I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. I'm going to go to the office. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go to the office. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to go make a stand-up of my computer money. That's a good thing. No matter how many people are there, you can meet them. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'm going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to I'll let you know. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I have a question. I'm sorry. It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's It's Yeah. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Good evening everyone. Set on. Okay. The September 12, 2024. Loudoun County Planning Commission work session will now come to order. As is our custom, please join us in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I think my pledge would be to see the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God and a visible liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We have our July 11th, 2024 work session minutes to review. I believe those were distributed in advance as well. Do I have a motion to approve? Madame Chair, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Loud and County Planning Commission work session meeting minutes for July 11, 2024 as presented. We have a second. Second. All right. Motion is made by Iced Chircombe, second and by Commissioner Madeready. Any changes updates to those minutes? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. The motion carries. 9, 0. These are on, everything. It just sounds different. They must have they changed something with that too. Okay, all right As long as they're breaking here us all right before we get into our agenda items I will ask for disclosures. We'll go ahead and work our way down Mr. Barnes anything No, Mr. Miller Monday the No, Mr. Miller. On Monday, the 9th, I met with Aaron Swisselm. We're going to have a lock from Walls, Anthony, Ivanoff Roe from Luxdon, Rich, Britain, and Duke Berry and Tushar from, Tushar, A.W.R. from Grove Slade about the Luxdon application. And then then yesterday I had a conversation with Molly Novotny from curator partners regarding the Goose Creek project tonight. Okay, Commissioner Jasper. Microphone, sorry. Okay, Commissioner Jasper. microphone. Sorry. Thank you. Give me a month off then, I forget everything. On August 14th, I met at the Luckett's community as a representative of the Loud and Historic Village Alliance, just to be clear, but I did meet with them concerning small area planning. Yesterday on the 11th, I met with the Loudon Chamber concerning the CPAM on data centers. And today I met with the Loudon Historic Village Alliance concerning the CPAM for identifying small rural historic villages. Thank you, Commissioner Mader ready. I took your call from Marley Nawatni on ghost recapplication today earlier today. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Banks on September 10th I had a meeting with the applicants team regarding goose goose creek club 2 and also on September 10th I had a meeting with the Loudon County Chamber regarding data center issues Commissioner Myers Yes on September the 4, I met with the representatives on the Groschen meal application. I met with Loudon Chamber in the data center. On the 5th, I met with the trail side park applicant. I attended the public hearing for the Ashland underground hearing and testified as a citizen. Commissioner Kieres. Thank you. August 5th, I met with Theo Stomatis of the chamber and Cam Jones, the county's affordable housing, and Budsman to review a site for potential affordable housing. August 6th, they had a phone conversation with meeting, phone meeting, video meeting with Roy Barnett of Van Meter Holmes about affordable housing opportunities. August 7th, I met with the applicant and the representatives for the Arcola Grove application. August 26th, they attended the pre-application conferences for the Horseshoe Drive Data Center as well as the Sunnies limo application pending possible applications on September 9th Had a video conversation with again the ostomatis of the chamber and numerous representatives of the developer of the data center development community Regarding the data center see community regarding the data center CPM and ZOM. On September 9th, I attended a pre-application conference about the Dulles Summit South data center. And then also met with the Ostemodis and CAM Jones and reviewed two other potential sites for affordable housing. Is it? Thank you. Vice Chair Comes. Thank you, Madame Chair. On September 3, I met with the Loudoun Chamber regarding the data center, CPMZOM. Okay, and for myself on September 10, I also met with the Loudoun Chamber representatives in committee on the Data Center C. Camenzone. All right, we are done with our legislative, our disclosure items will move into our legislative items. On our agenda tonight, we'll start with Legee 2023--3 trailside park. Allison, welcome back. Okay. Good evening. Thank you. I'm Allison Britton and I'm here today to present the application for Trailside Park. As a reminder, the subject property is a 10.22 acre property located west of Claiborne Parkway south of the WNOD Trail in the Ashburn election district. This property is zone plan development housing for located in the suburban policy area and the suburban neighborhood place type. The site is currently the site of Trailside Park, a county owned public facility. The applicants are requesting a commission permit and special exception to develop a 150-foot model with a two-foot lightning rod with capacity for up to four wireless carriers and an associated 1,850 square foot antenna hub site located approximately 200 feet away. and the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the site by the existing park equipment sheds to behind the bathroom facility on the park on the left was the previous site design and on the right is the current site design The applicant has reduced the overall footprint of the proposed antenna hub site and has requested a modification to eliminate the buffer requirements around a portion of the antenna hub site. The proposed buffer modification is a minor special exception, which proceeds directly to the board. In addition, the applicant has provided additional information related to service coverage in the area, including a drive test, updated propagation maps, and updated visual simulations. Here is a graphic of the proposed Commission Permit and Special Exception plot overlaid with aerial imagery. And here is the Monopol elevation showing four carriers. The relocated light fixtures are proposed to remain approximately 80 feet, same as they are now. And here is the revised layout of the equipment compound with the buffering shown on the north and east sides are where there are existing tree cover. The Loudoun County 2019 General Plan supports the provision of wireless connectivity in suburban areas. The county's strategic land use plan for telecommunications facility establishes a hierarchy of location preference. The county's first preference is to have new antennas collocate on existing tall structures to minimize the need for new tall structures. The second level of preference is to locate new towers on existing public facility sites, such as a park or fire rescue site and the plan anticipates mitigation of impacts to the character and use of the public site in the surrounding community. So staff proposed conditions related to color, design and to otherwise blend the monopol and existing ball field lighting with the surrounding landscape. Staff support approval of the commission permit and recommendation approval of the special exception application as it was found to be consistent with the location character and extent envisioned in the general plan and generally consistent with the county's strategic plan for telecommunications facilities. Staff are happy to answer any questions. Mark Novak from Parks and Recreation is also available for any questions and the applicant also has prepared a brief PowerPoint. Okay. Do any commissioner have questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Myers. The map that's on page 7 of 8 was that a map that was prepared by you all or was that prepared by the applicant? Prepared by staff. So I noticed on that that we're missing the, actually it's one of the closer polls. The one that actually sets at Ashburn Far House. I don't see that identified on this map. The first one should be the Ashburn volunteer fire department. Why? The one that says Ryan. Yeah, that might have been the name of it when it came through as an application, but that should be the, that's the site. I mean, I don't believe so. I mean, I live down there and this, I don't believe that, I mean if this is clayburned, then this is the cross of hay, hay, ins, and Ashburn road goes this way. I mean this is further down. So I was just concerned about this, I don't believe as close as what that poll really is, is that's why I was asking the question because I'm not sure why it would have ever been called Rhine. It's literally in Old Ashburn, and it's literally setting right beside the farhouse by the WOD. Yeah, I can tell you that the Ashburn Volunteer Fire Rescue Modepole is about a mile away. Correct. Yeah, and it is approximately 100 feet in that onemile buffer zone, right? Yes. And this one's outside it. So I think that's another one someplace else. I also wanted to ask the question. Did the foreign rescues say that they need this poll for their coverage right now? They did not indicate the need at this time. OK. Thank you. OK. Any other questions or staff at this time? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and take the applicant presentation. Good evening, Planning Commission. Thank you for having us this evening. Thank you. My name is Aaron Frank. I'm a Senior Landies Planner with Cooley here on behalf of Milestone Development. To my far right is Matt Penning, director of development with Milestone. And to my right is Andrew Peterson, an engineer who specializes in the design of commercial cellular networks and FCC compliance analysis. And we're happy to be back before you this evening and it's been a few months so I'd like to give a quick refresher of where we were when we left off. Let me see. Yes. Marcia. Let's see. I don't know. Do I need to, Marcia, do I need to point this in a certain direction? I'm having a little trouble here. I have to, you can advance it. Thank you. So by way of need for the site and how we arrived here, we look at a few different factors and the first among them, where are existing cell sites and where does cell service propagate from those existing features. There are three sites in the nearby vicinity, each of them about a mile or so away. And cell sites typically propagate service around the neighborhood of three quarters of a mile to a mile. So that results in a coverage gap right in the area around trailside park. It can also depend upon the height, any vertical structures, terrain, but also in this case in particular, there's a capacity element to it. How many folks are using cell devices? This is in the middle of a residential area, and as we've seen with ourselves and nationwide trends, there are more and more devices with our kids, with ourselves, and folks are dropping landlines. But also, there are many folks who use Trailside Park for baseball, softball games. So there's higher peaks as well for demand, as well as not to mention the thousands of students and teachers amongst the three schools within, you know, shouting distance of Trailside Park. So all these factors converge from the distance of existing service and the number of devices that demand service that there really is a service gap in this area. Next slide please. This is a propagation map that we had showed at the last meeting and we'd like to review this again with some additional detail that I'll go into. As you may recall on the left that is the existing coverage and we'd like to review this again with some additional detail that I'll go into. As you may recall on the left, that is the existing coverage, and we really don't want to be in the yellow or red in particular areas, which are moderate or poor coverage, and you can see a lot of yellow and blue on that left hand side. On the right, that's what the coverage amount is going to change with the addition of a cell site. And you can see that there's a large green area of excellent coverage, which is, you know, frankly, what we all expect and is evident in the other green areas that propagate away from the existing cell sites. So there's a significant change in coverage here. And next slide, please. We also had AT&T look at this on a more granular basis. AT&T performed a drive test. And I think of the Google Street View Car that goes around and takes images. But this instead has a device on it that measures signal strength. And AT&T drove around the neighborhoods but this instead has a device on it that measures signal strength. And 18C drove around the neighborhoods and surrounding area, aside trailside park to basically understand the propagation maps at a more detailed level. And the results are before you were almost 75% of the immediate surrounding area has either moderate or poor coverage. So that corroborates and actually it shows that the coverage is a little worse than we even thought it was. Next slide, please. So as you may recall, here's the site. And when we initially looked at where the cell site was going to be located, there are some different factors that went into consideration. On the north of the park, there is hydrology, there's a risker buffer, tree save. So we need to stay out of those areas. There's also a technical constraint, whereas often the monopole might be collocated with an equipment area. The equipment area needs to be close to the monopole might be collocated with an equipment area. The equipment area needs to be close to the monopole itself. There could be a maximum distance of about 425 to 500 feet, including the run up the pole from which the monopole must be located within the distance of the equipment area in order to maintain signal strength. And then of course, there must be some vehicular access, although servicing is very infrequent. There must be the ability to access the equipment area. All this and to do it in a location that is tasteful within the park satisfies the need for additional coverage. And of course, respects and acknowledges the surrounding context and distance from nearby residential uses. Next slide, please. So originally, the cell site was proposed at the right-fueled pole. And as a result, the equipment area in order to be located both outside of the risker buffer, but within distance of that to be located both outside of the risker buffer, but within distance of that pole was located near the sheds. Those sheds were closer to the residential property line, but provided some similar features that we thought was compatible. However, we re-evaluated it after the Planning Commission hearing last. And what we learned was that since the time we submitted the application, the new zoning ordinance was adopted, and the risk or buffer limits actually had changed as well. And they had changed favorably such that we could now locate the equipment area outside of the risker without impacting it. So this opened up the opportunity both to relocate the equipment area further away from the residences, but also because you kind of have this minimum distance between the monopole and the equipment area, the monopole can now be moved as well. So we co-located it now on the left field pole, rather than the right field pole, which allows for a greater distance from here by residences. And we're not going to have to disturb any vegetation within the risk or buffer as result. Next slide, please. So here's a look on the left of the prior equipment area shown in blue with landscaping around it in green. That was proposed before you last with the blue dot representing the right field pole. On the right-hand side of your screen, you can see the new equipment area location behind the bathrooms and the new left field location, located further from the residences to the south. Next slide, please. And here's a comparison of those distances. As you can see, it's significantly further, over 100 feet further for the pole, and several hundred feet further for the equipment area or antenna hub site as it's referred to in the zoning ordinance. Next slide please. So here's a close look at the antenna hub site. This is an ideal site because it's kind of nestled in between some natural screening. So the bathroom provides a natural screen that can be tucked behind. Also the baseball field provides a berm. So the baseball field is actually kind of above the equipment area. We're going to have landscaping along that berm as well as in the front of the equipment area. We're going to have landscaping along that berm as well as in the front of the equipment area with the exception of a couple doors needed for access. And then we have the existing forest behind us. So on each of the different sides, we're able to utilize either new landscaping or existing landscaping to the combination of forest and the existing building. Next slide, please. For the Monopol, this does actually necessitate a minor special exception because there is no landscaping surrounding this pole. And this is from a practical perspective. This is a light pole that's co-locating with the Monopol. We can't provide any landscaping because of the baseball field, but that's also customary with every other light pole located in trailside park as well as light poles that are generally located for recreational purposes. So that's certainly consistent with similar features. Next slide please. So with the new location, we also provided new simulations. And we provided the old simulations that were previously before you as a comparison. Option one is the option that was before you a few months ago. Option two is the option that is before you this evening. As you can see, the new location is slightly lower in height from this vantage point from the east. Next slide slide please. Similar, hardly visible in this location. Next slide please. In this location it's not visible. Next slide. Here's from the south from Stonebridge. Not visible in this case, next slide. In this case, you know, like many of them, this is improved non-visibility, next slide. And similarly, not visible from this vantage point from our neighbors to the south. Next slide, please. So as we're going into the park and turning around in the cul-de-sac towards the ballfields. This is what the pole and the entrance to the equipment area is going to look like. We provided these dashed lines to provide a general outline of where access would be located. Access and servicing is very infrequent. So much so that we actually really don't need a gravel driveway. We can actually just use it through the ability to go across the grass to the equipment area. So that way it even limits the visual appearance. Even further but you can see landscaping as well as the building really do conceal the location of the equipment area, which also is screened by an opaque fence per ordinance. Next slide please. So in summary, we're glad to take any questions that you may have, but we certainly feel that we've responded to the comments that we heard at the last hearing to increase the distance from residential while still being able to co-locate the poll in accordance with some of the goals of the telecommunications plan. And this has been able to be done without any disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas. So we're really happy about this new location and we certainly request your support this evening. So glad to take any questions. Thank you. Since it's been a number of months, one had let you keep going a little over your time. Yeah, sorry about that. Well, we needed a refresher too. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? Vice Chair Comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Aaron, two quick questions. With respect to the coverage map you put up earlier in your presentation, is that a demonstration of AT&T's coverage or is that a demonstration of other carriers coverage as well? Commissioner Holmes, good question. That is a demonstration of AT&T's coverage. Okay. Okay, and do you know Aaron the the light in the on the ball field the the light pole that will be replaced Do you know how tall that light pulled the existing light pole is I Believe I do but I believe staff probably also does better than me. I believe that's a 60 foot tall light. Is that right Allison? The lights are currently 80 feet 80 feet. Excuse me. I believe that's a 60-foot tall light. Is that right, Alison? The lights are currently 80 feet. 80 feet, excuse me. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mars? I just want to understand. So the light poles that are there are only 80 feet and this is going to be 150. So they're not the same height. Correct. Okay. And the trees that we're showing here, those trees are actually from what I read in your application. They're really four feet at the time you plan them. They're not what you're demonstrating on this. Commissioner Myers, that's correct. Yes. So we will be complying with the ordinance to provide those plantings, which would be about four feet feet but then they will mature to about eight feet. One of the concerns that I know I already addressed this with you is I went out there last Sunday and set and talked to some people and stuff but you know trying to get around on that left hand side. That's a steep slope that goes straight up to the ball field. I just don't see how you're going to get equipment in that and do that. I think you're going to have to go around to the right hand side which is in kind of a tree protected area in order to get what you're doing in there. You can kind of see it from that visual map. I mean it immediately starts going up the hill. So I'm not sure. And of course on the right hand side which is on your screen is the walking trail that takes you across. We can see it on the upper top one. Is the walking trail that takes you across over to the roller hockey, I guess we call it, that's over there. So I think there's going to be more area disturbed on the right-hand side just to get the stuff in than what you're, you may be showing right now. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I just I did have the same concerns about disturbance that Commissioner Myers raised and so I'll ask the dumb question because I just suits me. One is, you know, what are the requirements for restoration, you know, post-construction. And also, is there any way for you to do go beyond what's required in terms of screening and the height of the the trees that you put in Mr. Jasper and also to respond to Commissioner Paul Myers So the area where the dashed lines are provided on this screen that's gonna be our our access When we need to access this site while a poll is operational, but also for the purposes of construction, that would be how it is accessed. You can kind of see on this image actually, by the way that the grasses cut, it kind of provides a helpful cue, that we're able to have this access area on a flat piece of the property before the berm to the baseball field. So as a result, we can access it from this area and we do have on our specs submittal documents, some limits of disturbance for where we are allowed and where we are not allowed to be able to be performing construction activities. So that is going to regulate where we're able to do construction and it's able to stay out of the risker and we have some plantings that we are proposing around the side so that way we will not be having to replace any of the risker plantings to the east. My question relating to not just the limits of disturbance but the restoration, the nature of the restoration that you would do and also the nature of the screen. Okay. I'll take a look if you give me just a second. I can get back to it to see how much if any trees we are disturbing, I believe it's very minimal because we wanted to stay out of that risk or buffer and a lot of the tree-save area. So I do believe it is minimal trees that are going to be removed in this area. I can answer that too and just to back up, we do as part of the initial build, especially on a site like this which is constrained. We have a current site where that's under construction in Prince William County where we take the extra measure to make sure Obviously power is going to be in at the site Before sites closed out, but also we take the extra precaution to add a lot of the infrastructure in there for the wireless carriers So that it's a really light touch when they come back and need to install at the site So we'll do some more preliminary work than we usually would because of the nature of the site and our desire to limit impact when they come back. So that way mostly the material that they're gonna bring on site can be brought in with a dolly or hand truck or can just be raised or lowered without the use of a crane or anything like that. And then as far as the landscaping plan right now we have it as a initial planting height of four feet but a minimum mature height of eight feet. So that means... And the fence is currently at eight feet as well. I'd like to jump in, actually, as I'm looking through our plan set, I'm refreshing myself on kind of how nestled in we are to the existing vegetation. And one of our development conditions, actually, because we are utilizing the existing forests as our screening buffers that we're going to have to provide a tree survey to staff at the time of final review. So they'll be looking at the adequacy of surrounding vegetation. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Myers. I'm sorry. And I meant to ask this earlier. So the ball field that we've actually moved this to is actually one of the highest points on the property. The other one said a little bit lower is this. Can you tell me really from the height before this poll starts? I mean from the road that I'm looking at right now, that poll is really going to be 200 feet, that poll is going to be what? Because we've got the rise in elevation before we start the base of where the poll sets. Can you tell me what that is going to be? Commissioner Pollan Myers, it's going to be 152 feet from the ball field and recognizing the ball field is a little bit taller than the elevation where the concession stand is. You know, I'd have to do an eye test right now. I could take a look to see if we have elevations on our plan. It certainly won't be 200 feet. I was just saying, I wasn't saying that it was going to be but I was just trying to get is that a 10 foot rise is a 12 foot 5. What is the rise between point A to point B that the poll actually sets at the base out? I was like Commissioner Myers, it's 8 feet. Thank you. It looks like more of that when you're out there. Commissioner Kierce. I think this was asked but I don't remember. What's the height of the electric towers right behind along the WNOD there? It's in one of your images. Commissioner Kierce. I believe that those are in the neighbourhood usually around 175 feet. 175. Thanks. Along the area, Commissioner Kierce was just going in. Thank you. Along the area commissioner cures was just going in. How much now that this has moved a bit? How close is this to those power lines? Sure Frank, that's a good question Let me see if I can look that up and I'll get back to you on that. Okay. It looks like to the rear property line it's about 320 feet and that's takes you to sort of the WOD trail. Is that take you through those woods to the trail which is just outside of most of this picture? It's on a teeny bit of the top right corner. Okay so that 320 feet includes the wooded area. And is that this park and wreck property? That's not WNOD trail, those trees? Correct, okay. All right. Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant tonight? All right. Nope, sorry. Yes, Commissioner Justice. I apologize. Just, I know that the 150 may be a rule of thumb. This is a genuine question. Is there a way to accommodate these signals on, especially now that you're a little bit higher, but regardless, I mean, I think it has to do, does it have to do with line of sight? So is there a way to accommodate them at lower heights with potentially poles that are in terms of height more consistent with height of the light poles. I'm just curious. First of all, Andrew Peterson, radio frequency engineer on behalf of milestone slash AT&T. I'm happy to answer the question best I can. Getting down to an 80 foot center line of the antennas here would be really detrimental to the design. What AT&T does is they examine the location at a variety of heights. In this case, the 150, actually 145-foot center line for the antennas was found to be optimal. So the fact that we're gaining a little ground elevation at 8 feet maybe or so relative to the prior location is kind of in the noise when we talk about the overall structure height and relative height to the surrounding sites and and the subscriber base But lowering to the height of 80 feet would be would be really detrimental Wouldn't work for 18 to it Okay, I think that's helpful. Thank you sure Okay, we are in the ashburn district Do we have emotion? Hi, do madam Chair. Thank you. I move that the Planning Commission deny legy 2023-0083 trailside park, CMPT 2023-009. And I further move that the Planning Commission forward legy 2023- 2023, trailside park, specs 2023, 0, 0, 20, to the board of supervisors with a recommendation of denial based on the following findings for denial. One, the general extent of the proposed telecommunications monopole and associated antenna hub site are not compatible with the surrounding area and cannot be reasonably mitigated with the conditions of approval. And to the location of the proposed telecommunications monopole and associated antenna hub site are not in conformance with the location policies under the Loud and County strategic land use plan for telecommunications facilities and such non-conformance cannot be reasonably addressed with conditions of approval. Second. All right. Motion is made addressed with conditions of approval. Second. All right, motion is made by Vice Chair Combs. Seconded by Commissioner Myers. Do you have an opening? I do briefly, I wanna thank the applicant for its effort in really trying to find a space within this park for the Monapole and the Hubsite and your flexibility for moving it around both between before public hearing then after public hearing and now where we are now. I know you have gone to great lengths to try to make this work and I appreciate that. What I keep coming back to is really the location and it's something I think Commissioner Myers referenced when we were looking at another commission permit months ago. The pin in the map, so to looking at another commission permit months ago, the pin in the map, so to speak, with the commission permit. And here, the pin, the monopole, the hub site seem to really subsume the location. The strategic land use plan for telecommunications facilities really speaks to, you know, trying to locate a new structure, a monopole, and a planned, inzoned industrial and employment area. And if it is going to look to a public site, to do it in a way that really mitigates the adverse impacts on the character and use of the public in the site. And here it really just, the feel of the poll and the antenna hub site just seems to consume this very small, literally baseball field in a suburban area. And as I spend time with that strategic plan and the comp plan, I just, I can't seem to get the two to mesh. So while I appreciate all the effort that you all have put into this, in my mind, this just isn't the right location for it. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Any other comments on the motion? Commissioner Kieres. Yeah, I won't support the motion. I find this to be an appropriate location for a poll. It's not even an addition of a poll. It's the replacement of a pole with a taller pole granted. But it's in a park. It's got, well, the other light poles, you've got electric power line poles behind it that are taller. If it's wooded on one side, the S are some residential, several hundred feet away on the other side. But I don't find this to be any more of an imposition than what they can already visually see. So I find this to be an appropriate location. I get to be nice if we know the industrial areas could accommodate all but in heavily suburban residential areas where there's a lot of demand for service. You don't always have those industrial areas where you could put poles like this and so when you can find an area that I find this type of an area to be appropriate for this type of a pole. So I can't support the motion. Commissioner Meyers. I of course will be supporting the motion seeing how I second the motion. I think that in this case, we're definitely are trying to put too large of a facility in a very small park. I think 70 feet above what the other lines will be. You will absolutely see it as you drive into that park. You can see it very clearly. I went there and set for two and a half hours on Sunday just to figure out, how does this, we've seen the petitions from the neighbors their feelings about it. I went down to Claude Moore and it Claude Moore that is a much larger regional park and you can you tuck that it's tucked away so you don't really notice it. This is a very small field. I mean you've got people parking in the gravel because it's there's not enough parking and stuff there. So I don't think it's appropriate. I also think that we don't need the service right now. We've seen the fire and rescue doesn't need it. I understand the loud water decided they're not interested, but if you really look at that yellow, where the majority of the yellow is, the majority of that yellow is actually up where the loud water property is. So it seems like if we really want better coverage, you know, go back and negotiate with them. But at this opportunity, I feel like it's just too big, too much, and too small of a park area. And it abuts the school, which the school's going to allow, either. Commissioner Banks. I will not be supporting the motion and so as not to be redundant essentially for the reasons outlined by Commissioner Cures. Commissioner Mout already. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting the motion with the same reasons Commissioner Cures said. And also if I remember correctly on the first application itself, I kind of talked more positive towards this application. In fact, now I believe actually this became even better than what it was before. So again, for the same reasons, I will be not supporting the motion. Commissioner Jasper, I will be supporting the motion for the following reasons. I respect the opinions of my colleagues who are not supporting the motion. But I do believe that the amount of clutter in the view shed is significant. And so the fact that there are other elements in in the view shed that maybe is large is not really compelling to me because the number of things It's like urban sign theory the more of them you have the worst it the worst the experiences So I don't think the fact that there's something else there this big is is Mitigate the impact. I do appreciate that this is a lot better than the last application. But I also respect the opinions of our Ashburn resident and representatives. And I think that some of this is for commercial convenience. And so not that that's not a good reason, but it is a good reason to violate what's in the plan and have this imposition in a small park. Any of the comments on the motion? All right. Do you have a closing? No ma'am, just appreciate the support. Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the table. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Nay. The motion fails. One, two. Was it three? Where were you at? Up or down on the motion? Down. Okay. So three to five with commissioners, combs, six? I'm sorry, yes, sorry. Three to six. We're all here tonight. It's different math. Commissioners, mayors and Jasper and combs in favor of the motion that did not pass. Do we have an alternative motion? Commissioner Miller. I move the Planning Commission to approve ledgy 2023-008-3 trailside park commission permit 2023-009 subject to the commission permit flat date of August 30, 2024. And based on the findings for approval provided the attachments 3 and 1 to the September 12, 2024 planning commission work session memorum, and I further move the Planning Commission forward ledgy 2023-008-3 Trailside Park, specs 2023-0020 to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval, subject to the conditions of approval dated August 30th, 2024, and based on the findings for approval provided as attachments 2 and 1 to September 12th 2024, planning commission and work session memorandum. Do we have a second? Second. Motion is made by Commissioner Miller. Second by Commissioner Banks. Do you have an opening? Sure. So, I appreciate those comments in the last motion, those in favor of the previous motion about view shed and things like that. Self-unt towers are ugly. They are. It's also ugly to have, I don't know, 18,000 satellites in low orbit that you see. Unfortunately, the world in which we live now demands us to have those satellites in space. It demands us to have the cell phone connections abound. I drive through this county and other counties on a regular basis and I'm trying to talk to people and do business on phone calls and get dropped all over the place, pick up. I think cell phones are now not just for communication from one to another, they're also for safety. And the way we, in the world in which we live now, while one may drive up to this park and be a gas at the height of the size of 150 foot pole, that pole is less of a concern to them when they're at the ballpark and they're face timing the game with grandma and the call gets dropped or any number of other things. How's the game going? What's going on? We live in a world now where the citizenry and many instances demands that they have the ability to do the use of tools that we've provided for them. We as a colloquial and as societies provided. Further, I think I said this a little last meeting. The three main carriers, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, spend somewhere in a number of $10 billion a year on infrastructure. They don't do that because they want to spend money on building more towers. I'm pretty certain if there was a way they didn't have to build towers and still get increased coverage, they would rather go that route. They're not doing this really nilly. This is a need for the coverage currently and in the future. And for those reasons, I support the poll going where it is. Thank you. Commissioner Jasper. I'm sorry. That's okay. No apology needed. Anybody else? I will support this motion because while I'm not going to do cartwheels about this location, I will say it is much improved I think and the residents particularly those town homes Would appreciate the extra couple hundred feet that this is going to put between them I also am not an AT&T customer I have a one of their competitors service and I sit at that baseball field regularly And we'll tell you that that carrier does not have coverage there either so I I am not a radio engineer. I cannot draw on the knowledge to contradict or confirm what we get told when we see these cases. But anecdotally, I can tell you it's a problem in there. So this is probably one of the better solutions we're going to see. And so for for that reason and the same reasons that Mr. Kierce stated earlier I will support this motion Any other comments closing? All right, we have a motion on the floor all in favor. Hi. Hi opposed Day all right the motion carries six to three with Vice Chair Combs, Commissioner Myers and Commissioner Jasper opposed. Thank you, Allison and Aaron. All right, we'll go ahead and move to our second item on the agenda, ledgy 2023-0023, Goose Creek Club 2. And Darby will be joining us for this one again. Has this changed names? Or is it just me? I know we had another Goose Creek application a couple months ago. We called them the geese. OK, they're the geese. All right. There's geese applications. OK, they are moving almost in Tampa. You know, they're kind of moving together. Was Goose Creek Village West? Yes. Nice goose Creek, too. All right. Well, we are ready. It shouldn't work. All right. We are ready when you are. Good evening. My name is Darby McHalf with the Department of Planning and Zoning. I'm here tonight to present the application for Goose Creek Club 2. The subject property is 23.86 acres located south of Route 7 on the south and east sides of Gulf Club Road in the Leesburg Election District. The property is on office park under the Loudoun County Zoning Ordnance. The property is located in the Leesburg Joint Land Management Policy Area and the Leesburg JLMA Residential Neighborhood Place Type. The site was previously developed as a portion of the Goose Creek Gulf Club and contains previously the Landscape Open Space. to the developed as a portion of the Goose Creek Golf Club and contains previously landscaped open space. The town of Leesburg boundary is present on screen as the dash black line. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from OP to PDH4 administered as R8 ADU to permit 90 single family attached units units consisting of either 16-foot or 20-foot wide townhomes. The applicant is additionally requesting zoning modifications to allow residential unit access via private roads and to decrease the minimum size of PDH-4 from 25 to 23 acres. Present on screen is an annotated excerpt of the CDP depicting the proposed development. The townhome sticks are outlined in orange. Since the public hearing, the applicant has committed the proposed internal trail to meet ADA standards, detailed extent of proposed park dedication and is no longer seeking credit for the dedication, enhanced buffering along this other extent, committed to offer sprinklers at cost, provided a illustrative detailing the commission's requested distances to the edge of the right away, revised proffers as requested related to the Leesburg pump station. The posted work session memo highlighted two items for tonight's discussion. At the public hearing the applicant proposed an approximately 12 acre park dedication in Louisville Capital Facilities contributions. The commission requested additional, the applicant provide additional information related to the dedication. Since the public hearing, the applicant has revised the proposal and is no longer seeking a credit for the dedication, and as well as provided a public access easement on the north side of Tuscora Creek. Staff support these provisions, however, instead of the provided public access easement, staff are recommending a hundred feet north of Tuscora Creek to be included in the dedication for further maintenance or restoration. Additionally, staff are recommend the proposed timing mechanism for the dedication be amended to at time of site plan to avoid permit and processing delays. Present on the screen is the depiction of the anticipated sidewalk along golf club road. Staff support the proposed trail in lieu of the sidewalk due to steep slopes and risk or impacts along the south side of Golf Club Road. But find the proposed commitment to relax and enforceable trigger for ADA improvements to the proposed connector sidewalks and recommend the applicant provide an enforceable trigger to the existing trail as well. Present on screen is the proposed trail in lieu of the sidewalk along Golf Club Road. The proposed connector sidewalks are the dashed yellow and the existing trail is in between in the dashed blue. Staff supports a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors. The general plan supports a 100% residential application within the place type. Application is considered a core use for the place type and staff are available for questions. Additionally, I have DTCI as well as Mark Novak with parks and the applicant does have a presentation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Darby. Commissioner Miller. Darby, what would an enforceable trigger for the trail look like? I mean, could it be something as simple as if you don't, when you finish that building in that row, if the trail isn't done, you can't get permits for other. I mean, what? I would defer to DTCI for a trigger that they're seeking. Okay. Hi, Lindsey Morpher with DTCI. Yes, generally, the trigger would be something like prior to a certain number certificate of occupancy. Okay. I'll ask when it comes up, I'll ask the applicant about that. I mean, that's reasonable for that. Another question I had, and this is probably DTCI. I've talked with the applicant about in previous, the previous meeting, Bob Club wrote at the end where it, that ends, where it used to be the old bridge. It's a pretty rundown. V.Dot hasn't done anything to take care of that area, even the barricade is worn out. If the applicant wanted to make improvements on their own nickel and time, would they be, would V.Dot allow them? Or is this something where the applicant could make a contribution and the county could then work with V.Dot at some point to make improvements to Gulf Club Road? My, I'm asking the question because now that people will potentially be living there, it would be nice if they didn't have, as they drove down Gulf Club Road, have a monstrosity of sight when they get there, that the applicant might be willing to contribute to, is that something that can be done, can the applicant do that, or does V. have to allow that, or what would have to happen there? Golf Club Road is a V. facility, so anything that happens there would need to happen there. Golf Club Road is a V.O.T facility. So anything that happens there would need to go through the V.O.T. review process. I don't think it's been discussed in the context of this application. There are certainly other applications that do work on V.O.T. roads, but we would need to look into that more. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Meyers. All right. Commissioner Myers. I brought this up during the public hearing. That when I read the elements of the general plan as it relates to this particular property, this is not a residential community. And you also that you would look into it, you thought it was an issue with the map and the learning. Then we get our briefing for also tonight, as it relates to the data centers. And one of the things in the data center is that we amend the JLMA place type from the 2019 went to change the destination of the Goose Creek community from Leesburg JLMA employment to Leesburg JLMA residential neighborhood. So obviously whatever planning staff is working on the data center believes that this property is in the employment area. So can you tell me how we have this document saying it is and we have you all saying that it's not? Jackie, I believe that what we are proposing in the data center see him is for the property that is south of the property that we're discussing tonight. No, it says goose creek club. It does. This is called goose creek club. Yes, goose creek Creek Club 2. Tonight's application is Goose Creek Golf Club. Goose Creek Club 2, the CPM is referring to the property to the south. The woodlands. You're telling me that the property that's in the front is residential and the property that's in the back is commercial, but they're flip-flopped in their zoning. That's what you want me to believe. I'm trying to get a grant. but they're flipped and they're zoning. That's what you want me to believe. I'm trying to get a grant. Thank you. We're talking about today, Frontsen Route 7. When I go to the page here, which I can go back to it again, in the general plan, it says, Leisberg J.A.M.A. in provides opportunities for a range of light and general industry, use similar to the existing pattern of Route 7, which this is on the front of Route 7. Correct. So this would be employment. That's what it says right here. Page 2-142. So the last time we had acknowledged the two accountings, we have defaulted to the land use map and that is the evaluation that we had done. If the commission feels that the text and description should take priority over the map, then that would be the commission's decision. Well, and it's puzzling to me because the picture from page 2-14 is the actual picture across the street from this property. So how can you tell me it's a mistake? I'm not telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling you it's a mistake. I'm telling youled because I go across the flood plain and the back practice by the core of your telling me is employment. I cross the flood plain, I come up to route seven where by the way the public, the storage places in your telling me that's residential. If that's residential, how did this, how did this storage facility get there? Ms. Myers, we'd have to go through a long history of how the site developed. We've based it on the map and the guidance from the plan. From what he was saying, you do not believe that that is the correct interpretation. Have you opened out on the site? Have you visited the site? I've been out of the area, yes ma'am. So I guess, I'm not sure if do you want us to change our recommendation? I'm not sure what I'm confused about is you all should be making a recommendation just based on what the plan says. The plan should be based on the word, the maps can all, I mean when you look at the scale of the map, it could be off easily. But you've got 14 pages here that talk about what this is supposed to look like in this area about. And they're all very clear that they look at this being non-residential in this area. I mean you go past this property and there's probably one of the biggest data systems we're building when you cross the creek. When you go to the other side there is the public storage and there's some of the biggest utility lines you've ever seen. When you go down the hill and you turn on this property there is all kinds of luckstone, filling stations, everything else. I don't know how we get to the point where we say this is planned for residential community. This was an existing residential place type that was carried over from the previous revised general plan. And we zone to PDOP with knowing that it was just residential. And that is not uncommon. That the zoning will not match with the place type. The place type is to which it's supposed to be zone to. And that's the application that's come in the evening. So we heard last night about, or watched last night, all these people talking about how they're, we need all this PDOP because we've got all these people that want to come here and it's all being eat up by data sent, which by the way they can't be here because it's special exception. What in the, in the rezoning that was done, the rezoning included that this front piece was supposed to be the residential. Is that correct? You're referring to a previous zoning application. I'm talking about this piece of property. Yes, the area and the other one on the map. Correct. The front piece was supposed to be p, it was the zone p, and the back piece was the zone residential. Is that a reason not correct? So, ZMAP 2013, 005 approved a rezoning of 110 acres to PDOP and PDH6. Right. So, the front piece was rezoned to be PDOP and the back piece was rezoned to be residential. Correct. And now they're coming in to one in rezoned to the place type designation which we've determined to be residential. So, Ms. Myers, if you disagree. Well, if you read the map, we read the words. I mean, I understand that we have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. We have to agree. no seats for kids. There's not going to be because they don't have any schools to be built in this area. But we don't have that as an outstanding issue in the report. Is there a reason why? So staff anticipates no change at the elementary school level, sufficient at the middle school level and high school to be over capacity by the 2029 and 2030 school year. That's not what they said just at the public hearing. They don't typically... Their board policy is not to object. They will point out numbers, but they typically will not say we can't handle that. But they did. I mean they said here and told us that they would have to, they would literally have to look at redoing lines because there was no place for school to be built and that there was no place for these kids to go. So they did say that. They didn't say, they didn't have an issue. They will accommodate through redistricting. That is almost there always the answer to everything. I'm not saying I agree with it, but they will accommodate through redistricting. All right, so that's why we never see it as an issue with planning stuff because schools don't object to it that way. All right, any other questions for staff? All right. I guess we'll go over to the applicant. Great, all right, staff, pull up the presentation. For the record, my name is Molly Novotny. I'm an urban planner with Curata Partners. Pleased to be here before you tonight. I am a little bit hesitant to jump into the conversation that Commissioner Paul and Myers raised about the briefing item, but I will just give a little bit of context as I understand the place type discussion that's gonna be part of the briefing. Is it is in fact for the area that is pink on this property that is the Woodlands at Goose Creek Club one application that is zoned today for residential? The background with that application from 2013, I did not do it, but that application was all zoned PDOP originally. So we did not rezone the land on the north or the golf club to PDOP. Rather, it re-zoned the residential portion to allow that residential community. It was not consistent with the place type at that point. But sometimes applications are not necessarily consistent with the place type. So our application is planned residential staff set. It's been planned residential for 20 plus years. And the briefing item that you'll be hearing is to extend the residential planning designation to the south to cover the rest of the property. So with that, I'll jump into my presentation. Despite the conversation and comments on place type, we are really proud of this application. We have no two over two units here. Often applications bring that mix of those unit types which have a high-end designation plan for residential. It's plan for four units to the acre and we're at 3.77 units to the acre. We have 90 single family attached homes. We have no two over two units here. Often applications bring that mix of those unit types, which have different needs and demands. This project is all four sales single family attached. We have 90 units and 86 off lot spaces, which is more than what we would have needed under the revised 93 ordinance. We have 15 and a5%, 15.55% affordable housing. So we've provided additional affordable units than we would be required with the ordinance. Additionally, we have, we're really proud of how closely we've worked with the neighbors, the Woodlands at Goose Creek community. They will tell you that they are an island unto themselves. They, as Commissioner Polenmeyer has mentioned, have a lot of industrial and other commercial uses around them and they do not want more commercial uses. They are begging us for this project. We will be part of that HOA and we're very excited about being able to provide amenities on this site as well as some additional benefits to that community as we blend these two communities together. Additionally, and I'll... This image here shows we have 73% open space on this project. This is not a dense project. We are very consistent with the area around us in terms of, in terms of the floodplain and the creek, and we're very excited about those amenities. In terms of the staff report, when we looked at the staff report for tonight, we thought we were fine with the AD accessible trails. We heard tonight, as you all did, that there's some timing triggers. We thought we had illustrated and profited properly but we're happy to continue to work with staff to make sure that they're comfortable with that language. Our intent is that when the Northern or we call them the Eastern units but on this image they're at the top of the screen. When those units are built they will have access to the yellow portion of the trail and to point south. But if those units aren't built yet, we don't want to lead folks from the western units up to a construction site. And so we thought that we had the language in there correctly, but if we need to keep working with staff on that, we're happy to do that. We, as I mentioned at the public hearing, we were considering a 12-acre park dedication. We have committed to that in the proffers without any capital contribution credit. It is a straight gift to the county. This is on both sides of Tuscarora Creek. Staff had asked us to extend it beyond 100 feet and at the time of that discussion they said put it in a public access easement or extend the land dedication. We chose the public access easement because we have a modification as part of this application to reduce our property size below 25 acres. If we give more land in croaching into our site we would have to amend that modification and further reduce our property. We didn't think it was necessary given staff had given us the option to do the public access easement. Happy to continue to talk through that, but that was a justification and the reason behind that. At the commission, we had talked about the buffer to the south, and what we've done here is we've added, we further enhanced this buffer buffer so we've added additional evergreen trees additional plant units all along our southern units it was a request from staff and so we're happy to do that. And then there was a comment from the planning commission about the proximity of these homes to golf club and so we're showing the side of those units they will be at the closest 44 feet from golf club road and you can see the landscaping and trail network that will be in place. And this is an overall exhibit that really shows how the 80 acre property that weaves around the existing woodlands at Goose Creek will blend in with it. So the purple area is that park dedication. It runs all the way to Goose Creek. It really allows Keep Loud and Beautiful Park to become a park. It's three acres right now. We've got significant trail networks throughout the site that we are committed to improve and maintain for the public's use. And the area in yellow, which is keep loud and beautiful, park is not being affected or altered with this application. And that provides a very significant buffer between our units and Route 7 that it is preserved in perpetuity. It is a county owned park. Let me see. I think I've covered all. There was one other point that Commissioner Polamier raised at the beginning about the self storage unit, asking how that was approved. That is in the town of Leesburg, so that's governed by its zoning ordinance. And so I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, happy to answer any questions. All right, Commissioner Barnes. Okay, thank you. Did you dedicate the park to the park in Iraq? Yes, we have a proper to dedicate it to the town. Did you accept it from you? They have, in the staff report, they appreciate the dedication, yes. Okay, they accepted it. Okay. Well, we haven't, as part of the application, we will dedicate it. Okay, they accepted it. Okay. Well, we haven't, you know, as part of the application, we will dedicate it. Okay, and the transfer are still under. Okay. And the staff is okay with it, right? To waste no. And the trail will be used by the handicap and all that, right? Correct, we've made it ADA accessible. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Miller. Thank you, Molly. As I asked Darby, the end of Gulf Love Road, how can we... What's the best way to go about this? I know you indicated that the applicant will need to make a contribution towards that. How do we know that that gets done? Is there something where the applicant could work with VDOT to come up with a nicer solution? Yes, I'm happy to do that. My hesitation and it's only that I don't want to make a profit that then VDOT says no and then the county gets nothing. And so that's why we were prepared to offer a cash contribution to the county that they could use to improve that somewhere like the end of Gulf Club Road, there's nothing that we can do to make that specifically for that item because the cash contribution would go into the general fund to be used for whatever. So most of the contributions go into the planning area. Yes, if there is an opportunity to co-mingle multiple proffers, transportation proffers, they could direct it elsewhere, but you could direct the intention that is to be used for this and then subject to veto approval, which is standard language for most proffers. And if the applicant did make that dedication or contribution in their estimation that purpose, then staff would consider that saying, hey, they did do it for this. As we're talking to, in the planning areas, we're talking to Vita about things, can we talk to Vita about doing it for this thing? Correct. Correct. I think typically the best practice is not to have it so specific that if for whatever reason, it doesn't come to fruition fruition that money sits there unused. So what we've done like for bus shelters is we'll give $25,000 for a bus shelter and then the county has asked us to include language that if bus services isn't there by X years the county could use it for other projects. So we've been able to assign money. We've also done it at residential projects. Assign money to specific school projects. And then said if they don't need it for that, it can go back. So it doesn't stick, sit there unused. That means we could do in this particular case at the $25,000 number. Happy to make that contribution work at that way. Thank you. Commissioner Kierce. Yeah, so for the applicant, this is a phrase used in Ireland and to themselves. And I'm curious, do you think making the island a little bigger solves the reasons why it's an island in the first place? And by that, I mean, six lane divided highway and one side, quarries and data centers and substations on the gun none of those things are going away So if you make the island a little bit bigger I you feel that solves the problem so commissioner cures one of the reasons I got into this line of work Is the same reason I got into local newspaper reporting and it was to build communities and This community that is to the south of us is asking for more residents and I do believe that when you create a additional density here it does change the environment and the experience that those neighbors have. Does it change what's happening already to the east or the south know but we are helping them control what's happening directly to their north so I do think it will help. Any other questions for that? Commissioner Myers? I don't know if it's a question. It's one other question for the happenants all the way to weakness. I need to probably to the staff. You can ask staff. Go ahead. So I'd like to go back to what the opportunity is on the front of this property already. Under the PDOP today, under the resounding that was done, how many square feet of PDOP could be there? That's not something we have readily available, but we can, if we needed to follow up on that, we could follow up on that. Well, I mean, I think there's like a comparison that, because people are talking about pickleball courts, and the reason why we need to do this and creating islands, but I think to throw a scare tactic out that if we don't do this, it's a data center is not a true statement because a data center can't go here by right. But other PDOP uses that could be complementary could go here. And whether it's residential or whether it's a PDOP, this park, if they're giving to us, is flood plain. Nothing can go there to begin with. So whether it was PDOP or whether it's a residential island of townhouses, that separation between the two is going to exist. And I think it is a reasonable debate or conclusion that this body should have, it's to understand, especially when we keep hearing that there are so many people that can't find spots for our non-residential development along Route 7. I think it's a reasonable that we should know how much PDOP could have been there and what are we giving up in order to create these 90 townhouses here? So I'd like to know under the rezoning that was done were there were there things that were profit out that could be considered not Compatible were in what is the square footage we would have been looking at that we could have had so we did just find it It was 36,000 square feet of PDDOP uses under the ZMAP 2013-005. Okay. And the finding the commission could conclude is if the consensus is that there's a reasonable economic use of the existing zoning district and that's a finding. And that's my point is I think there is a reasonable use and I think the buffer between those two communities, whatever they are, is going to exist because that is major floodplain. It's not even minor floodplain that we're talking about that separates the existing community from the possible new community. So they're going to have a separation. And that walkable path, if there's a restaurant down there, they can walk down to it. But I think there has to be also a discussion about what is our reasonable use? Is it could it be compatible? It's definitely compatible to the other three parts that are around this property. It's unfortunate. I do feel for the people that live back there. But I also know that when they drove, whether it was a sales trailer, they were meeting, you say you're a wiper, whoever, at to sell or whatever, they had to drive by the quarry. They had to drive by all that stuff exists. It's not like it happened before them. So I do think it's a reasonable suggestion or question as you make a decision to look at what is the economics that exist on that for both the benefit of the county and for possibly the residents that are there. Any other questions or comments for staff in the applicant? Questions, comments are later. A question, Jasper. Thank you. This is a question for staff. Thank you both. My question is, is there a referral along the lines of Commissioner Polenmayer's? Is there a referral to economic development when you guys consider rezoning something with questions about what the economic uses would be if the zoning were retained? We do forward applications to economic development, they do not respond on every application and I don't believe we had a response. We do not have a response on this application. Okay, thank you. Okay. Many other questions? All right. We are in the Leisburg District, Commissioner Barnes, to your motion. Yes, ma'am. I'll make a motion. I move to the planning commission forward. LGI 2023 0023 Goose Creek Club. Second, ZMP, ZMAP 2021 0020. ZM, Zmod 2022 0056 and Zmod 2023 0040 to the board of supervisors with the recommendation of approval. Subject to the proper statement dated August 9th, 2024 and the conditions of the approval dated August 9th, 2024, based on the findings. Okay. September 12th and 24th, planning commission work session, Memoranda. Second. Motion is made by Commissioner Barnes, seconded by Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Barnes, you have an opening? No, I think it's a pretty good project. I think they have come back with the changes that Howard's looking for and we all talked about it. So I think it's a pretty viable and I talked to the Leesburg community and they thought that this was a better use there than any data center or something coming up there. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. there, then any data center or something coming up there. Thank you. Commissioner Miller. Yeah, so as Ms. Myers referred to, and I probably said it at the public hearing, the new construction, people bought new in this development, one here to the south. My wife sold a third of those houses, she worked for Dreamfinders at the time. And I was back there a lot, and this is before Cross Trail even went through. So people would use Cochrane Mill as a way to get to Sikland. And I always lamented this neighborhood. One of the first items that we looked at on this commission was Twin Greeks. It was the day of the interproject to south this off Cochrane Mill. And one of the contentians there was that that Keltler when they when this was approved did not have to improve Cochrane Mill beyond the end of the houses they only they had to stop they got to stop there instead of going to end their property and it was a mess and it was long before we were on the commission and Looking back at that I always lament lamented it doesn't even was even built. I don't think it probably should have. But I do recognize that the people that live there do now, it's there now, and how can we improve this overall, and how can we add to the housing stock that we need, and this is one way to do it. I recognize that commercial could go in the front. 36,000 square feet, just for reference, is less than one St. John's or Merritt Flex Industrial Building. Those buildings tend to be in the neighborhood of 40 to 45,000 square feet. And when they build the properties, they like to have four, six, eight buildings in there. Also across the street of Villager-Lievesburg, that is a struggling center. If commercial was working here, there would have been more requests of Kettler to sell that and develop it as commercial. And that's, this is the way of the world. It just happens to be that that's where we've gone now. And given the way that this property is set up, given the way that the houses are, there's no two over two, there's no 16 foot wide. This is just a regular townhouse neighborhood that will theoretically complement the homes that are across what will be a much improved, much larger, a lot more keep a lot in beautiful park. It's what Commissioner Kier said, it's still bigger island, but the bigger island has more heft to it. And now we can do a few more things and make people a little bit more comfortable where they live. And in that regard, given the other options and given the world in which we live in the housing stock that we need, the way it's been laid out and the way it works well with the parks and the dedication. I think this is a good enough application that makes sense to go forward. Thank you. Commissioner Cares. Yeah, hi. I won't be supporting the motion. The reason I gave it last time, I just don't believe the first Goose Creek development should have been approved where it is across from the reservoir. I mean, across from the quarry because of all the problems that you would have with the quarry across the street. It was approved and the residents, so we have an area residents there. And going back to the island and making the island a little bigger and putting more people on the island, I'm sorry, but you're putting people on an island. And I don't think it's in a good island to be put on because of the uses around it. Between that and quite frankly, I think it's gotten much worse as this area is now developing more industrial commercial as it was intended. So we now have data center substations, a self storage facility, and well, who knows what else may go in there. But just adding more residential to it, I don't think solves any problems for the county. It does provide a few more units of housing, but we're seeing a lot of housing applications. We're proving a lot of housing applications. We're approving a lot of housing applications. I just don't think this parcel of land is appropriate to put more residential units and subject more people to those things around them. I think if you built, they'll probably sell real quick. And then they'll be living with the things going on around them. Can they make it tolerable? Yes, but I don't think people should find where they live having to have to tolerate the things going on around them. Can they make it tolerable? Yes, but I don't think people should find where they live having to have to tolerate the things than the uses that are going on around them. This was, as I've talked a few other commissioners in the applicant. This was a difficult one for me. I thought the applicant did a Yomans job at making this a better application, working with the community, providing some additional amenities, dedicating that land to the county for a park. These are all excellent changes, but for me, it just wasn't enough to get me over the line to be able to support it. Commissioner Mauder ready. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be supporting the motion. Again, this is another application where I did say positive things about this application earlier. I think looking at all the positive feedback we got from the community, definitely makes me believe that the improvements that are made are in the right direction. So I'll be supporting this application one more time. Commissioner Myers. I won't be supporting the application. I think there's at least three or four fundamental reasons why. I mean, if the theory is because we need more houses we should rezone every non-residential piece of land residential. That's kind of a sad state. I think there are appropriate areas where we talk about residential and then there's appropriate areas where we talk about non-residential. When I look at Route 7 and I see what is going down Route 7 and I see the Weikmans and I see the data centers and I see the quarry and I see no residential and that use up front to me. It's very clear that this is a non-residential area. My viewpoint from serving on the planning commission and the board before, not saying anybody else is right or wrong, not saying the words are right and the maps wrong with all due respect to you all. I also think it's important that while our commissioner from Leesburg says people like it, I mean we have a resolution from the town of Leisberg asking us to deny this, not supporting it. So they're not in support of it. We had a presentation from the school staff telling us that there is not rooms for the kids right now and that because it was not planned as a residential area. We have a use of PDOP that we've been told or have been to different lectures that have said the county is looking and they have people wanting PDOP and they can't find a spot for it. The argument that this could be a data center is not the case because even before we change the rules, a data center is not allowed in the PDOP by right so it would yet take another special exception and other public hearing to do it. I think the appropriate of what was this property was rezone to to pdop is still an economic use and viability today as it was on the time that it was rezone. I feel sorry for the people that drove past the quarry and then decided to buy there but it was there when they purchased and they made the decision that whether it was economics or where they wanted to be they made that decision. So for those fundamental reasons and in my belief of what the plan says, and directs me, I won't support the application. Vice Chair comms. Thank you Madam Chair. I too will not be supporting the motion for a lot of the reasons that Commissioner Cus and Commissioner Myers have already well articulated. I would add that I too struggled with this and finding myself being sensitive to, I think the desires of all the folks who are in Goose Creek Club in the Woodlands who do want to expand their island. But we have a cautionary tale in that regard and this to me feels like we would be adding a briar field to a hidden wood in a lot of respects and I think if we all had the opportunity to say no to briar field we all would have. So I don't want to go down that road again. Where the map and the language of the conflant are in my mind very expressly in conflict. I find myself siding with the language of the plan, which seems to me to be more intentional than the map. We have pronouncements in the plan in several places talking about land uses between Route 7 and areas around to the east of Leesburg to remain focusing on employment uses and how the JLMA plan place types reflect Leesburg town plan and how no major changes are proposed, how we are to maintain a planned land use of the JLMA consistent with the Town of Leesburg, land use policies, putting an emphasis on employment use of South of Route 7 and keeping residential to the north. And as Commissioner Myers referenced, we have an ordinance from the Town of Leesburg really imploring us to honor our policies in the comp plan. So with all of these pronouncements in the map being in conflict, I find our language is much more intentional and for me that's the most compelling here. So for all the other reasons that my colleagues have articulated, I won't be supporting the motion. Commissioner Barnes, do you have a closing? No, ma'am. All right. We have a closing? No ma'am. All right. We have a motion on the table. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Nay. The motion carries five to four. Mr. Banks, you were in favor, right? Thank you. With Commissioner Myers, vice your co-ims, Jasper, and Commissioner Kierce opposed. All right, thank you, Derby. Thank you. We'll wrap up the official legislative part of our agenda. And we'll go ahead and begin the pre-briefing part. Before we get started, well staff shuffles around and Abdul joins us and whoever else needs to join us up here. Just housekeeping, reminding the commission something I brought up at our July meeting. This is a very in-depth preview briefing. We have a lot of staff here at our disposal to hear what we have questions about. We will be taking this up at the public hearing at the end of the month. If you've noticed, that's a very robust agenda. For a number of reasons, I'm going to preempt. I've spoken with some of you one-on-one, but including staff, including some of the interested parties that have contacted all of us and several commissioners. some of you one on one, but including staff, including some of the interested parties that have contacted all of us and several commissioners. So I'll just share publicly that it is my intention that we are not going to finish our work on this in September. That is so I would rather we not focus on trying to convince everybody that we can't run the through and to meetings and instead figure out what we need to have, whether it's the next meeting or a following meeting or whatever that looks like, to be able to render good informed recommendations and decisions. So with that said, we'll go ahead and we're ready when you guys are. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Abdul-Jaffrey. The county's project manager for the data center standards and location. And with me here today is also project manager Mark Holland from Planning and Zoning and Director of Planning, Mr. Dinklando. So with that, I would just like to, before I start my presentation, this is a briefing, not a public hearing. And I think in meeting with some of our commissioners, I thought it was important for us to provide a little bit more context. In the information ahead of the September 24 public hearing and the purpose of tonight is just provide a high level information about what is coming in front of you and we will be taking questions and we will respond, come back with responses on September 12th, 24th, apologies. So I thought it was important that provide a very brief background as to how we got here, a very brief summary of some of the conversations that happened at different board meetings. We've been approving data center in our county for a long time now. But the conversation about having a project to manage the data center in the county started back in the spring of 2022. There was a series of conversation that the transportation and just committed a TLAG discussion, data center discussion series. Following that in September 2022, the board directed the staff to move forward with a comprehensive plan on zoning ordinance amendment related to data center. In February of 2021-2023, the board approved the Department of Planning and Zoning Work Plan that included data center, CPAM and Zoom as a project. And in November of, November 19, 2023, the board deferred this project until the adoption of the zoning ordinance and directed the staff to return with a project plan within 60 days of the adoption of the zoning ordinance. And that's what we did in February 6, 2024. We were in front of the board with the project plan and the board approved the project plan. And at that meeting, the board directed the staff to divide the project into two phases and the purpose of that was to expedite phase one and I'll discuss In the coming slides what about the phase one and phase two, but again at that meeting that's when the board directed us to divide the project into two phases We were in front of the board for a check in on July 2nd of 2024 at that meeting, we presented the board with a revised project plan and a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance. The board approved the revised project plan and the Roya. The board also endorsed the proposed amendments for Phase 1 and the staff to proceed to planning commission public hearing. And that is letting us to the September 24, 2024 for planning commission public hearing where we will be presenting the proposed amendments for Phase 1. So it was briefly a background as to how the conversation started and how we got here. This slide presents the overall timeline for the data center project. For both Phase 1 and Phase 2, I'll discuss earlier, based on the Board's directions. The project has been divided into Phase 1 and Phase 2 and then February the Board approved the project plan. We talked about our discussions at the July 2nd Board check-in where the Roya and the Advice Project Plan was approved and the proposed amendments were considered by the board. And here we are for planning commission public hearing in September. And this timeline, just to see on the screen, is an estimate for that. And based on this timeline, we anticipate the completion of this phase one by February of next year. And then we will commence the phase two following that. Again, so that's an estimated project timeline that we have in front of you. This slide will discuss the scope of phase one. What is what constitutes and I think as you can see there is two components. There's a comprehensive plan amendment which we call it CPAM and then the Zoom and I'll talk about the Zoom as well. The CPAM component has two sub-components, a text amendment and a map amendment. The text amendment is surgical in nature. And that is to designate data center as a conditional use in all the playstyle where data centers are currently considered or currently identified as a core use or as a complementary use. And the mapping component, before I proceed, I just wanted to correct something. In your briefing for tonight, there is a comment about the mapping component unrelated to data center. I just want to correct that. That's the mapping component for these three areas. And I'll talk more about this in the coming slides. It was part of the mapping amendment that was directed to us for these three areas and I'll talk more about this in the coming slides. It was part of the mapping amendment that was directed to us and we discussed that at the board. On July 2nd, there were additional mapping changes that they board did not endorse, but these were the areas that the Board in Doris asked us to proceed. And that's what I was a seep on component. The zoom again is it's simple as change, designating data center as a special exception in all the districts that are currently permitted by right. So that's the scope of phase one and that's the, and I think another thing to note that's important is that the zoom does not apply to properties governed under the 1972 zoning ordinance. And continuing on, these are some of the playstypes where data centers or currently designated as a core use and complementary use. And then again, the direction is to change that to conditional use. The mapping components, we have this area in blue which is urban employment that is currently designated as urban employment and the proposal is to change that to urban transit center play style. Again, as discussed, that's the direction was discussed at the tea in the 2022 T-Lac discussion series and has been cared forward in subsequent meetings since then. And again, this is to manage future growth areas and future development in this area. And urban playstep is the right playstep to enable that development in the future close to metro area. Goose Creek Club, I was recently discussed previously discussed and tonight, so this is for Goose Creek Club, the residential area shown here in pink. The current designation is Leesberg GLA main employment playstyle. When we looked at this, The current designation is Leesberg GLA Main Poiming Place Type. When we looked at this, the proposal is to designate that area as Leesberg GLA Main residential neighborhood. Currently, again, this is to align with the predominant line use on the ground. As you can see, Goose Creek Club is predominantly residential and has an employment playstyle. So the idea is to have a uniform playstyle for both Goose Creek Club 1, sorry, Goose Creek Club and Goose Creek Club 2. And the third mapping component amendment is for an area we call it Arcola. As this area again, the existing and proposed uses are predominantly residential uses with a small commercial component that's currently designated as suburban employment and the proposal is to change the designation to suburban neighborhood. That is for the mapping component. The Zoom component, again, as mentioned earlier, these are the three districts that allow data center as by right and the recommendation or proposal is to make that a special exception consistent with board direction. I believe, oh, sorry, I have another slide, Phase 2. Briefly in terms of what this group for phase two is. You saw the timeline through slides back and again there is also a CPAM component and a ZOM component for phase two for CPAM. We will be looking at the 2019 general plan policies and consider updating as it relates to land use site and building design sustainability. We will also look at energy water, air, light and noise policies pertaining to data centers and substations. We also will be looking at addressing some of the conflicting policies within the 2019 general plan and the face to currently does not include a mapping component. Zoom, again, the zoning ordinance amendment that is to in alignment with the CPAM, we will look at the current use specific standards for data centers and will determine if revisions or additional standards are necessary for data centers, including noise attenuation measures, building and site design, landscaping, buffering, accessory use requirement, and establishing of data center use within existing structures. As you can see, the scope for phase two is broad and that is intentional and if there are any things that have been considered or find in our research that hasn't been included yet, well, could be included as part of phase two. That kind of concludes my presentation. Again, as as it is a briefing tonight we're happy to take any questions and we'll come back with responses on September 24th. I'm popular. Thank you. Dole, can you go back to the schedule slide real quick? The timeline. The timeline. Okay. So I just to clarify things for the commission because I know that there's been some discussion about this. My direction of staff when we've been preparing project plans has been to build in two meetings at the commission and two meetings at the board on all of our project plans. There's not intention for that to be binding. There's not intention that we assume that things will be done at that speed. We frankly have no idea. So rather than try to guess and change that from project plan to project plan, we leave it at two quite frequently when you have applications in front of you, the most you typically have to review it are two. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. So once we get to this part of the schedule, following it is relatively out the window because now it's at your discretion to look at these matters and determine what you want to have the content within the project and what you want to recommend to the board one way or the other. So I just want to put that out for everybody right now. Because this, it is an aggressive schedule. And the, actually the chairs motion, when they first decided to split this, was for us to come back with a motion that would allow them to adopt these changes as exponentially as possible. So we made this as short as possible. We've gone to hearing instead of having any outreach meetings, which is what we would commonly do for a conference of plan, because they wanted to shorten this as much as possible. Use the public hearings as the vehicle to hear from the public on this and then move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. I think that's helpful. Commissioner Miller. For purposes of this being a briefing and asking questions that we might want to address at the public hearing. So I'm not necessarily looking for discussion or answers right now. It's just what I'm going to want to know more about because I haven't even thought it through yet. But the splitting of phase one and phase two. Phase one, theoretically, if it were the past, as currently written, would say all data center applications are now specs. Okay. When we have specs, we need to have a rationale for an applicant to meet that standard potentially. Phase two would give us, would give the world the standards by which they could achieve potentially approval of aspects. We're doing one before we do the other. We can look back at Chapter four, I guess, would have some guidelines, but that's from the zoning ordinance that was passed eight months ago that we are already, the zoning ordinance committee is already trying to look at clean-ups. So we don't even know if what came of this in December is even ready for or been tested against what a specs data opportunity may look like. So I'm going to want to have a further discussion about how we can get from how we get its specs to not having rationale for specs until the next phase, based on the notion that special exceptions require conditions of approval, that staff drafts, but based on what? How are we getting there if we're doing this before we have phase two done? In general, as I look at this, I think it's all should be done at once. Just like I thought the general plan and the zoning warden should have kind of all been done together. I think we put ourselves in a position like we did with the general plan and the zoning wardens. Eight years. I don't want this to be four years or so that's going to be one of the main drivers that I'm going to be concerned with as we take this up at the public hearing and beyond. So I'm going to have lots of other things, but I've asked that question. I pontificate a little bit, and so I'm going to let everybody else. Commissioner Jasper. Oh, okay. Commissioner Kieres. In addition to agreeing with Commissioner Miller, which I do, I'm curious the urban policy area, the blue orange, and what the intended purpose of that. I first thought it was to stop data centers in that section and to be more in line with the transit around the zoning, the place types that we see around the metro stops, the round innovation and around Ashburn. But when you look at this area, you have a metro stop there. You got, you know, and I can't see the noise contours on here, it's updated, but you got, you're right between two runways, you got two runways run right through that parcel so I'm trying to find out what types of uses the county is looking for there but that the change in this would would accomplish because you're not really going to get much in the way of residential development in there I don't think but it would help answer my question if we had the noise contours on this map. And then if you had a page that just explained that we're changing it from this place type, which this is what we're looking for in this place type versus changing it to this place type, this is what's allowed in this place type. So there's more of a CC, a drug comparison of what we're changing it to and what the impacts are. And again, I'll have to say with Commissioner Miller said, I'm very reluctant to forward any type of recommendation to yes, make them conditional or special exception without having those kind of fleshed out because it could be a couple years from the time we know the Board approves this before phase two is completed and what is the landowner going to do in those two years trying to figure out what they're expected to do and I don't think that's fair or appropriate so I think we'll need a lot more time to kind of flesh out what these conditions and special exception requirements may be. Even if it's not 100%, at least something rudimentary that gives someone some guidance as to what's expected. And also all these different, these areas, you have a map up there, it'd be nice to have that map that shows these types of, these areas are where the core, data centers are for a core use, you can see where they are in the map, complimentary use. It'd be nice to have that map that shows all the different areas where they're currently allowed that we're trying to make conditional or special exception. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner Cures. I will offer to staff if you feel compelled, you are certainly welcome to answer any of the questions. Now if you've got a quick and ready answer, just versus letting everybody pontificate for another couple of weeks. But I'm not gonna put pressure on you to do that unless it's something that you guys feel comfortable doing tonight Thank you. I just want to respond to Commissioner Cures Yes, we do have the interactive map which is embedded into the project page as you can see on the screen. It has the Noise contours overlay on top so as you can see you just Just zoom in and out pretty user friendly. We've attempted to make it very user friendly for public and Elected official for any other stakeholders to use this map. So you can turn on and off layers that you look for, for example. So if you go to the project page here, See the sorry project page. You come down and then there is this, you click on this, the map interactive. It pops up, you can zoom in and out. I just play around with it, just go to town with it. That's a useful map to look at. Thank you. Does that map also show the 1972 ordinance properties that will not be impacted by that or can we see that elsewhere? Just as we're on this map. So we've had an internal version and a public facing version. Our internal version does have and I think that's a good idea. We will we will be adding that 1972 zone about this as well. Absolutely. Wonderful. Thank you. Commissioner Banks. Yes, the questions that I had have really already been clearly articulated by Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Kieres and I don't want to sort of restate that but I too will have a great difficulty in reaching the conclusion that we should go to a special exception process without understanding the specific criteria that an applicant needs to meet as well as the criteria that we as a commission and the board would need to apply. So I will need to understand exactly how all of that is going to work. Because that seems difficult for me. Absolutely. I can jump in quickly if that's all right. I know that same question was asked by a few commissioners in terms of what will guide special exception applications. Wild Phase II is being looked at and reviewed. We do have new specific standards in our zoning ordinance, pertaining to data centers and substations. We also have, in 2019, general current complaint policies that will guide decisions and inform special exceptions. And then, so there is standards and policies that will guide special exception and phase two is basically to revisit some of those existing standards and policies and see if you need to strengthen those. But to your questions, there is standards and policies that will guide applications. Well, I think if that's the case, then I think that you would be, it would be, it would do well if at the discussion, at the time that you're asking us to make the decision as to whether we should move to the special exception, that you very specifically lay out what those criteria would be. Absolutely, thank you. All right. Okay. Commissioner Myers. Yeah, I'm bright in sync with, we've had this discussion on RE4, but and I guess one of the things that I'm really confused about while we're here at this point was, you know, it was just in December that the Board Supervisor adopted this very detailed five page performance criteria that you've got to do to meet to be able to do a data center. It talks about noise, it talks about façades, it talks about, you know, all the things that you've just said. They exist today in their existing as performance standards. So if you do these things, you're supposed to be able to get through the process. So now we're simply talking about that. We're going to take these exact same performance standards. And we're going to say these are now the special exception performance standards. And if that's the case, why do we need them as a special exception? Because they already exist today as performance standards. I mean, I'm confused about what we think we're accomplishing, unless there is, you know, in my mind, always, there's been performance standards. Then the reason why you have a special exception is because it's either increased FAR, there's increased setbacks that you need, it's dealing with residential areas, but I've spent the summer and I've read everything. And when you go through this, it very clearly defines residential areas. It goes out to the different façades. It goes into noise and attenuation and the stuff you have to do it. I mean, it's very, very detailed. So what I'm going to need to know is, what is the additional stuff that we need to do in a special exception that is beside this because if all I'm doing is I'm taking this page and I'm now saying that's a special exception to me that's I don't understand why we're doing it because we already have. We haven't really had applications that have come through this just got adopted in September we don't know if this works or not or I'm sorry in December so I don't understand what the additional criteria now we are except that some people wanted to see them come across their desk. Well, that's great. But then let's have what it, because I'm going to need to know what those additional special exception criteria are before I'm going to be comfortable passing something. The other thing is I would like to know is it's very clearly that in some of these cases we have totally identified certain parcels. I mean we actually called them out by name. How are those people notified that this is about to happen? Because some of them is a down planning of the area of what they would like to, of what they could happen their property. I don't need you to answer that tonight. But I really need to know when we go to public hearing, I need to know that like the people down in Hiddenwood have been notified and how they were notified because they are called out in this remapping. The people in Arcola, how were they notified? Because they are literally called out. And some of these people have known for 20 plus years and part of their issues is things happen and they find out about them afterward. So, and this is a down planning for them whether they agree with it or they don't agree with it. And then I'd also like to know, I think that we should have a planning work session that's simply to identify what are the people we want to make sure we're meeting with because there's a lot of verbiage in here that talks about power. Somehow another we're going to regulate power. And I've been to about four different places now to learn more about power than I thought I would ever know. And the reality of it is, when we get past polls and transmission lines, we don't have a say in it. And I think it's important for us to understand the PMJs what the regulatory is and what we can and we can't do. We're seeing one of the issues is transportation. Well, I don't know how you get a use that has less transportation impact than a data center. So what is it we're trying to do? What is it we're trying to do with water? Because we need to identify why we are doing this. And to me, I don't know, I don't have anything to tell me, what's the transportation issue? What's the health issue? What's the welfare issue? What is the environmental issue? None of that is here and all the reading I've done. And I was hoping tonight was going to just come to me but that's part of the work sessions and I think we definitely I think to tell us to say that we give somebody three minutes to talk to us and we've had enough input to understand what we need to do is not is not the way this is going to have to work it's going to have to work that I think we should have some work sessions that we bring whether it's the chamber other people that understand this to our sessions to work with us. Thank you. Thank you. If I may, quickly to commissioner might, questions in terms of the power energy. Those are all full phase two. The school for phase two, not for phase one. I'm not going to, I personally am not going to approve this unless we figure out what we're doing with the special exception. And if part of the special exception which is in this is a discussion about power, then we need to know what is the discussion we can have. And I don't need to debate you tonight. I mean, I really don't. I'm just saying for me, you know, there has to be an understanding of what we are legally allowed to impose, I believe. So I'm going to step in and this is not to debate, but so that you all are aware of this as you consider this for next two weeks, and especially once you see the staff report next week. The use specific standards in chapter four apply to a data center use, whether it is by right special exception. So nothing is changing there. What is gained by making this special exception is that it allows the commission the board to look at the site specific effects of having a data center on whatever size being proposed. They still have to comply with the use specific standards in phase four, or excuse me, in chapter four, and the standards that they will have to address within a special exception is chapter 10, section 11, O1D, which are the factors for consideration of a special exception, just like whenever you look at any other special exception. The goal here is not to create another list of considerations that, not necessarily to create another list of considerations that is specific to whether a special exemption should be granted or not. It's possible we get into that, but that is not the automatic concern. The concern is just allowing the board to look at these on a site by site basis to ensure that there are no external effects. That's their reasoning for why they're asking for this. And I will say for notification, the notification for this meets all of the state code requirements. The, it's a down planning but under state code, no notifications required, site-specific notification required for replanting an area. So when we redid the conference of plan five years ago, we did not mail out individual notices to the entirety of the county that would have been affected. To add is sufficient having things added on the county website. Those notices are sufficient for the conference of plan and we've been in consultation with the county attorney's office all the way through this. So we have followed their guidance on what is the minimum necessary to do and that is what we have done leading up to the hearing through each one out. Thank you, Dan. This is not a countywide initiative. I mean, I understand that one was five years ago. This CPAM is not a countywide. It is the areas that are being downed plan are only to explicitly certain areas. So it is not a county-wide down planning. It's only actually to certain properties in certain areas. So I don't see how we hold our heads up and say that this is a county-wide CPAM. There's nothing about this in Western Loudon, there's nothing about this in most of Eastern Loudon. It's only in certain pockets that we're even down planning these. I mean, it's probably less than 10% of the county. So I just, to me, that's a little bit tough to swallow to say that we can do something that's this. I mean, we actually call out tax pen numbers. We call out subdivision names. And we don't think we need to notify those people that this is about to happen to me. Just personally, I'm not condemning anybody here, please. But personally, as someone who's been involved with this, I just can't imagine thinking that's proper to the residents and the citizens of the county. And I don't mean to sound disrespectful. I really do not. But to me, that is, it just doesn't, morally does not feel right. Commissioner Miller. Just a couple of things, I was wondering if maybe some other, my commissioners would have asked these things, but they'd have, so I'm going to just bring them up. One, I want to talk about the future grandfathering for sites that are already Already developed or underdeveloped or approved either by writer by specs if they need to make amendments or changes How will handle that will they need to go through the specs process and also We really haven't we didn't talk about this in the zoning ordinance in any capacity, but it's becoming a thing now, onsite power generation, at some point, whether it's through, it may even be for things that don't exist. And I'm gonna say small modular, but I'm not gonna say it though, but at some point, we should start to learn about that. And this might be an opportunity where we learn about that. So we can start including it so that at some point in the future, when it does become an economic possibility that we will be covered there. But more less grandiose though is things like battery energy storage so that we know that we can have that not just indoors but maybe outdoors and large enough sight. Things of that nature, I'm going to want hopefully us either at the public hearing or some future work session to be able to hash out and talk more about and figure out if that's something that's going to be helpful to us as we go through this process. And that is one of the matters of energy that we are proposing for face two. Okay. Commissioner Jasper. Thank you. So I think I'm going to start at the very high level ating some of the comments that, you know, I discussed with Abdul and with staff generally and also, you know, other comments made by my fellow commissioners, which is our need for information doing this is going to be extraordinary. And we are going to hear from people, I'm going to call it on both sides, but a large number of people who are interested in the issue from an economic or public policy perspective. What we don't have access to, and not one of us knows a thing about it. We are maybe that's an overstatement, but this is a highly complex area. And it is changing incredibly rapidly. And not to overstate it, but the head of open AI and Jensen Wang of Invidia were at the White House today talking about the infrastructure changes that are coming and are needed to support the changes in technology which are actually driven through the widgets of data centers here and in other places. So I think, you know, the need for expertise, outstrips, the available expertise to us, and we don't want to rely on interested parties exclusively, although we certainly want to hear from interested parties. So I think we need a strategy in place, not just as Commissioner Meyer said to hear from interested parties. I think we need a strategy in place not just better our decision-making will be. Like for a variety of reasons, it's not entirely clear to me that making everything a specs is actually in the county's public interest and I hope we'll have an opportunity to explore that. At also a high level I do feel that property owners who may be directly affected should get some better outreach than just you know the public notice in the newspaper. But I mean even if we can assume that everybody's already heard all about this because it's been in the news as much as it has. But it is, you know, our role as public servants, I think, to make sure people feel respected in the process. I'm not saying you haven't done that or anybody's being disrespectful, I'm just saying a little extra effort might be warranted. In terms of the pipeline, as we begin to have a conversation, it occurs to me that there are, and we talked about this in my briefing, there are three different classes of properties that are defined as data center pipeline properties. Those that have made some sort of legislative application, what their status might be, those that have a site plan, are in for site plan approval, and those that are already have a building permit. I think that those might warrant different treatment and it would be nice to have the map that we have reflect those differences somehow. I think it would potentially improve our ability to understand the scope of the impacts of the policies that we're considering. And then just did a, you know, as we, I know I'm not an expert, but I understand that gas lines may actually affect some of the, you know, generation, you know, peak shaving, et cetera. I'd be curious to see where the gas lines are if we could map those. And I'm incredibly grateful for the map that's been done so far. So thank you to staff for including the airport noise overlays and all of the other information, the reclaimed water lines, et cetera, and that power transmission lines. So thank you very much for including this. Vice Chair Comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we have any effort underway or actual work product that assesses the economic impact to what we're being asked to address? No, we don't. Is there some way for us to put a plan together to try to generate some information in that regard? And the reason I'm asking is, our comp plan speaks to economic development. It identifies data centers as a targeted subcluster in making, and we've got a policy about strengthening our targeted sub clusters and all sorts of things. And I want us to have the benefit of some expertise that says, hey, if you adopt what it is you're being asked to adopt, it's going to have this level of economic impact. Not just ultimately, but also with respect to the way that we're going about it with phasing. So I suspect that there's going to be some impact economically to us saying everything is a specs and then not really undertaking a lot of the more specific Native gritty work until phase two and there's going to be a lag that I think other commissioners have addressed. There's going to be an economic impact just to that in the interim there. I would like to know what that is before we set out to do what we're being asked to do. I understand for well, that's not something we can just send an email and get a response back on, but I would like for us to maybe have a process for getting some of that information before we really jump into the weeds on any of this. Is that something that we can maybe offline chat about? We can chat about it. It will depend, mainly it's gonna depend on what we can provide free of charge or cheaply and what would need additional funding to be procured in order to do something like that. It's the latter, we need to go to the board to seek those funds to move forward. Okay. That's something I'll want to be really jumping into as this moves forward. Secondly, I'm understanding that in phase one, there's this mapping component, for example, with the Goose-Crees Club that we've discussed tonight. Changing that from JLMA, employment to JLMA, residential neighborhood. As we touch the map, are we not touching the language? I mean, we've identified a conflict between the map and the language, but is it the language adjustments are not to come until phase two? Is that so in that proposal? The instances of what's remaining, there were not any language needs identified for these few changes. So if there was anything else, phase two is when we're primarily looking at language. If there was something that the commission keyed on, you would want to change in conjunction with the maps, we could do that as well. I mean, I would like for us to take on that conflict that we just addressed with the application tonight that there is a conflict between the map and the language. And if we're going to further touch the map and increase that conflict, or somehow, further that conflict, we're going to be left again in that kind of, hey, we're wrestling with a conflict again. to the extent we don't have to do that I'd like for us to not have to do that. So if I can address that I don't believe there is a conflict that doesn't mean we can't address it especially if the commission feels that there is the specific language is an emphasis on commercial industrial south of southern it doesn't say that there is no other uses south of there. And the area that's in yellow for Goose Creek Club 2 was directly carried over from the land use mapping at the time of the Vryginor Plan. It did not change during the process five years ago. Right. So, in looking at what the board had really asked us to do was to look at the mapping components to basically note where data centers are appropriate, which also means where they aren't appropriate. So the original proposal that we took to them included more changes that would have added land into place types where data centers would have become appropriate, matching what was either on the ground or in process at the time. That is where they chose to deviate from their original guidance to us to remove that and to leave this, which is why this is what's being presented to you. But the mapping is specific and it was a contrast choice for that map to be that map. That language is not clearly stating that there is nothing south of southern. It's just that there's an emphasis and even with this addition, the vast majority of the JLMA south of Leesburg will still be for commercial industrial uses. I mean I guess we could argue about how contradictory some of those statements in the map might be. But are we going to have the opportunity as we touch the map to also address can we take up those issues in our discussion and to the extent we want to recommend some language changes can we do that in the phase one or is that going to be restricted to phase two? We should be able to. It's also a matter of scope. The more we deviate from what we have been working on the board with the board on and from what we have advertised, we will run into some issues of potentially hearing a second hearing, what have you, but we can look at those as we move forward. Okay. Thanks. Question or Miller? Thank you you The conversation you just had brought something up about One of the things the board wanted was where data centers should go and where they shouldn't go Didn't buddy shop mr. Riser shop? Produce something like that a few years ago. You can if so Is that what the basis of this was or did the board reject that and ask you to create something different? Secondary development created a report or had a consultant created a report that looked countywide at essentially, well, it looked at constraints, but it looked broadly and openly at where it thought data centers could and could not be appropriate. That is not the basis of this. The basis of the mapping work that we did was based on five or six parameters that the board had approved. When we first started this project and the project plan, mainly looking at what was on the ground, what had been approved but not yet built, what was owned by data center related companies, regardless of what was there, things of that nature. So we looked practically at that and did not really look at the report that had been prepared for economic development. I will not say that the county did not endorse it, but it is not something that the board has chosen to act on any of the guidance that was in that report to this time. Would members of this body benefit from seeing what that report was? I mean, Matt, maybe this is a question for the body, because that might give some of the economic development rationale that both Vice Chair, Combs, and Commissioner Jasper had sort of alluded to. That's just a, so if it is something that members up here might want to avail themselves of perhaps Dan, your shop could provide that to the commissioners. Absolutely. I definitely would like to have that. Monor related note, can we, well, I'm not sure if it's the public hearing or if it's at future meetings that we may need. That may be something that you can talk to Mr. Reiser if they'd be interested in being a resource if they have that capacity at the moment and interested in doing that I think they do have a wealth of knowledge and have been through some planning exercises in this area and might have feedback on what didn't didn't work and why things are and are not the way they are. We can have that discussion, but I'll just plan that seat publicly. I mentioned the 72 properties. It'd be nice to see how many of those are going to be. I'll call it left behind by this. I'm curious to Commissioner Myers point those, I'm going to call them the three areas that are called out in this mapping. How many properties are in there that are impacted? And I'm not talking about the ones that are already fully built out as something else, whether it's data centers or residential. I mean they are what they are, they know what they are. No one's changing their ability to do something in the next couple of years. I'm, but I mean, how many are there overall? And how many are kind of in flux? They're undeveloped or they're way underdeveloped or whatever. We know they're ripe for change to happen. See how many we're impacting, because if it's a small number and I suspect it's not horribly dramatic, I think it would be probably a good idea to make sure those folks are fully aware of what's going on. I think everybody else addressed all my other questions and requests for information. Any last thoughts on things that we would like to hear about soon whether it's a public hearing or a future discussion? Mr. Myers? I definitely would like to have, about a year whoever missed the department, be part of, I think one of the things that I'll be honest that I'm very concerned about is, you know, that public hearing, we have eight items and this. So I think the idea of trying to set up other staff or other people to do stuff is going to be, I mean, I'm willing to stay until 2.30 in the morning, 3.30 in the morning, whatever. But I think it's not going to be to know that we're going to work together to come up with some kind of session afterwards that says we'd like to have the Department of Economic Development. Because the other thing I really want to make sure that we have and not at the public hearing is I want to have somebody that's representing Mark Stoltz here that says okay when they come in with this special exception, here's what I'm gonna look at. I wanna have somebody from his staff that says to, and I'm not talking about tonight, but I'm talking part of it is, how do we, we do have that person here tonight. But I'm not saying, I'm not saying I need these answers tonight and I don't think we do it at the public hearing. I think the public hearing, we need to just listen to the public because it's gonna be. But the other thing I want to know is when somebody comes in and they've already been through the process but they've got that third building, what happens to them? When somebody comes in and they've been halfway through the process, I don't understand the difference between somebody that's a landowner and knows that they want to do a data center versus somebody that's a data center company. Why do they get treated, could be treated differently from the way the wording isn't here. So I've got a lot of questions that I want to make sure that I'm talking to the zoning staff so that I feel comfortable when this is done, that I've had an intellectual discussion with them, that I feel like I know what the criteria is, and that everybody else knows what the criteria is. And I think that will be at a work session, not at a public hearing when you're number six and there's four more to go. So just to be clear, Abdul here is on our community planning team and three times behind him is the division manager for community planning. Mark is on the zoning administration team. Ryan Reed is a deputy zoning administrator so we can potentially have more, we can have Mark here specifically if need be, but there is zoning staff already on on the team. Yeah. We will talk to economic development. I'll also note that we have been working with their staff and working on this thus far even though they're not at the table and they have been involved. We can definitely talk to them about that. Okay. Something you said Commissioner Myers made me think of something else and I didn't write it down so now it's, now it's, now it's escaping. I repeat everything you just, there was something in there before the, oh, so not to give my, when we were doing the zoning ordinance speech because I've given about 10 versions of that this week. But you just reminded me of something else. You know, we obviously had some discussions about grandfathering or we don't like the G word vested rights. I think it would be helpful and I don't know of Jason. This was something that we actually did because it was from the legal department and our council and they we did one of our very rare closed sessions where Ms. Sednor kind of gave us some background on how that applied in the state code on that particular topic on zoning ordinance. There's some overlap into this, but this is, I think, getting towards some of these questions of what happens if you're partway through what, how far into the partway. You know, what are your rights that are protected? And I know that the state code we discussed this earlier has invested rights that are fairly well protected. And I think it would be helpful for all of us to understand that and then we can figure out what remains. And so I will, we can talk, I'm making a triangle here between Dan and Jackie and Jason and whom Abdul, whoever else, about what is the most appropriate vehicle, but I would request that at some point be at a closed session or a future work session or something, we probably need to hear, we probably need a reeducation on vested rights and what that means, because it's come up in several people's comments tonight. I think it's helpful. We'll be happy to do some version of that and we can definitely dust that off. It'll be a similar answer because of the zoning ordinance. I can tell you to basic level, the unsatisfying answer is going to be that it's a site by site determination. So we can cover it, but there's not going to be an overriding guarantee of anything as part of that conversation. Yeah. I'm sorry. I did like the zoning ordinance and stuff there's a point in time when people have done a legislative some part of an act That they're vested that's not site-specific that is that is project So there's got to be a thing that says and I shouldn't say there has to be but there's just got to be an element Where it's like if you've gotten your record? Well, of course if you've gotten your record that but if you've got your site plan approved Or you've gotten a preliminary proof there's got to be a point in time when but my concern is like we were talking about is you could do it. Preliminaries are done a lot of times in phases so you could have your two buildings approved and your third world and you haven't done because it requires more more money to be paid. That's what I'm concerned about because it's the overall property, but it's the phasing and how does the phasing get protected. And we don't need to have that discussion tonight, but it is part of the rights that I want to find out that you get or you lose when you're doing this. And that's not really a site. That's a legislative thing of when do they get vested. I'm going to suggest for you. Similarly, thank you. I have highlighted earlier the similar concerns, I'm also concerned about amendments and changes. These are the things we're going to, the details, devil will be in the details and these are some of the details we really need to consider to do a good job. Is there anything we have shared that you need a little additional clarification on that we can help you with so that you understand, hopefully, what we're looking for. Sometimes we're not clear. So now's your chance if you scan your notes and see anything you want to ask us, please do. Commissioner Coombs, I think you brought an interesting point about the economic impact or economic analysis of these changes. I think we can connect offline as well to get some clarification on that and ask some questions that probably have to better understand that and looking at county wide. And if you look at our employment lands in the county and looking at different uses that is envisioned by a complex plan and also how do we have a resilient economy moving forward so that we have a diverse uses,, spaces for diverse businesses to operate and function and be attracted to the county. So I'd like to connect with you and find it better and understand that and be able to see if it can consider that analysis. Yeah, I'd be happy to. Thank you. Dan, any other parting words or wisdom you want to share with us while you have a microphone? It's also one piece of the thing. Yeah, I appreciate the furious note taking all three of you are doing. I don't know that I have any words of wisdom at this point that haven't already been shared. This is a big decision and I would encourage each of you to talk to your board members if you have not already about this issue. We will work on providing these answers for you, clarifying anything that is needed in the coming days and seeing what we can have ready for the public hearing and anything that we don't have ready then for presumably the one or more work sessions we have afterwards. But I will note that the board wanted this moving fast for a reason. So if you have not had that discussion with them, I would encourage you to do so. So you at least have knowledge of what their thinking was. Kinne, I mean, and I appreciate what you're saying. And I'm grateful for you all coming tonight and for your efforts on this. But I will say that it's our job to consider things and give the board the best, the benefit of our judgment and reasoning and our research. They have a much broader scope of work than we do. And we would be remiss if we simply kind of said, oh, well, the board wants us to pass it along so we're just going to, you know, go ahead and pass it. I mean, we really do need to give them, you know, all of the information they need to make sound decisions. And so that, I think that that's our job and I expect that that's what everybody's sitting at the diast tonight is trying to do. So. And no way trying to say that that's not your role. There's nobody that respects the role of the commission and the rights that you have under state code more than me. Pride becoming director, I work with directly with planning commissions my entire career. So I fully appreciate the role that y'all have. The part of the reason I recommend talking to the board members is that some of the answers you're looking for are not answers that I think staff can provide. We did not set the aggressive timeline specifically. We did not recommend them splitting it into phase one and phase two. We were following the worst direction as best we can to implement their goals. So again, I think talking to them about this. Well, you will understand better some of those things that maybe we are not able to answer their goals. So again, I think talking to them about this. Well, you will understand better some of those things that maybe we are not able to answer to satisfaction. Point taken, and I appreciate that. Any other questions? Well, not, I'm going to move away from statements just to the interest of time, but any other questions that we want to pose for? I wanted to just follow up because I wanted to let you know, I mean, I did, I've had three conversations and I would chair Randall about this and my concerns about it. And I had a meeting with supervisor Turner because of him being the chair of the tea look that had it at up. And he actually sent me an email response that says, Dale, we can always expand the schedule as needed. This is just steps first shot at a timeline. Until we see the draft, we don't really know how long it will take. My recommendation is to wait, do you see the draft and take your best shot? And if we need to a delay, we can. And that's from supervisor Turner. So I feel very comfortable that if we need more time, I think they're gonna give it to us. Okay. I think we're good if you guys are good. Thank you for staying. Thank you. Yes. I thank you. This was a helpful dialogue in a good place to start. We've got a lot of work left. Pardon? We get a copy of the presentations. I don't have it. Yeah, no, we didn't. Is could that be shared? Yeah, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Okay. Last, well not quite last, but our regular programming will return back to our regular programming with Marshant and your briefing of our upcoming public hearing items. And as I've mentioned earlier you have a long list. Correct. Do you need a break or anything? We're good. I think we're good. We're close. We'll push through. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. We're close. So again questions not commentary. When I see them doing the agricultural force districts, instead of taking a very long presentation, they ask any board members have any questions in dealing with the application and if they don't, then they ask if there's anybody signed up and if there's nobody signed up, they don't do the very long presentation. They just move right on to accepting it and moving on it. So I'm just wondering knowing how long our agenda items are for that night. If we want to think about doing that for that number one agenda where- Unfortunately, the AFDs are going to have speakers this time probably. We've already had that indicated. So- I think don't though we could- Rachel gives a condensed usually presentation that covers sometimes multiples all at once and she's usually under five minutes. So I think, and obviously there's no other applicant person. So we have a pretty condensed version of the AFDs anyway, but we do have one that I suspect there's going to be some discussion in public comment on. So I'm hesitant to commit to just waving all presentations. I think some might be necessary. But on the ones that they just show up because we've got like 4.5 on. Yeah. Again, we'll work on that and we have had staff offer to wave presentations in the past and when it makes sense and we will certainly be looking for ways to keep this agenda under control so we can be as productive as we can be in six to eight hours or however long it takes. But yeah, unfortunately even the ones that are usually very light on public comment may have public comment. So not unfortunately, but just the timing may not be the most fortunate. We always welcome public comment. If I could, sometimes we can shorten those discussions. If staff supports approval of an application, sometimes we do say we support this if the commission has any questions. And then we usually try to defer that to the application to present their application if we support it. So there is an opportunity to wave at least one presentation. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and to our previous discussion, I suspect as we've said a few times that the zoning amendment item on data centers will be fairly focused on us listening. I don't think any of us are under the impression that we're going to take a final action on that on the 24th. So with that in mind, we'll probably try to keep a lot of the extra discussion to a minimum not to discourage engagement and discussion, but that takes self-control in all of our parts. So speaking of, Marchant. No problem. that takes self-control in all of our parts. So speaking of, Marshant. The problem. So one of our efforts has been over time. We try to discourage the redundancy between presentations. We give you the who, what, when, where? And the applicant says, does it remind or who, what, when, where? The same. And usually they use the same graphics that we use. So we can try to work with our applicants directly to make sure that we're not duplicating information. So I understand you don't want me to go through each of the 10 interim applications. So we will summarize it as 80 acres across these districts. Any questions? Is there no? Okay. So another milestone application, this is west of Leesburg, the intersection of route 7 and route 9. This is 152 foot monopole within the V.Ride of Way. It would accommodate up to four antenna to accommodate four carriers. It does require also a special exception, there's two applications, a commission permit to allow the utility and also a special exception to allow the poll in the AR1 zoning district. And this is the location, this is your standard compound at the base with the perimeter screening. Mr. Miller. Has Darby become the resident expert on cell towers? We're trying to spread the wealth. Tonight was Allison. Darby has the next one. I thought Darby had one too. Now Darby and Goose. Oh, okay. Darby, one. Darby and Goose. Oh, okay. That was how I was saying. How quickly you forget. I suspect it would be helpful if it's not already in the materials to see a map like we've asked the last couple of times around with trail side and Belmont to kind of see surrounding coverage that's already existing. I don't know coverage that's already existing. I don't know if that's pot at the applicant can bring that or if you guys can, it seems to be something we've asked for the last couple of times. So I'm going to proactively request it now. Mile radius to mile radius. Two mile. They say it's three quarters. So I think I need you know, go a little one mile and two miles help. Okay. Yes ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions? I'll add a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of Is this a needed facility or? Okay. For first net coverage. Is that okay? For emergency coverage, just ma'am. I would like to understand the technical requirements related to poll height because I know we passed this on an assumption that, you know, what milestone wants to do is technically required. But I don't, I believe that that is an expedient way to do it in an economically efficient way. I don't know that it's absolutely required that everything go on 150-foot pole and I'd love to have somebody other than an interested party provide and put on it. And you were asking for an independent? Yeah. Okay. I don't know that we have the staff to do that, but we can. I'm sorry. Whether or not it's active or not, we'll have to. I think we had had that, but I think the committee had been stood down since the adoption of the policy. So we can follow up on that. So it may not be available before the hearing. Okay. Question of Jasper. Is there another question on that? No, okay. All right. Any other questions? Okay. No. Aldi Water Storage. Aldi Water Storage. This is a relocation and rebuild. This graphic did not carry over the location location but the tank is in this area. You have root 50 that comes through town. Snickers will turn by. They're wanting to reestablish a 10,000 gallon tank in the CR1 zoning districts. What is the existing one? I want to say the existing one's right here, right next door. So it's going right beside it? Yes ma'am. Close by. I want to say the existing ones right here right next door Yes, ma'am This does require a special exception to establish the use We did determine did not need a spoken commission permit and they're also wanting to wave some of the buffer requirements given the location on the property so Any questions Nope, go on. Another utility, this is Percival Waterworks Expansion. This is a commission permit to allow for the expansion of the existing use. Also, a special exception to allow the use within the air one zoning district and they're wanting to remove the southern and western buffer requirements, even some of the easements that are out there today. Any questions on this one? I assume we'll have very thorough maps that show what those current easements are that exist already. Correct. I forget the term tonight. It's the. OK, moving on. Newtriot bank. That's what it is. There's a nutrient bank that is around the facility that has a certain lease. And so they're wanting to credit that because of the distance you see between the edge of the facility and the adjacent properties. Okay. So, good. All right. This shows the existing facility and you'll see sort of on the southern side is where they're focusing the expansion facilities. Okay. Luxstone, Cochran Mill. Let me catch up in my notes. You'll notice, Crosshair Boulevard, Cochran Mill Road comes up in this tunnel direction. You have the Corey operations and then you have Claude Moore, not Claude Moore, Phil Bull and Park. Okay. Get to my notes. operations and then you have cloud more, cloud more fillable in part. Get to my notes. Okay, this is a zoning map amendment to rezone 98 acres from MRHI, JLM, JLMA 20 in general industrial zoning districts to the GI zoning districts to develop a 1.1 million square feet of data center uses as well as a accompanying substation. This is the layout of the campus. Issues that we still continue to discuss regarding building height, waterways, preservation of stream and corridor resources, and finalizing some transportation improvements regarding crosswalks and turn lane warrant analyses along Cocker Mill Road. One question. One question or one thing I'd like to just have clarified because I think I did my own calculations but I'm not going to rely on that. I think out of all the 97.8 acres, there's less than two acres. That's actually J M L A, the rest of it's all in the MR H I and GI. I'd just like to have that confirmed for the hearing because I think it's a very little bit when we're talking about 98 acres. That's in the J L M A, but I'd like to have you all to verify that. You want us to break out each, the acreage of each district that's being. Well, what I'm really looking at is when I, when I did it, it looks like there's only about, like I said, less than two acres. That's in the J. M. L. A. which means the rest of it is all non-residential. So I think it's just an important component to know. Is it out of at a 98.7 is it really 1.7 acres that we're talking about? Yeah, that's typically what we'll have that detail in the report. We'll break out which the acreage of each district that's being resumed. Yep, Mr. Miller. Marshawn. Yes sir. When I was talking to the applicant on this, they talked about potential warrant studies for turn lanes on Cochraneville into the, I guess we would be united drive, whether the loud united facility is the bull in park. Okay. I can't imagine that a facility like that size would require a turn lane. That being said, when Cochrane Mill is built, it should all go through. With that facility there, it could press, press, or four shadow, whatever it may be, the right term it. That actually becoming a back entrance into Bowling Park. So is there anything we could ask the applicant or could to do or could they how would it work with V dot if while a warrant study wouldn't. Today make probably warrant a turn lane, but it may in the future. So if it does in the future, so if it does in the future, can we have a ask them for a reservation of land or how, or couldn't ask them to design the road in such a way that it could allow for some future turn. Something like that, because I don't think a warrants that I would say it needs now, but it could in the future. Sure, and I think you're talking about the centrons right here? Yeah, okay Yes, we can have DTC. I Consider that okay Yeah, questions Um, I have to keep remember I have to press my ex to see my notes. I put I can't get used to to see my notes I put. I can't get used to these iPads I'm used to just writing. I just want and we don't need to tonight but during the thing from again my review. It doesn't look like any of this the buildings or anything are any close to risk it doesn't look like they're in steep slopes and it doesn't look like they're in floodplain. I just would like that verified at the public can because I know a lot of times that is the concern. In fact, it looks like the only time anything is really touched is from an existing already stone water terrace line which isn't this applicants that's done it at someone else. So I would just like, and again, I don't need you to answer it tonight but from the reading I've done and reviewing the concept development plan I don't see where they're touching any of those which I know are very important to everybody. For Scrooves, Teap Slope, what was that one? Well I'm playing. I'm playing. Okay. What else? Could we also get Marcia just the longevity of the Corey operation adjacent there? We had that information with the goose creek club 2 from the Corey. They were estimated how much longer the Corey would be operational. It's just curious as to what that similar information would be here. the group's group club two application. They did the lifecycle I guess of it. We're asking for a similar for this life. This may be as much so that the applicant comes prepared to Answer it. I'm always curious how much land, how much acreage or Whatever is left there for that substation because we know they get squeezed, squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. And then they come in and ask for specs after we've already approved the use around them. So that way I can have a conversation with Dominion or we can ask them, maybe share it with the group. What, you know, is that adequate surface area for them to do what they need to do to support these buildings? Just to go back to the orientation. So it was turned on its side. So buildings are in here. So the next graphic, if you imagine that turning laying down on the left, that's what it looks like here. So, okay, anything else? Nope. Okay, our cola grove. This is another data center application. There's existing data center entitlements today on these southern parcels. They are wanting to bring in this parcel for utility substation and bring the entire of the property under one legislative application. So this would be 30 acres from RSC to the IP zoning district. They're also wanting to increase maximum building height from 60 feet to 100 feet. And then a special exception for utility subst subs, for the utility substation use. So I do not have the exact square footage of my notes here, but we'll have that available to here. Commissioner Miller. There's a lot of data around here and giant substations also. So I'm going to be curious of how what the trigger is that would require another substation. In other words, if the already approved amount could be serviced by a nearby substation, then that could give us some reason to say, well, you're state where you are, if we don't want another substation. Okay. You have the JK applications here, here. Yeah. You have the one which you just considered. There are the multiple substations off here, but we can, yeah, I don't know that, I mean, does that site, we can, yeah, I just, I don't know that, I mean, does that site? Can that be served by existing substations and should they go to 100 feet and that's what would trigger them needing more? I'll kind of understand what that trigger is that that site would be necessary for a substation. I could have the applicant ready to respond to that. And it just is an aside, our Colo town center went to the board last night and that was ordered to the October 16th board business meeting for action. Could we get the CDP for that included in our materials for this so we can have a reminder of what's going on right next door? Since it's not approved in the online yet. Exactly. This is the orientation. This is the property laying to the right. This is the substation and this would be the remaining campus. So we need to call this town center up in this area. Any other questions? Yeah, Maasha. Can we get some kind of a background on the previous application with what when we approve I think this is kind of I see it as an extension to the old application. I just want to see more in your presentation from the staff if possible not only just the material to see I know certain things that what that commission approved or the board approved or not approved at the time. If I remember correctly, this substation should not be there or something like that. So I just want to get more background for commission to understand what happened with the previous application so that we get better understanding and make a better decision. We can compare the two proposals. What was previous, how does that compare the proposed and the delta? Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Myers. I'm perplexed. I remember from the Flintstone days when we took the time in effort to create this RC district It was meant to be compatible with old surrounding areas where it was supposed to be smaller uses of more Retail uses that were really used to be also combined with residential How do we get to where we think that an RC is compatible to be and all of a sudden converted to this. You want to know the background history was part of the presentation? Sure. Because to me, this is an area that I don't know that I would have, especially with what we just did with our Colossonor and stuff and trying to buffer them off. I especially where I look at, for me, I'm gonna really look hard about where's this substation going. What is the impact of what we just did for trying to create more of a downtown look? Because I don't know that this is an appropriate area for it, especially with the underlying uses that I know of the flexibility that's there from an economic development point of view in the RC district. So this gives me a little bit of heartburn that all of a sudden we're just kind of undoing something that I don't know that we, it needs to go there. I guess the best way, long way to put it. I don't think this is maybe an appropriate use to butt up to what we just did with trying to create that downtown and wanting them to do that open space. And all the things we did, and now we put a substation and something like that right beside it and it's got the RC which allows for rural commercial. So to me I'm going to have to understand more why I'm undoing the RC. And then you have the residential behind it redevelopment they of the Arcola School. I don't feel like I know that I agree with the right spot. Okay. Come here, Shirk Ears. Sorry, you're right next to me. Come here. If you could, the data centers, I think that's the Google campus on the south, the east side of our Colable, are what the height of those are. And I believe there's another building closer to the intersection of Delas West and our coal that hasn't been built yet. I'm curious what that height is. And if I understood you right, there is no approved application for data center. They're just now wanting to combine this parcel with their other parcels. So this application is for not just a substation, but the data center, right? Correct, these four parcels here already have an entitlement for data center use. They do. Correct. They are wanting to pull in this parcel for a substation and then increase the overall height of the data center bill. Substations right here. It's the overall height of the data center bill. Substations right here. It's the little top chunk. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. That's the number. Yes, ma'am. OK. Yeah, it's all that's left of these. So I want to, yeah. So I, you know, grand nothing's been built, obviously. Yeah. It's in my, in my, the utility substations are about a thousand times uglier than a data center building. And if we have this parcel to work with, I would rather see a data center building where they want to put the utility substation and maybe that one be at a lower height, and then the substation and a taller building more to the west. Flip it almost. Yeah, that's just in my opinion. I think a data center that if they put a good, they showed me some renderings which were pretty decent looking and have that face that residential community. I would much rather be looking at that. Because there's nothing you can do. I don't care how big you build the solid wall. You're not hiding what a substation looks like. March on. So anyways. For them to change that, we'll call it the bottom three quarters or whatever of that site. That's not in this application, right? So they would have to open that up and risk losing their entitlement. No, they're wanting to supersede those. Okay. up and risk losing their entitlement? No, they're wanting to supersede those. Okay. They're wanting to supersede their existing application, their existing approval, reconsolidate with the substation use and then increase the overall height. Of the data center. Oh, the campus. Okay, okay, all right, all right. So it is every parcel in this. Correct. What is not entitled today is this piece in the back for the utility substation. Okay. So we have any preview of their information. It seems to me the reason they've done this is they were told you need a substation in order to serve your data centers so now they're coming back and say okay we want a substation now. Can we verify that information? Or they'll do they have to tell us that they're going to have to that's that they would have to you would have Okay, that's that of that of them. Okay, so but they're also opening it up to get a taller height right correct Which is my question is do they need the substation because they want to go taller. If where they are right now can be met by other substations, that's a significant bit of information for us to consider. And the other thing that we don't know, just out of kind of to add on, is does somebody go through and get, knowing how the commission and county feel about more, neighbors feel about more substations, do people come in and say, I'm going to get the center approved and come back later when I find out that I need a substation because I don't know for sure. I mean it's almost always done that way. Yeah, so which is why we started asking Dominion, but they're not really an active referral agency. We tried that, but this is really probably a dominion question. I don't know if staff can try to reach out and ask about capacity in the area. I mean, I've done it in the past. Other commissioners could do it, but I know- We can always ask whether or not we get a response. We do send referrals to no back and dominion, but we do not consistently get the response. No, I'm aware. Well, ask, and if not, we'll put the applicant under the microscope to get dominion here if needed. Okay. Any other questions, commissioners? Okay. Last one, cross mill center. Noticing now that this is a bit of an older map. Last one, cross mill center. Noticing now that this is a bit of an older map. You have the Greenland Park site that you just looked at to the south. This site is the FedEx structure, cross-travel of art. And this is the sites between Cochrane Mill Road and Cross-Troble of Art. This is the tail end of the airport right here. This is the other side of Cochrane from that protected piece that had some historic significance that we were given as part of the distribution facility. Okay. That's right here. Okay. And so, currently, Mothballed. So this is 22 acres wanting to go from JLMA-20 to the IP zoning district. And this would allow up to the option for 920,000, that's 7,000 square feet of data center or IP uses allowed in the district and the IP zoning district. We're still discussing with the applicant architectural and site design and improvements to both cyclone and caccharomil road. So did you say that they're not just this isn't just a data center. It could be elder uses too, did you say? Yes, they've capped the amount of data center, but they've also allowed themselves the option to develop any IP use allowed in the district. Commissioner Kieres. This property is kind of elevated, correct? If you're on sickle and road, it sits up high. Correct. So you have, you know, sickle and creek that runs here and it sort of slopes. If you're going south on sickle and it sort of slopes high from the left, it comes across sickle and then dips down into sickle and creek. Creek. And then behind it goes up and do Phil Bolin. Is this building height as mentioned as an outstanding issue? Is this going to be another, should we, would you anticipate the discussion of one story as 12 feet coming back up again here like it did across the way? Okay, yes, I'm guessing 48 feet prepared by the information that you had before to discuss it and perfect that that's all you can do at this point give us the numbers Okay Commissioner Jasper. Just if one we see this, I'm sure you'll have the land uses adjacent, the approved, whether, you know, you know, what's on the other side of Siklin there, etc. Surrounding uses? Yes, please. Yeah. Anything else? Anything else? Anything else, guys? I think that is it. Okay, that's the last application. Thank you. Thank you, Marchante. That was a long list. We have at least one administrative item, as I believe I've mentioned a few of you. Mr. Miller so graciously served the remainder of a previous commissioners appointment to the ZAC as our planning commission representative and that term has come up this month. And so we have asked if anybody else would be interested if Mr. Miller would continue and I believe Mr. Miller you have a motion. I do or a nomination. You have continue and I believe Mr. Miller you have a motion. I do, or a nomination. You have a nomination, I'm sorry. Yes. I would like to nominate Commissioner Myers, pulling Myers to serve as the liaison from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Ordnance Committee. I would second. Are you willing to accept Commissioner Myers? I always like to give people a chance to say no and run. All right. Anybody else have any interest or comments or anything? No? I just want to say you have some big shoes to fill. I was an outstanding liaison for three meetings that they had while I was there. I'll try to do as good as one I've chaired the 1993 rewrite. All right. Would you have a long question? is good as when I chaired the 1993 rewrite. All right. We have a one question. I may have misread this, but they all weren't you also nominated by the board to participate as that just the Zoc as it pertains to Western. This is you and I and Mr. Miller right now are all three potentials for being on the CPAM for Western Lodden. I talked to Chair Randall about this yesterday when I was told about this because I didn't want to be in this because on many of the pages as you go through what they're thinking about this, there was the opportunity that if you served on Zoc, you couldn't serve on the CPAM thing. And she said to me that is not the position because of this being a planning commission. She also let me know that the board is going to have another discussion about the makeup of that particular zoning committee in September. So that's not been farmed up either. So I did ask that question because I didn't want to be in the position of if I did one I couldn't do the other. I believe the item is on the board's business meeting agenda for September 17th. Yeah, they'll be taking that up later this month. And we'd ask that question the previous week because we were also concerned with Mr. Miller being one of only three commissioners eligible to serve on Western C-PAM as it's currently drafted if we were going to have an issue. So we didn't know that was not an issue. I'm glad you were able to confirm that as well. And yeah, so we should be all good, because yes, I said, well, wait, we only have three of them. You can't tear them in half. At least we shouldn't. All right, Jackie, any other administrative items? No, we should all vote. Oh, we got to vote. I'm sorry. All in favor of that nomination and the point I Opposed the the nomination carries 920 and if Jackie if we are done our meeting is adjourned