the motion. I would hope and move this to work session. I think the commitments that the applicant has made has pretty much addresses most of the outstanding issues of staff. Except for the policy issue of the basic of the place type, which I find ironic up until the 2019 plan, this wasn't a residential place type. But the county decided, well, since there's houses there, we should just call it one. And so they changed it. And now we have the situation where the residents preferred that it was not a residential place type. The fact, now the folks at Briarfield have been very vocal and made their point very clear on the previous application, at all steps of the application, at all public meetings they've come out and they've been very vocal. The fact that not a single one has come to this meeting or to to my knowledge, is contacted anyone in opposition to this. I'm not saying they're all in favor of it, but I think it leads me to believe that this was a significant issue for the community. We'd have heard from the community and the applicant even reached out again about another meeting and he didn't hear back. So for those reasons, I can't support denial. I think at work session, we could be able to basically clear up most of the outstanding issues. So those are my comments and I will go to Commissioner Moderati for a closing. Oh. Mr. Chairman, if I can just make one response. So on the planning discussion, the designation was by design that the existing residential out there by the designation afforded some protections of them against development around it. So the suburb and employment place type, which is JK2, has specific design guidelines that were adopted to address specifically the situation. Further separation, step back, a building heights. So the designation was intentional in recognition of the existing residential in hopes that any development around it would be sensitive to it and have some design guidelines to do that. So a lot of the negotiation that Mr. Romero talked about earlier, separating JK from Hidden Wood was based primarily on the policies that were established to recognize these two disparate uses. So I just wanted to offer that. There was some thought into why it was designated that. Whether or not that played out as designed, probably not. But there was some intent in having it designated that. Well, I could debate you on the absolute failures of what was approved versus what the intent was. I don't want to go to that. other than just to say there was some thought into tried and protect the juices that were there today through some sort of policy designation. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Maude, are you closing if you have one? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think my fellow commissioners, Commissioner Frank, Commissioner Jasper put better than me. I don't think we want to compromise solution here. We want to do what's right for the hidden wood when you find the solution for them. Not only for the hidden wood as well as for the briar fields. So going to work session without any assurances from the applicant that they are going to work on the building building C, I don't think there is anything we can achieve by going to the work session. I don't think there is anything we can achieve by going to the work session. I don't think we could, if we are not going to, unless some specific recommendations, my fellow commissioners can recommend, this is what they can do to the building C by removing it. I don't see a reason going to work session to move forward. So I believe that actually making a motion here, taking a decision, it will at least expedite the decision and take to the board and maybe they'll work out something else that's going to work for everyone. So that's why I request everybody to support my motion. Thank you. Okay, all those in favor of the motion to deny say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I request everybody to support my motion. Thank you. Okay, all those in favor of the motion to deny? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. No. Okay, so that motion will carry five three with Commissioner Myers-Cures and Combs opposed and Commissioner Banks absent. Oh, sorry, I missed you. This is deja vu all over again. So we are 4-4. So I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. because the motion is substitute. I would like to make another motion to take this back to work session with the idea being that the applicant has agreed to work on the building C, both in the way we're looking at the masking and further setbacks in addition to the other things that were raised tonight. I'm sorry. I'm making motion. Chair, I'm sorry. Just, you know, for the non-Robert's rules order here, because we had a substitute motion to go to work session which failed. Right. Okay, so because that means, but that was a substitute to another motion to deny. Does that mean we can we can we now make another motion to go to work? I just want to make sure. So I'm happy. Okay, can I make it? Second, we have to have you have to read, you have to officially read the language in there. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Myers, go ahead and make your actual motion. Okay. I move the Planning Commission for LEG 202-30070, Hidden Wood Assembly, CCPMAP-00, I'm sorry, zero, two zero, two three dash, zero zero, four to a work session of the planning commission of April 20th. What did you say, Chair 23rd? 22nd. 22nd. Okay. To include in that discussion regarding to the building C and looking how we can make the authorations or changes to better take on the concerns that we've heard. Before I go into that, I want to clarify because I kind of cut off what I realized I had made a mistake in the count that the motion to deny failed on a 4-4 vote with commissioners Barnes, Jasper, moderate and Frank in support of the motion. Myers-Kirsch Miller and Combs opposed to the motion and Commissioner Banks absent for the vote. So I just wanted to make sure that was on the record. Thank you. Okay, so I'll second the motion. Okay, so motion to move to a work session made by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Vice Chair Miller. Commissioner Meyer, do you have an opening? Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto. But I would like to say, I heard you very loud and clear, Commissioner Frank, in your concerns about that building. Whether we get it at the end of the day, right or not, at least then we've had the discussion about it. It may end up still being a denial at the end, but at least if there's better possibilities of working with them in that, at least it gives us the opportunity to do that and then have that work session to send it forward to the board of supervisors. Thank you. Mr. Freik. I'd like to ask for a friendly amendment. If we just make this a future work session, not the April work session, I can support this motion, so accept it accepted. Okay. Somebody need a second, my friendly amendment. Mr. Feister. So, friendly amendment to change. Nope. Just to not defund, it's a future work session. I'm taking all the date of April and Sunday. And my thought is just that I'd like to see more than I suspect somebody can do in a week to justify work sessions. So if they're willing to put in the work and take the time to do that, I can support going to a work session. Okay. So friendly amendment is to remove the specific date for the work session. Does the maker of the motion accept that in the second? Yeah. Okay, so that change has been made. Okay, for the members. Friendly amendment is accepted. Any other discussion on the motion? Commissioner Jasper. I have a question because I'm curious. I, Commissioner Ramayar's mentioned changes to building three. It sounded like there was, you know, some guidance that might be provided in terms of what the planning commission is looking for. And I think that hearing what that is and having that in, you know, because I haven't having heard from the applicant that what they might be willing to accept and what direction at least the planning commission is looking for is significant, I think. open space was mentioned, building height was mentioned, setbacks were mentioned, screening. I'm just trying to understand what we're going to expect from them at the work session. Yeah, do you want to include it in your motion? I mean, I simply added, we had already agreed that we were going to work on these issues as they were identified. But what we hadn't really talked about was the building C that all of a sudden became kind of a theme for both, for several of the planning commissioners up here. So the only reason why I intentionally added that was because I heard that dialogue going on. So I just wanted to make sure that as we were cleaning this up because originally we said we were going to look at what was outstanding. I wanted to make sure that we added that to as an outstanding item to make sure that commissioner Frank's concerns about, you know, what can we do with that building? What can we do with the setback of that building? Those type of things were also brought back and worked on before you came back to the planning commission. Thank you. So the audit we have, emails that were covered. The thing Mr. Romeo also agreed to look at the additional exclusion of the use and any specifics of that last remaining incompatible use we identified. Looking at the view of the height from the one view, We're looking at other views that capture the lower height buffering or the other view right here. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think what else you guys have covered. The equipment meant to the building design. The other view points show on the screening for the parking. So it's just a confirmation from you guys that the proper that they put in about the trip generation takes care of the concern that you had and if not what they need to do. Because I know you haven't gotten to read the full thing yet. Right. The email the applicant said that would address to limit it to 64,000 square feet of office would address the concern that the trip generation is off. I have a question about that to follow on. But assuming distribution center may be as proffered out, but if it isn't, trip generation from for distribution center is going to be likely as bad if not worse as it is for 60,000 square foot office. So I mean, I just want to make sure there's still a traffic impact study that looks at trip generation for the highest use that's not proffered out. It's my understanding office is the highest intensity use of the list, but I can defer to transportation. And then I thought Commissioner Frank and Frank said, and I will defer to her to make her own point, but the point she has about overall density relative to, you know, that CR1 density, I think is significant. And Martiann made a great point about the kinds of accommodations that were made on the JK2 site that were intentional to mitigate the impact of that use against a residential project. If there's a way to look at those at the same time, make sure we have analogous protections for this. Thank you, Commissioner Barnes. Yes. See, what made me say no to this application when question was asked to the applicant about the footprints, where they're going to put it. He said, we are not going to change the footprint. And when they said that, that absolutely that that's what they want, they're not going to change it. Now, I have to ask them a question, see if they're going to change it. The footprint. If they're not going to change the footprint, leave it like it is, they're not going to change anything in their building. See, then it's not of any use to go sign it to the work session. But if the applicant agrees that they will change what we are looking for, and I can see going to the work session. But I don't see them agreeing to that. What the question Mr. Maharate asked him about the thing is absolutely not. We're not going to change it. So that's what caused me to say no to this application because they're not willing to change it. Well, I believe the applicants are willing to look at that. Mr. Moderetti, Commissioner Moderetti asked for was going back to the two building that they said no, we're not going to do that. So, just to just be clear you said you were willing to look at the footprint of that third building to minimize the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. Yes so I think there's a number of things we can do with that third building. Whether it's the footprint or other things like maybe potentially building height or mitigation measures on the design, additional screening. I think there's a number of things we can do use restrictions. I think this is a number of things we can do with that building without reducing the square footage, which is the primary concern. Okay. Okay. Vice-Chirmerler. Thank you. I didn't comment on the first work session motion. I thought I might have gone the way that Commissioner Myers made the motion. But this time I was hoping to comment in a way that maybe, guess I'm going to change your mind, which I didn't have to do, it doesn't appear so. But I still wanted to comment on something that Commissioner Jasper had said during her support of the original motion. And I agree with things that she said wholeheartedly that the county put the hidden wooden neighborhood into this position and it's up to the county to get them out of it. And I should preface it by saying I agree with her, were I not a planning commissioner? From this standpoint in that that decision is not a land use decision of how to get hidden wood out of it. From the land use decision part of it, and I have not, I'm not suggesting I'm going to support this motion when it comes out of work session, but I do think that from a land planning standpoint, going to the work session to make this application better, even if we send it forward with a recommendation of denial, we are acting in the planning commission realm of land use, even though I agree with Commissioner Jasper that this is a board of supervisors work around. This is for them to figure out how to solve this problem without a land juice decision. If they can come to that conclusion, then good for everybody. but given that our responsibility ends at land use, that's why I didn't want to vote with Commissioner and moderator on his original motion, because I think there's a possibility that we can improve this application, even with it ends up with a recognition aisle, because we want to give the board the very best application to consider should they decide not to use other non-land use mechanisms to To get them extricate themselves from the situation on behalf of the hidden wood folks So that was my rationale For going to work session and if it changes another mind great if commissioner Frank is all right with us, then even better. So that was my whole point to get that across that this is a land use issue. The board will address the non land use issues potentially when it gets to them. Thank you. Mr. Frank? Yeah, a couple of things. Two Commissioner Miller's point and Commissioner Jasper's earlier point. Looking at this from a land use perspective, we're never going to get a great fabulous, perfect solution in this area. We're past that it just organically didn't come together like plans that also evolved themselves. So here we are. I really would like that building C not to be there. The applicant doesn't seem open to that, so I will indulge, give an opportunity to everyone to see what we can do. For me, it's going to be a big, can we preserve any of the existing vegetation that's over on that eastern side? Can we set the building back even farther on that side? Can we, you know, what can we do to buffer it? Because again, I don't want to just move the problem to another community. And that's where I was last year on this, and that's where I remained still today. I don't think we've gotten there yet. I do think the right solution here from a land use perspective is going to be something that's a transition between the uses because we're you know you draw a line and hidden wood lane was the line and here we are. It didn't work so well. I will defer to the chair and staff and even the applicant as to which the appropriate meeting is to bring back. I just don't want to pigeon hold into April if that's not it. If there's, if we need to take a little more time to truly move the needle and get a better plan that transitions better in this area for everyone, I'd encourage folks to take it. So that was, that was why I made that amendment and why I'm willing to support this motion now. Thank you. Mr. Moderator, I don't believe you've spoken yet to this motion. No, I did not speak it. I think you're the last one. I just want to say detail to what Commissioner Frank said. There are certain things again. I had a conversation with them earlier, with an applicant. My understanding was they would like to move forward with the decision today. And for me to get there, where, to meet what they were trying to do, I had some conditions. I was asking them, for example, what can you do with a building, third building? Can you guess, I just a footprint? I was very direct with Mike, like what exactly? Because for me to get there, these are the things I was looking for. So when this they have no flexibility to do those, I don't know whether we can ever compromise without doing something big with that building. Like Commissioner Frank said, you know what, if extra month is going to give you guys flexibility to work on that, to show another iteration, and if we have no problem, again, my decision to make a motion was based on your original intentions. If you change your intentions and you want to want one more month to get it to where you can find a better solution for us, I don't have any problems supporting the motion to go to work session. Again, like I said, I don't want people to misunderstand. I was trying to push a decision to move forward without talking to other people here. What the intention was to put the motion for denial to start with. So again, if Mike and the applicant team is going to work with us to make adjustments, I'm okay supporting Commission of myers motion right now to go to work session. So thank you. Okay, I think everybody said it's chose to speak on this so closing commissioner Myers Thank you Um, and I want to thank the commissioners that are willing especially you to take this agree to go to a work session for us to work on this a little bit more. I think, and I hope the applicant has heard us all very loud and clear what we're looking for. And I appreciate everybody's honesty or not just honesty, but putting it on the table, what needs to happen in order to move this forward. And I think there is a solution that can work. I mean, when you look at the footprints, you have to also look at the character of the footprint. And you have to look at the way you can push it back. It's not just a square. It's how can we move that square. I also. I mean, when you look at the footprint, you have to also look at the character of the footprint. And you have to look at the way you can push it back. It's not just a square. It's how can we move that square? I also think that I want to point out because I have gone back and read a lot of records and reviewed a lot of stuff. And I want to say this, hidden wood did not set silent when JK2 came through. They said to the county, this isn't the right thing to do to us. And if you're going to do this, please do something for us. And the board decided to just ignore that. Whether it's right or wrong, they decided to ignore that. And I know there's a debate that two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes one and a half wrongs can make a right. But I think it's apparent on us to take that look at it now because they aren't somebody that came late to the table. They are somebody that's been here since the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s before the airport really started. And every time, and I call it this all the time, every time there's been a dot game, which is the general plan revamp. I've attended a lot of those meetings, and I always see see them there and they're trying to figure out what do they need to do to get somebody to listen. So I do think it is time for us to really try to make this application better and try to strike a balance where we can do something that it doesn't necessarily upset, not upset, but it gives a good feeling for the other abutting people to look at and say okay, they created a better buffer. We see what the users are going to be and some of these users could be better than what could happen by right. So I do think there is a win-win in this and I'm really appreciative of the Planning Commission agreeing to take another look at it. Thank you Vice Chair or thank you Chair for giving me the opportunity to close in comment. Thank you. Okay. Can I say something to? What's up? Can I say something? You already had a turn. What? Thank you chair for giving me the opportunity to close for closing comment Thank you, okay, okay? I'm ten to what's that can I say you already had a turn? What you did speak I did you did because you said about well if they're not willing to move the box and then that can change The lines and I know they're gonna work so you already had an opportunity to comment Okay, everybody can go twice I can go second. No everybody hasn't gone twice So she gets to go, she made the motion, so she gets to open and then she gets to close. I got it. All those in favor of the motion to go to work session say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No, anybody opposed? I'm saying. I was saying okay. So that motion will carry 7-0-1-11 with Commissioner Jasper of Standing Commissioner Banks absent for the vote. All right, folks, you guys want to take a 10 minute recess and we'll start right at 8 o'clock. We'll start up on the next ad and final application for the night. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm sorry. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I97, Quantum Park, ZCPA 2023-8 and ZIMOD 2023-63. 63. and the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next one is the next application for Quantum Park CCPA. Oh, my clicker's not working. Here we go. The subject property is 40.19 acres located with the located north of Loudon County Parkway, south of Waxball Road in the Broadrun Election District. Property Zone Office Park under the Loudoun County Zoning Ordinance was in the suburban policy area and the suburban employment place site. Application requests the zoning concept plan amendment for the development of data center, substation and office use. A zoning modification to increase building heights from 60 to 100 feet without additional setback requirements. Following the distribution of the packet for tonight's public hearing, the applicant has indicated that they are no longer seeking the zoning modification. President on screen is an annotated excerpt of the concept development plan. The data centers are indicated in blue, generally are in loading and purple, zoning modifications request is noted in red, and the substation on the right-hand side in gold. Tonight's application is within the larger planned World Comm Northern Virginia campus, which permitted office and research and development uses. There are outstanding issues with tonight's application, which we will focus on architectural design, substation screening, and the dedication of Lockbridge Road. Staff continue to work with the applicant to address clarification issues related to topics listed on the right of the screen. The general plan provides design guidelines to ensure development compatibility. Applicant has offered building renderings and further provided commitments for general architectural design and principal facetoretments that appear compatible with the server-over-in-employment place type, however staff recommend the applicant commit to specific elements of the building renderings. President on screen is an excerpt of the building renderings. The general plan recommends locating substations away from key travel corridors, and if alternate locations are not possible to provide additional design techniques to minimize visual impact. Application proposes a substation, 75 feet from Loudon County Parkway to be screened with a 12 foot opaque masonry wall on three sides and enhanced buffering on two sides. Staff recommend proper revisions detailing enhanced plantings, type of plants, and a timing commitment for the 12 foot masonry wall for first-site plan. President on screen is an annotated excerpt of the concept development plan with the substation indicated in gold. The masonry wall indicated in blue, which is the thin blue line around the gold, and the enhanced buffer indicated an orange on the east and south. The 2019 CTP anticipates planned roads to be incorporated into the land development process and the provision of necessary rights away. Application commits to dedicating the necessary right away for future lock-bridge road. However However staff recommend revisions to the Prophers to include tabulations, language of the commitment, and provisions to a timing commitment for the dedication as well. At the Planning Commission work session, the Commission had questions related to sub-station location, open space, and future quantum connect Boulevard. The proposed substation is consistent with existing electrical infrastructure along Latin County Parkway. Application proposes additional design techniques to screen the substation where it is located to include an enhanced buffer as well as a 12-foot opaque masonry wall, which the substation on the screen is in the bottom right hand corner within the larger campus. The commission was provided with analysis of open space within the land bay prior to tonight's public hearing. To summarize, the 1998 rezoning provided a commitment to the ordinance requirement of 20% open space. Tonight's application proposes 30% open space for the campus in alignment with the suburban employment place type recommendations. Open space on the screen, it is definitely washed out, it is indicated in green. The commission additionally requested for a summary of Lockbridge Road and Quantum Connect Boulevard, or futurebridge Road and future Quantum Connect Boulevard right away. The right away reservation was proffered to in the 1998 rezoning for 90 feet wide for 20 years. Profits were amended with the 2017 ZCPA amendment for a 110 foot right away. The reservation under the 1998 rezoning expired in 2018. Okay, commits to the 110 foot right away for Lockbridge and Quantum Connect Boulevard under the 2017 ZCPA Prophors along with a portion of the dedication under the current application. President Screen, you see future Lockbridge road identified on the bottom and Quantum Connect Boulevard that extends along the western edge of the subject property and beyond. Staff recommend the commission for the application to a future wax work session to address outstanding issues and staff are available for questions as well as we have DTCI support on the online. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for staff? Wish your mires. On your, the one page that you that you you I don't know what the number of the slide was I guess it's 14 Where you showed where how they're kept so are we to understand that this 30% open space is basically the aisles between the parking now and Actually part over here where the substations is going to go is now part of the 30% that gets them to the open space. The 30% is calculated across the entire land bay that this amendment is seeking to amend and they are additionally providing amenity areas indicated in the center of the screen by the x's and on the eastern portion, on the right hand side as the large large X as well. Where are the X's? It is center and above the red development areas. But they already exist. Those are preferred amended areas to be provided with this application. So they've not increased in the open space. They're just calculating what's already been. The 1998 rezoning committed to the zoning ordinance minimum of .2 times the buildable land area. The 2017 zoning concept plan amendment additionally committed to that same zoning ordinance requirement. Tonight's application exceeds that by providing 30% open space across the entire campus. Okay, let me ask the question again, because I'm very confused. Where I see the first three X's right there between the two red places. They already exist today as open space. So that's not that we're getting something new, it exists today. Is it just that you don't calculate it for open space or? So there's two components. There's the open space itself and then the meditized areas that are identified and x identified by the black axis. So to your point, the ponds that were there before they had over planned open space in 98. They exceeded the open space requirements. Now they're actually overall they're doing less. Obviously on the campus with more buildings, but they're still in line with the policy recommendation. So yes, a lot of what they're claiming already exists, but they're minimizing the overall commitment based on what they did before. Okay, so your last point was exactly what I was trying to get at. It's not that we're getting any more open space. It's just that they're looking at what they already had for that calculation. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so that is a very to me significant point that we're really not getting any, whether they need to or not. We're not getting any more open space with this particular application in front of us. Correct. And before these buildings were limited to only, aren't they limited to only 60 feet in height? Correct. The PDOP zoning ordinance requirements is 60 feet. To go beyond 60 feet, you would have required for every foot above 60 feet in height. You didn't need an additional foot of setback as well. But I guess what I'm saying is that the time this application was approved in 1998. There was an agreement of a 60 foot height, correct? Correct. So that was the deal, no offense, but the deal they cut then. Yes, that was the height approved with the 98 reason. One last question, sorry, and then I'll move on. In regards to the transportation issues that the roads were talking about in the contributions, did we take into account the roads that they didn't have to do that the state and others connected in for this project? I would defer it to DTCI staff that's on the line. With this application, no, we did not take that into consideration. Okay. I mean, I personally feel like that's a pretty significant because there are road commitments that weren't done with this particular application with the applicant because of the economic incentive that was done from the state and then the county agreed to take profit money that we had collected ahead of time from others to help get this advance quicker. So they didn't pay with all due respect a full share at the time of what they would have been done because of the economic opportunity we felt was bringing to the county. Commissioner Marsha talking specifically about land county parkway. Okay. Okay, that's my questions for right now. Thank you. Okay. Any other commissioners with questions for staff? All right. So I think both my questions are going to follow up with the commissioner Meyer said. So in the 98 rezoning there was an agreement to limit building heights to 60 feet. And this application is now looking to change that. Correct? Uh-oh. Someone's shutting me off to design It's time to go home. So at the time they committed to Tony's probably gonna have a better memory than me back in 98 but today the ordinance allows up to 100 feet with the setback They're asking to develop these front land bays per the new Or ordinance. New ordinance allows it, but what was agreed to back in the year? Was they agreed to in 98 was a 60 feet. Thank you. Okay. And that was one of the questions I asked about the road proffers. I was kind of curious this whole development is it's been redone and redone. What kind of proffers were made with the original zoning the subsequent ones. I just want to make sure we're capturing all the funds that this parcel of property have committed to and that we don't lose any of that money. I don't know, proper management or DTCI might have a better way to do that. So The question is, the commissioner of the Sun earlier about the commitments to develop Lawn County Parkway. This project, Delisbury, a lot of the projects along this corridor facilitated that road. For us to be able to go back and audit who did what and when. Or I'm sorry to say that wrong. I'm sorry that wasn't my question. Can I clarify? Go ahead and clarify. question was when this particular UNNAT World Com deal was done. The state because we were actually competing with other states to get this corpid campus. The governor's office and the economic development in the state of Virginia cooperated and said we will give to Loudon County X amount of dollars to help do this road infrastructure that's needed to get this place because others hadn't happened. The county had collected other proper money from around the area already that was setting in a bay because the development hadn't occurred that needed yet. The county agreed to put those funds forward to make sure that could happen sooner than later with the idea that this particular piece that we're looking at tonight was the case mark of the entire application because that was going to be the corporate campus. And so what my point was is there's money that a regular, it's probably not the right word to use, but a typical applicant would have been looked for to pay that in a partnership between the state and the county, they didn't end up having to pay because money was put into the pot, shall we say, for them, along with an expedited review, and everything that's happened for the application. I'm sorry, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, appreciate it. And then, Chair Kierstier point, we, proper management did look through the previous sets of proffers and did not identify anything that wasn't being carried forward. Okay, that's fine. So. All right, and then my final question regarding the, so I know there's several other data centers and the immediate vicinity of this parcel. Are there other hundred? Are there hundred like the ones across? All right, and then my final question regarding the so I know there's several other data centers and the immediate vicinity of this parcel Are there other hunter are there hunter like the ones across the street are they 100 foot? The ones across the street from Lyme County Parkway are 60 feet there's 60 so And the other adjacent ones in this you know off top of your head the ones in the You know within a you know half quarter mile up and down Loudon County Parkway Do we have any hundred footers to the east across Loudon County Parkway as well. Those are additionally 60 feet. 60 feet. To the immediate east on the building that is on the immediate front is just 47 and a half. And Dullesbury is 72 feet. Which is a different zoning district as well as place type. All right. Thank you. All right. Does the applicant have a presentation? Oh, so we come up. Okay. Commissioner Jasper. I'm just looking at the picture. I'm wondering, I noted that, and they reported, mentions that there has been no outreach to the community. I mean, just from looking at the aerial image, it looks like there, and other images, I looked at before a lot of residential around there Is there what what's the reason for not Having any outreach to the community to the immediate west is the oh goodness. It's the suburban compact neighborhood place type On that place type there is a current site plan for data center development. Compatibility within the uses is for a continuation of that development within the large community. Okay. You're talking about the Regency next door. I'll defer to the applicant on what outreach efforts they've done. Okay, thank you. Now we'll go to the applicant for a presentation. Oh, we've got another one. Sorry, Regency, is father's. Is that the Regency? That's the Regency. Yep. Okay. Darry, can you pull me up? Just thinking should we don't have any additional questions? Oh, sorry. I apologize. Goodness. I apologize. Goodness. Oh, no. Going once, going twice. All right, well, that's coming out. I'll start hitting some questions. Honorable Chair, distinguished members of the commission, Tony Calibri is delighted to be here this evening. And I'll especially begin with some questions. And I have a number of answers that I think are important. Cloud HQ, which is immediately to our north, is up to 100 feet. There are some actual buildings we think on the site that are over 60 feet. So we're talking about that in a minute. I'm going to rifle through with your help and permission, the PowerPoint. We've had a number of good questions this evening and we've had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Metaready on the site and I know there's some good issues that I think we can address right up front. So hopefully the clicker is working. Context is absolutely important. Suburban employment uses and we'll get to surrounding properties here in a second. Zone PDOP, Office and Data Center buildings are around us. I want to hit on this next slide for a second. We've got 5,000 employees who rise in custom and border control aligned to energy. Landmark is actually here represented as well. We have multiple tenants, multiple interests of this property. Every one of them is very cognizant of the application that's before you and every one of them supports it. It's interesting, we, Ms. Myers here, the only one who could go to the state and actually get some money from the state, which we complain about all the time. And I was here in the audience when you oversaw that case as well as the Saudi Arabi School, which Bob Warden also handled, not too far from here where Raging Wire is. This property as many of us may recall, was in steady disrepair. There was a major bankruptcy bankruptcy associated with it and there was a real question whether the entire site was going to be wiped out. Doug Fleet who is here this evening with us, the founder of American Real Estate Partners took a huge chance. They've invested over a billion dollars in this campus. They were able to consolidate all the Verizon employees. Verizon was seriously thinking about going somewhere else, despite the success of the board in landing this, really a noteworthy deal in 1998. Verizon might have gone somewhere else. Doug and his team got a custom and border control to come to this property. They've invested a billion dollars, and we've got really one of the most important campuses that I think we'd all acknowledge. Obviously, the line data centers is here as well. This is an incredibly responsible corporate citizen who takes great pride in their investment in Loudon County in front of the very significant taxes that you can imagine having sued from this property. With regard to the staff issues, honestly, I think we've addressed virtually all of them except for two, so I'm not even going to go through that. I'll address those two here in a few minutes. The previous application, which was before the Commission of the Board, and supported expanded the building footprint to accommodate the custom and board of control project critically important. Many proper commitments associated with you critically expanding Lock Ridge road dedication, which is on the CTP and has been for a long time. Reforestation, the buffers, the bike facilities, the bus shelters, architectural design, which I'll hit to in just a second. We're not asking for one additional square foot, we're not asking for zoning modification. Yes, the buildings are higher than some of the buildings that exist on the property. But for the reasons that I'll expand on and invite anyone who would like to tour with us. Hopefully between now and ultimately a decision by the Planning Commission, I think we have some really important data to share tonight. And going forward. Architectural design, screening, reforestation, offer transportation issues. This is a critical, I think, an objective qualification. Mr. Kierst, the question, chair, Kierst, that you just asked. Everything that's in orange is data center around us. Mr. Jasper, kind of to the page left where you see the Regency residential also to the left. There's a site plan approved for two data centers there. As you can see, they're really surrounding the property, which in kind of the pinkish color, not our buildings per se, but are substations. And we take that context too hard in the application that's before you. The buildings immediately to the right, again, iCloud are up to 100 feet. Critically important, this remains within the suburban employment area. Appropriate for data centers as affirmed by the Board of Supervisors in this very room within the last week. This is an appropriate site, a designated site for data centers. I'm going to come back to the architecture in a second. Again, no additional density, no waivers or modifications. The building that's on the eastern side, the right hand side actually will probably be slightly lower to accommodate the building setbacks and restrictions there. I'm just going to keep going. I do want to talk about the architecture for a minute. Many of you have said this is probably one of the most, if not the most attractive data centers that you have seen. We view them as really office like. That's a reflection of the building on the right hand side. And then critically, and here's what I'll pause for a second and just note, I don't think that some of our graphics have gotten to some of the issues that I've heard from Miss Myers and others. What is reflected between the two data center buildings here is about 500 plus feet. You have a football field and a half between these data centers. And I think there's legitimate concern about are we hiding the campus behind? In fact, Doug could embellish on this, but we'd be here a lot later than you probably want to be. We view this as really a pillar of the community. We view Latin County Parkway as a critical road frontage, if you will, despite the fact that we're surrounded by data centers. We want to create something really noteworthy here. And I don't think that the graphics to date have reflected how far apart those are or how much you're going to be able to see. We're going to create a noteworthy architectural treatment and landscaping in the center. If you look at the, I'm going to go back just a second, bearing with me. If you look at that center area which anyone who's been by the site, we've been past it many times, it's pretty flat and open, it's just a green field. It's going to be significantly widened on both the east and the west side. We're going to create a significant landscape area there. You will be able to see a good portion of the buildings that you can view there today. And what I like to do is invite anyone who would like to join us to come stand where digital is, which is on the south side, look at the graphics that we're finalizing, look at the setbacks, we'll actually demarcate on the property, how far apart these buildings are, and I think it'll mitigate a number of the concerns that I've heard. We take great pride in this incredibly important campus. We've invested a billion dollars to be here, creating the most attractive architecture, creating something really noteworthy is something that Ms. Myers and this county can take great pride in. Mr. Fleet does as well, and that's why this application is before you. We look forward to continuing to discuss it in more detail. I think I'm going to run out and can't see the clock, so I don't know how much time I have left. But three minutes, I have lots of time. So here's a view from the north looking toward the south. I want to hit the substation here, which is on the right hand side. This starts to give you a flavor again for the separation between these buildings. Thank you, Marshawn. Transportation we've already talked about. importantly the Lockbridge Road Plans which are page left here we've got a dedicated additional right of way. The county needs a storm drainage facility, circle in the top portion, as well as a right turn lane there in the bottom portion of the site. So we're happy to continue to work with the county. We've talked to all of you about the substation. That's the eye cloud substation that exists today. I think we're doing significantly better. Specifically, one of the commissioners might have been, Ms. Frank asked, could we put a substation behind the buildings? We can't do that, it's just too close. But what is reflected here is the fact that our substation area is about two acres versus for comparison sake. I clouded over five. We are committing to doing a number of things which several of you suggested. The chair suggested is there a way to push this back a little bit further. We're evaluating that. We're going to profit to see if we can work with dominion and shrink that 2.12 acres even a little bit more. We're hopeful that we can. I think the vice chair suggested a berm underneath the screening wall which we're happy to accommodate 4 to 6 feet plus a 12-foot wall. And as reflected at the bottom, I think you'll have a screening wall of some 16-18 feet. What's reflected though in our graphic is the fact that it matches and it complements frankly the architecture of the building. So we know the substation to our issue. We know the visibility of them is an issue. This rendering is an accurate depiction and it doesn't even yet show the berm. So we're very confident that we can accommodate those concerns. To cut to it, I had a great discussion with Ms. Myers. She's made her views clear about her concerns. I hope to invite you and anyone from the commission who would like to join us out on the site. We haven't yet really done the graphics I think necessary to give you the sense of really creating something noteworthy both by the architecture and bringing it forward to Loudon County Parkway and then critically protecting the opening that I've heard a number of you say is important. I think Commissioner Metaready got a flavor for that when he toured the site last night and we look forward to buttoning up a couple of issues with staff. I don't think there's really much left to go there but I'm confident that we can achieve some improvements as you all discussed in the last. Excuse me in the last case between now and our next dialogue. I'm happy to answer any questions. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Questions for the applicants. Commissioner Cones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tony, can you go back to one of your slides where you were pointing out where the other 100-foot data centers are? And can you just sing a little amount for us? This probably shows it better. Nope, this one does. It, Christianer Combs, they're basically right to the right of the red area reflecting our application. The first thing to the right is the substation. I don't think I have an arrow on this. Do I have an arrow? A laser. Do I? I just don't get anybody in the eye. There we go. I don't see the laser. There we go. All right. Here's the application. Here's Loudon County Parkway. Here's the lock bridge proposal critical Connection which makes a lot of good sense. That's the five plus acre Substation I alluded to and here the iCloud building which if you go Over corner, you will get a sense of the height. And I think they're raised in the sense of where to lower grade. And when you're up really at the top, I don't know that it crests above 100 feet, Commissioner Comes, but it might. Sorry. There I go. There with me. Let me go back. Sorry, Doug. I don't know if you're just trying to speak to Tony, but if you want to speak us. I'm sorry. You know about the. Oh, next to reach. I think this needs a new battery. Right across the new meta, the new forest-growing meta-building. Okay. That's right across the street and just down there. And then Tony, you mentioned so immediately to the west across the the quantum connect boulevard Where I think you mentioned those are sight here. Yeah, those are sight plan approved by iCloud Do we have a sense? I don't know if they've got any any CPAP documents in but do we know how tall those buildings are spec to be? I do not I'd have to find out okay Yep Thank you. Commissioner Monaretti. Oh, you don't? Commissioner Colmes refinished. Yeah, okay. Commissioner Monaretti. So, Tony, when I went to see the site yesterday, I thought for some reason the substation is not going to be right adjacent to the Lord and County Parkway. Rather it will be almost in the back side. Start somewhere in the middle, but your illustration there actually shows almost a wall at the last year. It's right by the Lorden. That is the screening wall for the substation. It'll be at least 75 feet removed from Loudon County Parkway. We're actually buttressing the screening in front of that. We're going to add a berm underneath that screening wall and raise it even higher. And again, we're going to proffer the commitment to work with Dominion, Mr. Metarete, to see if we can shrink a little bit and if we can move it back further. It literally cannot go behind the buildings. It's not behind the building though, but at least I had a feeling that it will be like at the side of the building, not. It's the side. This picture almost feels like it's in front of the building right now. Maybe there is something wrong with the picture though. It's off to the side. the building is, we need to get a new, we definitely need to get. So there's the edge of the building and this is the substation area. As you can see, it's actually set back quite a bit farther than the iCloud one to your right. That you saw last night on the other side of the unit says road. I had a feeling that it was not, like now it's actually protruding from the building. I thought it will be like at least on the side of the building. That's what I thought yesterday. So, come on. If it doesn't work, it's Brian. If it doesn't work, it's Brian's fault. He gave it to me. Yeah. Yeah. You need a burn. She's had that in her purse. Nice. Oh, wow. There you go. Can you show me the 100 feet one again? The 100 feet tightest you show me the 100 feet one again? The 100 feet, I just did a standard. Again, here's the application area. This is the iCloud substation that we're just talking about. Here are the iCloud substations, excuse me, data centers to the north and to the east. There's Waxpool Road in Lyon County Parkway. And they're up on a pretty significant topography lift there as well. So I think they're going to be substantially higher than you know what we propose. You kind of drop down to this area. So these as well, we're double checking to confirm the heights of those. But there is no 100 feet data center right there right now. There is, sir. We believe these are 100 feet. Those are 100 feet, okay. Yes, sir. And we're checking on the once immediately, can you give us to us as well? Okay. We'll have that information for you. All set? Mr. Jasper. Thank you. Hi. Thank you. I commend you for the level of architecture on the data center. We haven't spoken. I'm sorry. Yeah. And so I look forward to getting out and touring. My concern, and so when you come back for the next conversation, my concern is really the impression on loud and county parkway. Right now as you're driving down loud and county parkway, it, you know, under the circumstances given the type of development is, and notwithstanding the kind of failure of the substations to meet this criteria generally. So I'm just going to pretend substations don't exist and they're better buffered than they are and all of that. and we've certainly spoken as a commission about this previously. But that having to very large 100 feet data centers right up there, on Loudon County Parkway with very little setback is going to feel quite daunting. This is one of the things we address all the time. And that commodious feel that's there now, that kind of expansive feel, is one of the benefits that is existing currently that will be lost. I love the idea, that kind of sense of procession that you have down to the middle of the site. I think there could be kind of really positive things in terms of you know activating that space to the extent it can be activated for the benefit of campus users. But I just when you come back understanding where there are other other hundred foot data centers, how far they are from, you know, curb and gutter or whatever, so that we understand that we're really not, you know, kind of creating a condition as we look at this where we've, you know, got a hundred foot building sitting right up in your face as you're driving down Loudon County Parkway because that would obviously not be Comfortable for county residents as they drive through workers or whomever Thank you for your comments be delighted to see you out on the site. I think one of the team has discussed actually putting some of the the if you will of the buildings. You'll get a much better sense than even from this graphic about how far apart they are, how far back they are set. And really the vision that Doug in particular and the team has about creating and really protecting an area that we know a lot of you feel proprietary about. We feel very proprietary about it, having invested a billion plus dollars and we want to make this something of real pride for us. I would also say on the perspectives. Yes ma'am. The way the perspective is working now, you're buying the item and you're looking up at the far corner and so what you're seeing when you look at the car is the sense of, if you took it from a bird's eye perspective and did it the opposite way, you'd really get a sense of how little human beings, you know, pseudo human beings and pseudo cars were relative to these buildings. And I'd be curious what those other perspectives look like. Thank you. We're taking good notes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Myers. The substation. Is that substation being proposed by you all to serve your additional space? Is this substation something that's supposedly needed for our existing spaces? It would be dedicated to these two facilities, ma'am. So if you don't have these two facilities and we don't need that substation. Not that I'm aware of that's correct. I don't know that there's any regional proposal for a substation in this area. Okay, thank you. First of all, Rick. Thank you. I won won't you know how I feel about the substation. I wish it could be anywhere but where it is. And just because there's a neighboring one, I really don't want to repeat what I think was maybe a mistake. Although I understand that application had some different iterations as it moved through its process too. So reforestation is wonderful but it's not the same as preservation of existing. Trees and vegetation and is there any way to save more than we are? I mean two plus acres of pollinators. I love a butterfly. I don't want someone's going to come now and yell at me about this. But it doesn't have the same impact for people, either visual or environmentally, and heat island purposes and everything else to put a shrub that attracts butterflies as a bunch of mature trees. Now, I know is a pretty clear spot we're really talking about the perimeter where those trees are and perhaps they're all going because of the road. But if we've got an image and you can show me if there's any way to save anything, I'd be interested in seeing it. We're happy to look at that, Ms. Frank. I think again what, what really struck me, and I've been passed aside a thousand times, and I went past it four times over the last four days, just to make sure I could see it when it was cloudy, when it was sunny. What was interesting to me, and I drew it through the campus up into where the gates are, the main entrance itself, which is striking. I agree with Ms. Myers about that. There's actually no trees or very few that are right there in the middle. This rendering to me does not do justice to what I know Doug's vision is for landscaping along the Latin County Parkway, which we think is very important. And the football field in a half that's going to be suggested between these two buildings. Doug was telling me before the hearing tonight. He actually has a vision of perhaps doing some semi-circular stone walls to really help bring that view to Miss Jasper's point. So there is, you know, some, there isn't a disparity between the road. There's some really interesting things that we can do and create some of the monetized areas outside that don't exist today. So I'm asking you to trust me and believe me. I'm asking and inviting anyone who would like to tour the site with us to see some of that vision. We have graphics that are in the works and when you're out on the property and get a better sense of the things that I'm describing tonight, I think it will all be much comforted. You may or may not agree with me but I think it will be much much comfortable. Yes. All right. From myself, can you go back to the pretty color picture of the campus? Yeah. I would love to see that picture with the where the data centers are going to sit superimposed on top of it that would really give me a sense of How they sit on that site Going back to the substations so you know, I'll fess up One interesting about being on the planning commission three Disjointed times as you see a applications, you approve, get built. And I remember that one on the corner, I think that's Cloud HQ on the corner. I know the really concerned about looks and visual impacts, and I know that was the Ashburn District then. And the commission was very, very concerned about the visual impact along Waxville Road, but kind of forgot about the visual impact along Loudon County Parkway. And so if I knew now what I know then, I would have looked for something a bit different than what was approved there. So do I want to see it replicated because in my opinion I made a mistake the first time? No. So I'd ask when I met with the representatives earlier about the substation, and we're talking about the existing office and one of the comments he kind of made as well. Yeah, that's the office, it's seriously over-parked. I said go then, can you not push it back? And you have a, where you have your substation, there's a little wooded area and there's some parking back there. Can you push the data center back 30, 40 feet and maybe push and then relocate the wooded area to a part of that parking, which you probably don't need. And that would I think help tremendously to get the substation far enough back that it won't be such a visual impact. So that was what I was looking for, if that's a possibility. We're actually evaluating that. Some of that parking is absolutely necessary. We do have some major utilities in corridor back there. Chair curious, but we're evaluating that. We're going to proper to it one day or more by the time. Hopefully we return to the planning commission. Okay. All right, and with that, I go ahead and open up the public hearing. I do have one person signed up to speak and that is a gem bingo representing the Piedmont Environmental Council. Good evening again, Chair. Here's and planning commissioners. Yes, I'm here representing the Piedmontmont environmental council so it took a little while to sort of Get all the details down and I may not have them all however One of the things or the things that Strike us are the things that have been mentioned here this evening this campus gives you a real sense of openness when you come down loud in County Parkway. It is important to have that openness. And so having 100 foot buildings right on the road, of course, we don't have a clear sense of what you're actually talking about, but it would change this place dramatically. And if it's, it would look nothing like what you have here today. So I don't know the terms substantially, substantial conformance. Well, this is a totally different thing, animal. And I think if you'd ask any loud and county resident about this change, they'd go, what? So of course, this is your property, and you are trying to make it a fantastic place. Well, I think open space is really important. Hiding it back there between the buildings around the gar is whatever, that really doesn't do anything for the community. And so I think that rethinking that would be really important. Another thing that is something that perhaps the Planning Commission and the applicant aren't aware of is DEQ just had a meeting in Sterling a couple weeks ago because they have to look at the Broadbron watershed. It does not meet standards for water quality. And so they have to do things to improve the water quality. Well, I said, well, this watershed is still developing intensely. So how do you deal with that? How do you deal with all this data center development that's so much impervious cover? So thinking about something beyond two LIDBMPs I think would be really important. How can you help to improve the water quality in this watershed? And also, I think that it's really important to look at the, I mean, you talked about it just now, but we counted up the number of parking garages there are. That's a lot of impervious cover. What could you do to not build on green space, but sort of replace your impervious cover so you're not increasing it? So I think that the things that we're concerned about are the same thing that the planning commission has expressed concern about and hope to see some improvements. Thanks. Thank you. That was the only person we had signed up. Is there anybody else in the room that wants to speak to this application? Is there anybody online scheduled to hear? No. Public hearing is now closed. This is in the broad run district. So I will go to Commissioner Frank for motion. Thank you, Chair Kierce. I move that the Planning Commission forward andgy 2023-0097, Quentin Park, ZCPA 2023-008, and ZIMOD 2023-0063 to a Planning Commission work session for further discussion. Second. Motion made by Commissioner Frank. Seconded by Commissioner Modder-Ready. Commissioner Frank, do you have an opening? I don't want us to completely go down to rabbit hole and repeat everything we said earlier, but I do think this is an opportunity to improve something, and I think the applicant has already come forward just in the last 24 hours with removing a Z-Mod and some other things, some clarification that I think we really just need to get codified and better understand before we can really make a decision. And I think there's more data folks are looking for heights of nearby data centers. Can we do something better with a substation? Be it a location of a berm, all of the above. Can we keep more green and open? I share Commissioner Myers concern. I look at this and go, wow, we're counting, you know, Islands as green space. Did we still not fix that in the zor? You know, I thought we made it better, but maybe we didn't go far enough or this is all old stuff and we don't use that. But it doesn't feel like meaningful open space in the new plan. Whereas it's clearly meaningful where it is now. So I think, you know, how do we mitigate that? Again, for me, I keep coming back to transition and mitigation. So hopefully we can work on improving this before we're done with it. And see if we can't, you know, that's a big football field. But it, boy, it doesn't, you're driving down that corridor, you just sound surrounded by concrete. I'm quite candidly concerned about the center of your donut, where the office building still exists, because I'm not sure those folks in five years are going to still want to be there. And, you know, anyway, that's a market concern, I guess, but it's still one that keeps nibbling at the edges as I think about this. So I think we can make it better. And I hope that the commissioners will join me in supporting that motion. Comments? Commissioner Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Happy to support the motion to go to work session. I, too, of course, have concern about the existing openness that we have there and what's being proposed. I would like to see that the enhanced landscape architecture that you mentioned and the thoughtful design that you all have for that football field in a half. See what that looks like. As Chair Kier suggested, perhaps superimposing the proposed buildings on this very demonstrative would be helpful for us to consider. I do lament all of the gross over parking here, all the structured parking, the at grade parking, in which there was some more we could do with some of that understanding. Of course, you've got psych constraints and some things of that nature. So excited to see what can be improved here and what further detail you all can give us. So for that reason, I'm happy to see this at work session. Okay, any other comments? Commissioner Myers. I would respect for Commissioner Frank. I'll support her motion to go to work session. However, I don't want anybody to think that means I'm supporting this application. Because I'm not at all. I still go back to the fundamental that this land application had. It has its deal in place that it cut with not just the county but the state of Virginia. And there is no economic reasons why it doesn't still work with what they got approved. As they said tonight, they have 5,000 employees, they have all these different things that are going on. This is not a vacant building that we're looking to try and fix. It is an absolute statement of that quarter. It was designed that way. The state bought into it, we bought into it, the general assembly brought into it. There is nothing that has changed that says, oh, this building's too old. This doesn't keep up with what we look. It's one of the few places that has a campus field to it left on the out in County Parkway. And I don't think we destroy that Just because someone wants to do 100 foot building, please remember that this building is going to be 40 feet higher than the existing buildings that are there today that go into that campus. It's going to be completely changed. We also won't need a substation if we don't approve this. Everybody's talking about don't put data centers where there's not already the power to take care of it. So the original application with the fountain spaces and that open spaces was dictated on is what a lot of us bought into and a lot of us worked hard to get approved. This is a completely changing of what that was with no economic rule. I appreciate you made an investment, but you've also gotten a return on your investment. And I'm not here to do your economic modeling but I don't I see no good reason. I mean, if you go back in history this property was first a farm. It was a beef farm. Then it went from being a beef farm to being where a bracket turned around to do sod farming. It went from being a sod farming to the county actually was one point putting a racetrack here. went from a racetrack because the referendum failed for off-trust batting but it was approved on this exact property and it went from being that the county was one point putting a racetrack here. It went from a racetrack because the referendum failed for off-traffit baiting but it was approved on this exact property and it went from being that to this beautiful campus. That is what it should be. It found an ending spot. So to me there's not a good planning reason. I know the economic reason. It's a lot of money. I'm not debating that. But I'm just saying, you know, it's going to snow tomorrow because I'm going to say this. I'm agreeing with Jim Bingle. You know, it's going to snow tomorrow. She's waiting 30 years to hear me say that. But I will support your motion to go to work session. Yeah. Okay. I'll also support the motion to work to work session. I have very much pros and cons on this application. When I look at where the data centers belong, this is the corridor they belong. But I also, I moved to the county in 97. So I've watched this site develop. I came in after the racetrack what came and and went, that proposal. But I remember when you, you net moved in, I saw a Marine one flying there, Bill Clinton dedicated it. So it was a big deal. And then MCI World Com was going to change the world for Loudon County. And then we saw what happened with that. So it's gone over a lot of changes. And one thing that's remained was the entrance to this, as you drive along Loudon County Parkway and this Loudon County Parkway is developed into the data center alley it is. This little piece of it's almost the breath of fresh air. So I have a hard time saying well go ahead and let's go ahead and pave it over because well it fits County policy and we can. Drivers for me are going to be moving that, seeing that substation get dealt with more appropriately than it is shown right now. I'm probably going to be more inclined to keep the building height at 60 feet and not 100. I might be able to wrap my head around that, but I'm still very much, I got two sides of my shoulder talking to me on this one, and I haven't figured out where it's going to settle up here yet. So I look forward to working through these issues when we get to a work session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, real quick. We do a lot of it. We have a substation design, heights of adjacent data centers. We'll have a map of that. Some discussion about variations of perhaps the proposed building height, more detail in terms of the landscape, proposed landscape architecture, maybe less pollinators. Okay. And then update this graphic with the proposed reference. And I did you know the applicant mentioned that he felt the applicant was very much interested in doing a much more comprehensive landscape design along a loud and conny park. If you do have a night, what you have in mind to be nice to see it so that that would definitely help. Mr. Chair. Yes. I heard a lot of talk about urban heat island and the amount of over parking on the project. I mean, I wonder whether this is an opportunity, especially on parking structures to do green roofs, to mitigate some of that and to improve the affluent that's going into broad run. The other thing I would suggest that the applicant hearing Commissioner Myers position and some of the other positions. You know, this is an effort to try and monetize, which is what developers do and that's a good thing, to the max, the site. But is there somewhere that you're not monetizing to the max, not just limiting it to the 60-foot height, but perhaps leaving that breathing space, and taking into account some of the strong opposition that we've heard about the change in the terms of the deal, so to speak, from when this was initially blessed and supported by the county. All right. Richard Frank, do you have a closing? Very briefly, as my iPad decides it needs an update or something. Never mind. All right. I don't know unless we all, the witching hour I guess and it's taken over and doing its own thing. You know I I I've walked around for the last two days with a counting crow song in my head. You pay paradise and put up a parking lot. It was farmland it was open and obviously it's not anymore but and this is not a parking lot it is of greater value and certainly better tax revenue than a parking lot but it is feeling like we're taking that approach where we're just tearing down clear and everything and putting them anywhere we can to to Commissioner Jasper's point and I just this one's a hard one so I encourage the applicant to continue working I mean it is it is a very nice design. If that's proford to wonderful, let's clarify everywhere we can put a tree. Maybe it's not instead of pollinators, but in addition to them, realizing that you've got utilities, mints, and height things under power lines, and restrictions in places. But let's not feel like we're completely clearing out everything green for concrete and see if we can't get closer to where it sounds like a lot of us would like to be. So thank you all for supporting the motion and I'm done. Okay, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that motion will carry 801th Commissioner Banks absent for the vote. All right, thank you very much and we'll see you at a future work session and That concludes the public hearing for tonight Brian. I think we had one or two administrative items That's correct. I have one item for you It's about the May 8th work session would the planning commission be able to start that meeting at 5 p.m., rather than the normal 6 p.m.? The reason is that the county would like to train us all on how to deal with emergency situations in the board room. We would like to train the planning and zoning managers and the commission at the same time and we would like it to be a closed session due to the security issues being discussed. So can folks make it five o'clock that day. May 8th. Normally move that. Do we need to formally move that? Is it the time or a particular case? I think they're going to want to do it separate from a regular meeting time your mic on there. Is the scene how it's all the way to tell May 8th, there's no chance that we could just do it at a regular 6 o'clock time and then start the public hearing afterwards. I'm just asking because, you know, for me, that particular day being here by 5 o'clock, which means really if you want anything you're here by 430 is just That's a difficult day for me to be here that early so Brian I'm looking to make a right now. I don't think we have anything on the work session agenda for maith will probably have something By then If we started if we did this at sex Can we just re-advertise the public hearing to start? I mean the work session to start at 7 p.m.? Well, I mean we could still start at 6 and just say the first item is this closed session. Well, they're trying to do it combined with the commission and planning and zoning staff. I understand that but I'm just saying could they come, could they stay 1 x or hour? They're already here till five. This is what I'm asking. Right. One reason is we didn't want the applicants and staff and the public to wait around four hour while we're in position. So, I don't mind what they're like the way they're tonight. So, I don't know if it just my issues are going to be more Thursdays than Tuesdays. So were you to do that on a Tuesday? It's going to be a lot easier for me to do that versus Thursdays. I'm in Ashburn until five o'clock. It's pretty hard. So. Okay. Wow. So. My iPad now turn your iPad. Minds not going in Chinese. Can we do a separate date is could we do it? Is that memorial thing? Yes, go say. It's always. Works for me. It's the Tuesday after. See, if you're not going to be here because you're on vacation, then it doesn't matter if we start at five or six. I mean, I'm here. I'm just thinking if Tuesday the 25th is a better day for people than- Tuesday the 27th. I'm in March. Sorry. Tuesday the 27th. Tuesday the 27th is a better day for people than Thursday the 8th. Brian, as far as is that working for- Can we look to see if we can just do 6 o'clock on that deck that he wanted to do? I mean, and we just tell people that we've got enough time ahead to tell people we're not going to start until seven. Yeah, but I think there's more people than just us that have to attend this. Yeah, that's that. Which is why we're trying to do it at five. It's. I mean, there's a reason why we can't do it at five on the 27th. So that's a better day for her. That would mean doing a separate training for planning commission alone rather than combining it with staff. I know, right? I've been trained. I've been trained a couple times now. So Brian, can you see if it's possible that there will be a separate training? I can look into that, yes. I know the preference obviously is to do it wall one, but. Well, so my question before we go make him go through that effort, can we not do it at 5 p.m. on the 27th? Is there somebody that's a hard, no I can't do it. So everybody's coming the day, I'm just making sure everybody's going to be here because that's the day after. Memorial, we have this discussion when we submitted the P. Well, I'm not sure we need the people. We have six people here for that ring. I know, well that happens, that happens. But you go with the information you have at the time. So my preference would be to go ahead and schedule it at the 27th at 5 p.m. The day of our public hearing. Okay. Range race second. I would refer if it would probably insane, this would work. So I would prefer to just go with this and be done with it. Rather than try to see if he can make something else. I'm just trying to think it doesn't sound like anybody saying they can't do it. So- The question is can the county provide training on that date? Whether we can be there or not is a relevant. The question is- I asked him that he said yes. I yes. Yes. I'll confirm that. Oh, right. That's a vermin. Right. Don't ruin it for those who haven't been through it. Okay. So why don't we plan that unless we hear something otherwise from you, Brian, we'll plan on the Tuesday the 27th at 5 p.m. Do you need that as a motion or is it administrative item? No. No motion. Okay, was there anything else? The by-laws, sent us changes by next Monday or Tuesday. Yeah Just I saw an email that you are only accepting changes or requesting that changes be submitted in word and with track changes as opposed to Okay, because that was not something I have any other requirement that you'd like to use. Go for it. So what you're trying to do is get it. So it's much easier for everybody to look at the change and saying here's what it says now and somebody says okay I'd like to change this and insert this. And then that up then that commission has the opportunity to explain the rationale and then we can see yeah, yeah, vote vote it up on down and we know the language. There's no, if you get like a two paragraph explanation of something you want changed. It doesn't, it's going to have to be in that format before we could do anything. So I'm just asking if you can submit it in that. If it means taking a paper copy and scratching out and saying insert this, that's too for those that no don't use word Well when you get nine people putting track changes and you know It gets a little complicated potentially, but it's fine I just just say know at the last meeting there was only a couple and I understand that it might be a few more So it wasn't like we had a whole lot okay, and there's only you, you weren't here so this is your opportunity to put them in. Thank you. And I think Commissioner Myers wanted to put it in a couple more. Everybody else I think was good. So. Having clarity about the expected procedure is helpful. So that's why I asked the question. Yeah. I wanted to ask the question about, so I'm going to do this on my iPad. I'm not going to do this on another document because I'm going to use notes. No, but I'm just saying so. My question is, the expectations of what I'm tracking is I can't only tell you what I want to see put forward as a change. I can't tell you what other people want. So, I mean, to me, it's just, here's what it says, and here's my recommendation. Here's what it says, here's my recommendation. But that doesn't allow a tracking like I've seen them do where they cross out stuff. And as if I'm just saying for me, what I see myself doing is simply saying, 5.1 or whatever says this, here's my suggested change. 5.2 says this, here's my suggested change. It's not necessarily going to be fancy color coded and all like that. Okay. So the language is very specific. Here's what it says. Here's what I wanted to say. That works too. Like I said, I'm not going to get into other documents and other iPads and my personal computer. It's not going to be used. That's fine. Do you hear me? OK. That was any Brian or anything else? OK. My personal computer is not going to be used. That's fine. Did you hear me? Okay. Any Brian or anything else? Any quicksures out there? Any one discuss? No? All right.