# Council Planning & Zoning Committee - July 5, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 5, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2079 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2079?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-07-05 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 13,828 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Zoning Committee met on July 5, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Farmer presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session. No votes were taken during the meeting. The committee heard three public comments and received one informational presentation on Complete Streets. Two of the three agenda items—the Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives Update and Items Referred to Committee—were deferred for future consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on July 5, 2011: * Farmer * Ellinger * Gorton * Kay * Ford * Blues * Beard No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the committee during the public comment period. **Vice Mayor Gorton** [timestamp: 1:03:53] raised concerns about word choice in the goals and objectives section. He expressed that the use of the word "compel" may be misleading and recommended adopting more collaborative language to better reflect regional cooperation. **Bruce Simpson** [timestamp: 1:16:22] spoke on the topic of urban service boundary and rural activity center expansion. He suggested that the committee avoid implementing blanket prohibitions on minor adjustments to the urban service boundary or rural activity centers. Simpson emphasized the importance of fair hearings and open consideration of development opportunities, particularly those that could support job creation and economic growth. **Council Member Kay** [timestamp: 1:25:18] addressed the balance between urban and rural development. She advocated for including language in the goals and objectives that reflects the community's desire to maintain equilibrium between urban and rural areas, which she identified as a defining characteristic of Lexington-Fayette County. ## Contested Items The July 5, 2011 meeting included two significant areas of disagreement among council members and participants. **Use of the word 'compel' in regional planning goal** Council members debated the language proposed for a regional planning goal, specifically objecting to the use of the term "compel." Members argued that this word was too strong and potentially misleading, as it could imply coercion rather than reflect the collaborative nature intended for regional partnership. Several council members recommended replacing "compel" with more cooperative language that would better align with the goal's actual intent of fostering regional cooperation rather than imposing mandatory requirements. **Potential prohibition on rural activity center expansion** A heated discussion arose regarding concerns that the draft goals and objectives might implicitly preclude future expansion of rural activity centers. Participants raised concerns about the economic importance of these centers and worried that the proposed language could create blanket restrictions on their growth. A citizen advocate emphasized the need for open hearings and case-by-case evaluation of expansion proposals rather than implementing categorical prohibitions on rural activity center development. ## Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives Update [timestamp: 0:31:55] The committee discussed a draft set of concise, aspirational goals and objectives for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission presented a revised mission statement and five thematic goals designed to guide the plan's development. **Key Themes** The proposed goals and objectives emphasized the following themes: - Growing successful neighborhoods - Protecting the environment - Creating jobs and prosperity - Improving community desirability - Regional planning **Presentation and Discussion** The Planning Commission's revised framework prioritized flexibility, public engagement, and future adaptability. Key speakers in the discussion included Chris King, Jim Duncan, Carolyn Richardson, and Ed Holmes, who engaged with the presented material and provided input on the proposed direction. **Outcome** The discussion was deferred, indicating that the committee did not reach a final decision on the goals and objectives at this meeting and would revisit the matter at a future date. ## Complete Street Presentation A team from WRT and EHI presented the Draft Complete Streets Manual to the meeting. The presentation was delivered by Mami Hara, Ed Holmes, and Judy Needham. [timestamp: 00:00] The presentation outlined a holistic approach to street design that integrates multiple objectives and user needs. The Complete Streets Manual emphasized four core principles: - **Safety** for all street users - **Environmental sustainability** - **Economic competitiveness** - **Equitable access** for all users The team highlighted the importance of several key design considerations: - **Connectivity** to ensure streets link effectively throughout communities - **Context-sensitive design** that responds to local conditions and needs - **Integration with green infrastructure** to support environmental goals - **Coordination with transit planning** to support multimodal transportation The presentation was informational in nature, providing an overview of the draft manual's approach and principles for complete street design. ## Items Referred to Committee The committee discussed matters referred to it regarding housing, infill, redevelopment, and historic preservation. [timestamp: 0:31:55] **Scope of Committee Authority** The committee acknowledged that housing, infill, redevelopment, and historic preservation fall within its purview and are appropriate subjects for committee consideration. **Key Discussion Points** The discussion centered on how new goals and objectives would guide future decisions on land use and development. Committee members examined the relationship between these goals and objectives and two specific planning areas: the urban service boundary and rural activity centers. The committee considered how the proposed framework would apply to development decisions in these areas. **Speakers** The discussion involved Farmer, Gorton, Kay, and Blues. **Outcome** The matter was deferred, indicating that further consideration or action on this item was postponed to a future meeting. --- ## Full transcript Music Music Music Music Thank you. that. Mr. King, welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission members. I'm going to give you a very brief introduction, not in substance, but mainly on context. It has been a long time since the Urban County Council has adopted a development manual, and what we are bringing forth to you is a project that would be a new manual to replace what we currently do and augment what we currently do regarding streets. And I know you have heard the concept of complete streets. I'm not going to dive into that. You're going to hear about that in the next 15 minutes. But suffice it to say, it's the first time that our street review has been seriously looked at, one since almost 25 years, and another when the development manuals were looked at from procedures about 10 years ago. So the streets are such an important part of the public realm in terms of transportation, environment, image of the community and everything. Complete streets concepts seek to look at those in a holistic way, suffice to say. And again, you'll hear more about that. So let me tell you where you are today. We are mimicking the process that was used for the original development manuals about 10 or 11 years ago, which means that we have been in a process of developing a draft of the manual that will guide the design of streets. There have been meetings with numerous stakeholders, as many as we could find, to help have input in that draft. And now we're about to put this draft out to the public, which includes you. So today's kind of the starting point rather than the finishing point of about a year and a half or so that we've been working on this. From this point, what we will be doing is broadening the conversation, reaching out to others beyond the immediate stakeholders for public comment. We will take public comments, identify any further issues, concerns. We will also go through a process of identifying any changes in the subdivision regulations or zoning ordinances that would be needed. We may implement this. And we hope that you will keep this on this committee as a standing item, and we will report back to you each time as to where we are and when we feel we would be ready to ask you to recommend the manual and text amendments on to the full council. So I hope that helps, that today is really the introduction to you and the community to work that's been going on and starting the last phase of public input processes and gathering before we bring it back to you and recommend, hope you recommend it for adoption. One question. Yes, sir. So Complete Streets is just part of a new development manual? No. This is, the development manuals are out there and operating. What this will do will be to replace and augment the design of street sections that are in the manuals right now. Again, bringing that more holistic approach that you will hear a great deal about here in the next 15 minutes. Any committee questions? Let's proceed. Thank you. With that in mind, I'd like to introduce our consulting team members that are here today. First, Mami Hara from WRT out of Philadelphia, who is our lead consultant that was chosen to assist the urban county government with this project. And she's going to be the main presenter today. We also have Ed Holmes, EHI, and Judy Needham from his firm, who are the local presence, helping adapt these national concepts into our local picture as well. Good consulting team, and they're here to present to you and answer any questions that you have today. Thank you. It's always a pleasure to welcome Mommy to the microphone. Thank you. Sorry, there's something happening with the laptop. Thank you very much for your time and for your review of the Draft Complete Streets Manual. I would like to give a lot of credit to the many stakeholders and staff that labored over the development of the manual. It really represents the work of many people. And our team has been very impressed with the level of passion and commitment that your community brings to the design of streets and their very strong interest in having a walkable and bikeable community. As Chris noted, after your review and the public comment period, the manual should be ready for completion. So let's start. What are complete streets? Complete streets are streets that provide for the safety of all types of users in a way that is sensitive to context. And in doing so, they provide a whole host of benefits that we'll review in some of the following slides. One of the important aspects of the benefits is safety. Safety can be enhanced in many ways by complete streets. For example, the high level of traffic fatalities that is increasing nationally is definitely a local concern as well. And many countries and cities around the world have proven that they can significantly reduce the amount of fatalities and accidents through the development of Complete Streets networks. A foremost source of traffic-related danger is the concentration of arterial streets in our street network. Another smaller-scale issue is the actual design of those streets. This image of Versailles Road really illuminates some of the ways in which street design can insufficiently support public safety and exacerbate hazards for all types of users. I'm going to dwell on this slide just a little bit. You can see that there's an insufficient sidewalk area, and because of that, The abrams from properties on the corridors are too narrow and steep, then creating a tipping hazard. Because of that, then utility poles are too close to driving lanes. There's no buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. Even basic functions of a roadway aren't being met, such as the provision of bicycle facilities. There are no pedestrian refuges or mid-block crossings. This is a relatively hostile environment for pedestrians, and I'm sure that this is not the image that anyone wants to project of Lexington to visitors or to its residents. So with the current manual, because of the currently limited number of street design alternatives that are available for each street classification, there are continually poor fits to context being made. There are not enough options for the different kinds of land uses you have. For example, because several streets feed into this street, it's classified as a collector. Because it's a collector, it's forced to become overly wide and then thus have speeding and other negative impacts within a residential zone. Another aspect of street network safety is response time for emergency vehicles. Loop streets and cul-de-sacs and other discontinuous streets extend the response time for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Division of Emergency Response has been very supportive of the development of a complete streets network that is highly connected, as is waste management. Most service vehicle accidents are related to backing up, and backing up is most often associated with cul-de-sacs and other disconnected street types. In another related aspect, reliance upon arterials and therefore their associated interchanges with their associated multiple lanes, double left-hand turns, and dedicated right-hand turns compromises the safety of all users, especially pedestrians. And this grounds view of Harrisburg at Beaumont illustrates the risks and inconveniences that are associated with pedestrian, bicycle, and transit user circulation on these kinds of arterials. So that image kind of demonstrates just the tip of an iceberg of how our street networks around the country are increasingly making shorter distances difficult to walk or bike and forcing reliance upon cars. So the shift towards complete street development represents a more responsible approach to transportation allocations because it's allowing for more choices in the kinds of circulation modes that people have, which is a more equitable approach and helps to support our economy in a better way. So, complete streets, as I mentioned before, meet the needs of all users. And serving the needs of all users includes meeting federally mandated accessibility guidelines and requirements, which clearly these local examples do not. It also includes designing streets to encourage walking and transit use. I can see you looking quizzically at the seals and flapping around, and also bicycling. It also means meeting the needs of public service vehicles, which often have specific requirements related to the efficient and safe delivery of services. And the needs of private vehicles, both large and small, must be accommodated in our streets. and those of pedestrians, who are all of us at some point in our lives or in some point of every one of our days. And it includes children and seniors and those who can't drive and those who choose not to. Kind of in a sad trend, children are walking less to school. I think only about 14% of children walk to school now, whereas childhood obesity has risen exponentially in our country. And those two issues are connected. As well as children, we have to adapt to the changing needs of our increasingly aging population. And in order to serve and attract and retain our empty nesters, we have to address their circulation needs. So what if tomorrow you could no longer drive? At different points, it happens to all of us due to illness or disability, youth, age, even drunkenness. It happens to all of us. And we should be able to get to and from home safely in those situations. Recognizing that and a whole other slate of needs, Lexington residents have recognized the importance of transit, as expressed in their strong support of the transit referendum several years ago. So I've alluded to a whole set of users that we need to consider, kind of showing that there are many needs to balance. balance. And this array of project stakeholders alludes to the wide range of those who use Lexington streets and their concerns. Another multilayered area of benefit of complete streets is environmental sustainability. The dispersal of traffic associated with complete streets helps to alleviate congestion and supports increased walking, biking, and transit ridership, while reducing vehicle trip lengths, which in turn reduces air pollution and fuel consumption and congestion. During the 2007 Comprehensive Plan update, Fayette County residents indicated that traffic is what they disliked the most about this area, and yet most of them, or many, don't understand the relationship between a disconnected street system and congestion. In another aspect of environmental sustainability, completing streets is a perfect opportunity for managing stormwater locally and incorporating other green streets best management practices. I see that Lexington has done an amazing job starting to incorporate stormwater management in your streets downtown. Another important benefit of Complete Streets is enhanced economic sustainability. This is a really important issue in these trying times, and the benefits here, again, are multidimensional. One significant aspect is economic competitiveness, attracting empty nesters and young professionals and the companies that seek to employ them is an important aspect of investing in our public realm. Another aspect is the possible savings related to delivery of public services. I mentioned the level of efficiency and safety. But in a study, Charlotte, North Carolina, looked at the cost per capita of delivering services to residents in a connected area versus a disconnected area, and found a difference of four times, which has implications when you start looking at these issues citywide. The potential savings are individual as well. The average American family spends 20% of its household income on largely auto-related transportation costs. For the poor in areas with limited transportation choices, the cost is up to a punitive 35% or more. And poor health costs money too. Obesity costs the U.S. $147 billion a year, and that cost is rising as our levels of obesity rise in our country. And since walking is the number one preferred form of exercise among Americans, complete streets have an important role to play in public health and the costs associated with obesity. In terms of sheer area, streets comprise the largest segment of the public realm. And complete streets get people out and about. But they help to support economic development, support public health, and civic engagement. So, because of all of these benefits that we've just reviewed, across the country and on Capitol Hill, Complete Street's policies have been gaining traction to the point that, so far, just about 250 jurisdictions across the country, including entire states, have adopted complete streets policies. For example, Boulder, Colorado, a college town such as yours, has been completing streets for 20 years, and they've seen a significant change in travel mode choice. And they've seen themselves become one of the most highly rated places to live in the country. So Lexington's residents are seeking the same benefits. The development of Lexington's Complete Streets Manual is a direct result of civic will, as expressed in the development of the Lexington Comprehensive Plan, the Bike and Ped Master Plan, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. It's just one component of economic success, just like Boulder's economic success, but it's an important one. So the Complete Streets Manual, getting down to what it really is constituted of, outlines best national and local practices and offers a decision-making process that supports a wide range of the Community Sustainable Transportation Goals, which are outlined in detail in the manual. The manual provides procedures for street design review and approval for three types of conditions, for new streets, for existing streets being retrofitted by private entities, and those being retrofitted by public entities. It also provides for certain key strategies to encourage the development of sustainable transportation, the most important three of which are meeting the functional requirements. of the street. It's very basic. And then coordinating street design with adjacent land uses. The third is the encouragement of connections among streets. Complete streets are highly connected streets. Poorly connected developments often promote nodal development that sends traffic impacts further and further down the line, forcing traffic onto wide corridors that are highly correlated with accidents, congestion, and inefficiencies. Dispersed streets within a connected network provide modal choice, efficiencies, and a host of other benefits as described earlier. This image of a nodal form of development with its cow path beaten to Todd's Road by drivers illustrates a desire for greater network connectivity and efficiency. You can see where cars have been jumping the curbs to get directly to Todd's Road. So this is the second to last slide, and I'd like to emphasize that the new standards and guidelines in the manual allow for responsiveness to place that's not currently possible in the existing street standards. The new manual provides for a whole set of options for each street classification related to land use, as well as a menu of components for each type of land use. So to close, I do want to reiterate that the many stakeholders and staff who collaborated on this manual have crafted a comprehensive document that's tailored to your community's needs and character. And in doing so, they recognize the need for the manual to be a living document that continues to be tailored as your city evolves and thrives. And they hope that the manual can support that development. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. There was a lot in that. I appreciate it. First of all, I'll compliment you on your photography skills. You've taken some great pictures of Lexington there and a couple of postcards I never want to see again. It was a team effort. You turned up some ugly shots there. So in working on this, are you more than 50 percent done, 75 percent done? Give us a feel for work product. It is really related to the amount of engagement that you would like in refining the document and the public during the public comment period. as far as drafting the entire document for review and the sections and all of the footnotes and everything like that, that's done. Okay. But we have to remember that this is something that's open for discussion and that we have to take all elements under advisement from you. It is a lot to take in, and it's really more than what was previewed in our packet. So it's new territory for myself and the committee proper. And I don't know if anyone has a question or comment. I would go to Mr. Stennett, Council Member Stennett, first. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for the presentation. I just want to go back to one slide, I think, that kind of hits home the issue that we're going to have in dealing with complete streets throughout our community. You said the three pieces of our development process that will be affected by this are new streets, obviously in raw land areas, but you also showed us modification by private entities. What do you mean by that? Do you mean if, say, downtown here we have one business that wants to demolish or rehab a property or fix it, the manual will make them fix just that piece of the street? You mean if someone adjacent to a street? No, I'm saying if I pick and buy a property downtown, are you saying that the manual that we're creating will suggest that they need to modify the street as they redevelop a property? No, no. It wouldn't require that they have to, you know, if you do interior changes or changes to the shell, that triggers a whole change to the network. I'm just trying to figure out how that fits in with our private entities that redevelop land, such as Lexus and Mall is going through right now and things like that. How do we incorporate the redevelopment and infill issue with complete streets? At this point, the basic legal constraints that deal with that and what can be done really aren't changing. So where the planning commission or where the laws would require someone to do that or where a developer wants to do it to make an improvement in their situation, that's when it would engage. And what this would do would be help decide how those are designed and how they are put in and what they end up being more than the threshold question of whether it's done or not. Okay, should they decide they want to engage in changing the streetscape, then this manual system. Or in some cases where they are required because they are creating such a traffic impact with a major land use change. Again, the basic rules would be basically the same as they are now, except that this product would guide what is done. And did you look at our other ordinances that kind of go along with this, such as the street-free ordinance, for instance, has a great deal of impact on this complete street issue? Right. Did we incorporate those things as well into this? Yes, we looked at all of this. I'm sorry I didn't understand your question when you first asked it. We did look at all of the other related documents, and also ones that are in process, such as the Green Streets guidelines that are being developed to make sure that it was well coordinated. Okay. And did you see any direct conflicts with this plan and those current ordinances, that we would have to go back and change, say, our street tree ordinance or things like that? No. That seems mutually supportive, as does the Green Streets manual that's in development. Because I know street trees can become a hindrance in some neighborhoods like they are now when we have our garbage trucks going down there and taking them out with their canopies because the trees haven't been maintained. And things like that is what I'm getting to. Other issues? Well, this manual discusses what kind of area, where, where the street trees should be and what kind of dimensions should be allocated for different kinds of street types. So it adds another level. Okay. For especially new streets. But the guidelines aren't advocating for removal of streets per se unless there's going to be a more wholesale change to the street. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Other council members? Just in looking at your stakeholder list and having been at a Corridors Commission meeting this past week, I don't see them listed here, and I'm sure you would want to have that interface as part of the discussion. Thank you. And then what kind of public comment period are you thinking of, or how many, or what kind? Give us a feel. That's still under development, but I know that there is an anticipated be a reiterative process with meetings and having the document available, the draft document available for review. But we can get back to you with proposed specifics if you would like to have a dialogue about that and make sure that we're attending to everybody's input. Well, I think that would be wise. I think since you all have been working on it for a year or a year and a half, as Chris said, this is its first debut in this venue, we should probably engage a little bit or stay up with you as you move forward, which strikes me. We'd be happy to provide you with some ideas for your comment. Okay. Very good. I have Council Member Ellinger. Yes. I guess going piggybacking on the stakeholders question that you asked, and I see the home builders here, and I know this is going to be a big issue because of how we grow in this community and with the home builders. Have they been active and been part of this process? They have been, and we've been very happy to receive their questions and comments and to work with them. There's still work to be done and additional meetings that we're hoping to engage more of their questions. So we would be happy to provide you with any of the history from those discussions or any of the information that's fed into them. And when you start looking at connectivity, are you looking at the same connectivity? Is it going to be a homogeneous process for what downtown would be and what the neighborhoods would be, say, outside of New Circle Road? Would that be all the same? Because there are differences on... There are definitely differences in how the places look and feel and the kinds of land uses. And the guidelines try to be responsive to the land uses and the nature of the corridors that are developed or the streets that are developed and their sections. But there are certain threshold goals for connectivity across the city. in order to create an equitable approach in which all modes of transportation are supported. It's my understanding that cul-de-sacs will no longer be allowed? No, no. All cul-de-sacs that exist would remain, and there's still a generous provision for the development of new cul-de-sacs. What about gated communities? Is that – and that gets to the police aspect of – and safety? Gated communities are permissible under certain conditions. The conditions are prescribed, and we'd be happy to provide those to you later on and immediately if you'd like. And just take that a step further, where does this Cure by Design program, how does that fit into this? In which, you mean in terms of the engagement with those advocates? advocates, we have engaged with the Secure by Design advocate and anticipate further discussion. And we've been working to address their questions and feel that another iteration is going to be necessary to make sure that we address all of their questions. And I guess another one in follow-up with public safety in general and how they're being involved in this situation, because I think that's a big issue in safety and where they fall in line here. So safety in terms of emergency response or police? Yes, I'll leave both. In both. Emergency response is very supportive and has been engaged throughout. We have more worked with the security advocate and are engaging with police right now. So it's still in the process. Still in process. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome, sir. Other comments, council people, council members? Since it is just our opening door today, I think we'll look forward to kind of working with you in this process. I think at another meeting or down the line we'll probably have input from some of the stakeholders on all sides of the issue and be involved with you in the public opinion part of it, too. But I want to thank you for spending time with us today and coming down yesterday to be here for the meeting today. We appreciate that very much, and hopefully you've got a couple of good pictures from yesterday to take with you. Oh, I came up with great pictures of your community. I have pictures of poodles with flags on their backs and bicycles with flags. It was great. So thank you for having me. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Chris, do you want to wrap up on this at this point specifically? I just want to comment. You all have heard what some of the issues are. Like anything new, there are a lot of questions, more than anything, and that's what this next process will do. Sort through those, see what are real issues. It may be that there are some issues that the council will have to decide or there will have to be modifications. But what we are trying to do through this process is to resolve anything that can be explained or we can receive agreement on. and then if we do come back with an issue list, it would be a very small and narrow one is our hope and expectation because there has been a lot of engagement on this up to this point with more to do. I appreciate that, and I would just ask if there is anyone who does want to make any comments. I'm not trying to get anybody to come to the microphone, but if you're here and want you to speak today, that's fine. If not, I know we'll have multiple and other opportunities. Seeing none, thank you for your time on that very much. Thank you all. Travel safely. Thank you, Ed. Judy, appreciate it very much. Now we'll rotate to the comprehensive plan goals and objectives which take up the first 29 pages of the packet. And in much the same way the discussion about complete streets has been ongoing and there's conversations and things working, the same thing is true about the comprehensive plan goals and objectives. And when you look in the planning document for today, you'll see the current goals and objectives which we have been and are using. In front of that you'll see some proposed or a template for other goals and objectives, kind of a different style and nature than what we as planning people have been used to seeing in relation to the document that we all hold so dear in terms of our comprehensive plan. So in much the same way that we were having an opening discussion about complete streets, we're also going to have one now about goals and objectives. I think we need to treat this as an opportunity to look at things somewhat differently and perhaps even do them somewhat differently because our comprehensive plan opportunity is different this time than any time we've approached it. We don't really have a discussion ongoing about whether or not to expand the urban service boundary, So it gives us an option and opportunity to work within the framework of the plan and design that we have. So in that, I guess, Chris, I would call on you first and perhaps a couple of planning commissioners to give us a little bit of background there, and then we'll see what kind of discussion ensues. Thank you very much. And again, I'm mainly going to be a table setter for you. And, Mr. Chairman, you have already hit the main portion of that. The goals and objectives, I think, as you all know, It's the one element of the comprehensive plan that is adopted by Council, and it is the leading statement that the rest of the plan must logically follow. And the Council has been very much engaged in goals and objective processes throughout the past. The Chairman is smiling, having lived through many of those himself. Yes, sir. As we started this process with the Planning Commission, we started with a review of comprehensive plans across the United States, particularly those that are being recognized as representing the state of the art. And what we find, just like everything else in life around us, shorter, snappier, punchier, rather than larger, heavier, and ponderous, seems to be the desired trend in comprehensive plan. And when we first started to approach this, it was funny because independently the staff and all our staff in our meetings and engagement all had a very strong feeling of that, as did the Planning Commission itself when we started talking to the Planning Commission around the first of the year. So the work that you see now really represents about five months of Planning Commission work to get the drafts to a point not where they have passed them and have officially submitted them to you, but to get them to a point where just much like we were at Complete Streets, we were comfortable with the effort. The commission was comfortable with the effort in putting this then out for larger public review. And we have been holding focus group meetings, public discussions, and just an engagement process to solicit a lot of comments back and then go to the planning commission, take that information back to them. And then the Planning Commission will actually hold a public hearing on a set of draft goals and objectives and officially recommend something to you. So all that is yet to happen. We're still in the obtaining public comment on the first draft at this point. So I want to give you that understanding that sometime later this year the Commission will be having a hearing and having a formal set back to you. But forums like this and any others that you may want to do, either down in this room and others, are ways that this commission, since you're really not in quasi-judicial mode, this council can communicate ideas and thoughts back to the commission, just like any other of the stakeholders that are involved, and you all being a very key one. So with that in mind, I hope that gives you the context of where we are, what the thinking is behind these. I'm joined today by Jim Duncan, our manager of our Long Range Planning section, and he is the project manager on the comprehensive plan. And he will be making a little presentation to you on some of the details of where we are. and also pleased to be joined today by two of our Planning Commission members, just very recently, I think termed, we don't know exactly where we are, but Carolyn Richardson, who is our chair, has been our chair through this process, and Ed Holmes, who took off his consulting hat and has put on his commission hat to stay here for this next part of the conversation here today. And, again, I think we will make a brief presentation if you would like, or we would be glad just to answer questions. It's really up to you all right now. I'm appreciative of a little presentation opportunity, again, to use your term, as a table setting to get people kind of up to speed. Unless there are questions before, please proceed. Excellent. Well, I'm going to turn the podium over to Mr. Duncan, and then, again, we'll be ready for any questions or comments. Thank you, sir. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As Chris said, one of the first decisions that the Planning Commission made when they began this process back in January was after looking at the data based on the use of vacant land over the past five years and the amount of vacant land projected to be available for the next 10 to 15 years, the decision was made by the Planning Commission that this would not be a comprehensive plan that focused on whether to expand the urban service boundary. And that decision has been taken to a broader audience since that statement was made. So that caused the Planning Commission to say, well, what do we want to do with this comprehensive plan? And so the first thing they did was, based on this information, and looking at the particulars of the times right now and projecting what the issues might be for the foreseeable future, they decided to recraft the mission statement and embody everything in the mission statement that were the essential issues of the day, particularly with economic development and the need for prosperity. Certainly the strong desire, as has been expressed in many plans before, to support and protect existing neighborhoods and do a good job designing new neighborhoods, and then punctuating the statement with a statement about the pharmacy of the horse industry in the community. So all that gets encapsulated in the mission statement. The Planning Commission further then, after crafting that statement, developed five themes for the comprehensive plan. And all of these, they believe, are issues that are important to the community, but are also ones that are important to the day and can be expressed and perhaps issues raised and resolved through the comprehensive planning process. The first theme, growing successful neighborhoods, included the goal of expanding housing choices. And that means essentially housing for all who live in Fayette County, from the vulnerable to the elderly to low income to people who are able to have market rate housing. So it looks for housing for any sort of irregularities in our regulatory process, any barriers and other incentives that may promote a fair and balanced approach to housing in Fayette County. The second goal under successful neighborhoods is supporting infill and redevelopment. Certainly if this decision is made that we're not going to expand the urban service boundary this time, we have to continue to look inward at how we can grow and accommodate the people that will be coming here into the future. And so we're looking at infill and redevelopment more beyond what we ordinarily do with just the downtown or the near downtown area, but really thinking about the entire urban service area as an infill and redevelopment area, looking at the vacant land that we presently have, but also redevelopment opportunities. So this is a very important aspect of the goals and objectives. And then finally, undergoing successful neighborhoods, still recognizing that our existing neighborhoods have an awful lot to contribute and that the people who live there have stuck it through, through good and bad, and that we want to continue to protect those neighborhoods, and at the same time look at how we can do better with our neighborhoods into the future, When we say for the ages, we're not necessarily talking about the age of someone, but from time forward, looking at our neighborhoods now, say, that are 50 or 80 years old and have grown and thrived through the generations, how can we continue to do that in Lexington? The next theme, protecting the environment. Just as we were finishing the comprehensive plan in 2007, the emerging issue was the consent decree. And this time that's in full mode, and we feel like that this is important to showcase this in the goals and objectives and ensure that we are doing all that we can to meet those responsibilities. Along with that, reducing Lexington's carbon footprint, which is certainly a companion to anything that the EPA would be asking us to do. And then finally, looking at a green infrastructure program. This is something that has been called for in the last comprehensive plan, and we're hoping to take this program to the next level this time around. Certainly an issue of the day is economic development, jobs, and prosperity, as articulated in the mission statement and further stated in one of the themes of the goals and objectives. And the first goal is to support the local assets, recognizing that our agricultural industry is probably our most well-known and certainly has an opportunity to contribute mightily to our economy. So that is showcased here. As well as our strong institutions for higher learning, the universities here in the area, and how can we tap into their assets to improve our jobs and prosperity. And then finally looking at our existing large employment sectors and ensuring that we do all we can to support them and keep them in the community. And the next statement under jobs and prosperity is creating new opportunities that attract the world's finest and best jobs. And here we look at tapping into sectors of the economy that perhaps aren't as strong in Fayette County, but certainly could be with a little effort. Again, looking at regulations and ensuring that there are no barriers there. And then finally, recognizing the trend that is across the country for any community that wants to attract and retain young people, particularly out of college and into their early family years, is having entertainment and other quality of life issues provided locally. after we've dealt with that we want to make sure that all the way around that we have a desirable community not just in our housing not just in our jobs but in everything that we do the transportation system is certainly a significant aspect of that and related to that is the complete streets program that we just heard but we also want to ensure that our transportation alternatives are viable and that we are able to meet the changing needs of our community and then in In addition, the full panoply of community services from parks to safe neighborhoods and our health care, all of the things that make the community desirable and attractive, we want to ensure that we have provided for those. And then finally, the final theme, planning for Lexington and planning with the bluegrass, we can look at this as our regional theme. We start off by talking about a process that engages the citizens of Lexington, as we have in the past, to ensure that we are reaching out in all the innovative ways that we can, our traditional ways and our new ways through social media. And so we want to ensure that people know and have the ability to participate in the planning process. Once the plan is complete, we want to ensure that the plan is turned into projects. As we have in the past, there will be a strategy to ensure that projects are created, They become our work program. We coordinate those with other divisions in the government and make them known to people outside the government that these are the priorities of the community. And then finally, to be a leader in regional planning. It's not just enough to do the right thing within our borders. We know that we have to work with those around us if we're going to remain a viable agricultural community. if the land that we develop in one way is not developed in the same way in other communities, are we really going to succeed in preserving and compelling a quality of life for the region that we are responsible for doing? So we want to do all that we can to be a partner in regional planning and regional activities. So, Mr. Chair, this is a quick summary of the themes and the goals of the comprehensive plan that has been articulated by the Planning Commission, and then the particular objectives are listed as bullets on your handout under each of these goals. In several cases, the bullets include a variety of issues, perhaps seemingly unrelated, but it, again, was the Planning Commission's desire to make this a succinct document, but one that also is flexible to the point that it recognizes that there will be solutions to our problems that we don't have on the books right now and that we don't necessarily contemplate, and we want this document to be able to respond to those in a progressive way, in an efficient way, in a way that ensures that we meet all of the themes and the goals of this plan. Thank you. I appreciate that, and certainly this does have flexibility about it because you've taken what is now 24 pages and basically turned it into four pages, which is, for those becoming familiar with this concept, is going to be breathtaking. And I know it was for me, and I have more comfort now. I may not have all the trust I need, but I have more comfort. I'm going to defer to Council Member Stinnett first and see if others have comments, but I'll start there. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. Thank you for the brief breathtaking presentation, as Council Member Farmer said. I want to go back to your first remarks. You said you talked about the desire not to expand the boundary based on the availability of vacant land. Do you have, I know you sent me some information, but what is the greatest concentration of vacant land in terms of zoning in our community? Is it residential vacant land? Is it commercial vacant land? What's our highest concentration? And if I may, most of our vacant land is not presently zoned or it's not zoned for the use that it's projected. But our land use, the largest amount is residential. And we have about 4,500 acres of residential land designated that's vacant right now. But the primary vacant land is not zoned for anything currently? Some of it may be zoned, but most of it probably still has the agricultural urban zone, especially the land along the periphery that was brought in as part of the expansion area that has not been changed yet. Okay. Very good. Going to, I just had one question, reading the very first bullet point under growing successful neighborhoods. expanding housing choices. When you read the first bullet point, at first glance it looks like an oxymoron because any time you say pursue regulations that encourage creativity, it kind of takes the punch out of being creative when you put government in the middle of regulating it. So can you expand on why those choice of words were used in regulating creativity and what was meant by that? I believe that the Planning Commission was really thinking more of removing barriers to regulation. or creating regulations that enable. And what comes to mind immediately are things like the mixed-use and mixed-type developments that perhaps are more available in the downtown area but not so available elsewhere, even on the arterials as we go out of town. So the intent was to look at the existing regulations and see, are there any barriers to keeping something like this from happening elsewhere? and if so, can we put something else in the books or take something away that would encourage that? So why not wordsmith it? I hate to do it, but pursue incentives and remove barriers that encourage creativity in housing or something along those lines. I'm just not sure when someone first reads it at first glance, they're going to understand that we're not going to regulate creativity. And I believe the Planning Commission absolutely wants this to be a positive statement, so I think that's the kind of suggestion that they're looking for, and we'd be glad to pass that on. Very good. Thank you. The work has begun. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jim. I had just a couple of questions. I know this will come back probably more than once. Yes, ma'am. In the process, you said that you had looked at, the Planning Commission had looked at across the country goals and objectives. Did you actually do anything with the current goals and objectives to, in other words, did the Planning Commission go through them and decide some that they wanted to keep or did they just clean the slate and start over? Well, I would say the Planning Commission has remained aware of the content of the 2000 goals and objectives because they are faced with those at every zone change and numerous other occasions. So they approached this process, and again, I won't speak for the chair, but it was my impression that they approached this process with the idea that we know that we've got a lot of detail in these present goals and objectives, and they address some important community issues. But we think that we can find what we're looking for and we can focus in on the important elements of the community if we remember what those issues are but write them in such a way that they are more accessible statements and grouped perhaps better to address the issues that they're supposed to. So they just started over, basically. Right. Okay. I wanted to ask in the mission statement, why did you, and I'm curious, maybe the planning commissioners would rather answer, pinpoint the equine industry as opposed to the ag industry, which is in the old goals and objectives. because equine is one portion of our agricultural industry. I was just curious in the mission statement why. And, of course, backing into the answer to that, in the goals and objectives themselves, they are broad about the agricultural economy and speaking to the various sectors of that. But I think also because we do have some strong proponents of our rural area on the Planning Commission, they also recognized that this was part of the theme, part of the brand, part of the recognition of Lexington. And so in order to showcase that, in this context, would perhaps be better than just talking about agriculture in general. And then I noticed there's no mention of, I mean, this is, and I'm one of these people who will have to be, you know, convinced along. We've had a conversation already about this. For example, in environment, there's no mention of urban forest anywhere. And I'm just kind of curious about that. Are these meant to be so broad that anything can fit? Because, I mean, I'm trying to understand, and yet the consent decree is mentioned. Well, we have to follow the consent decree. We don't have a choice. But there's no mention of things like an urban forest. So help me understand how that happened. I think that the Planning Commission's thought was that that is a specific example of something that is innovative, certainly for our community that we've been doing it for quite some time, but is the kind of example of other things that would come along in the future that would help address these issues. So, for instance, in the second goal where it says reduce the carbon footprint, the first objective is to adopt the climate action plan or whatever that plan becomes once it's completed, is that those kind of issues in detail would perhaps come out of a plan like that, that they would be referenced. But by no means do they mean to exclude any good idea in particular. And they also believe, and this is, again, as you and the chair have talked about, the trust aspect, that some of these details will be further fleshed out in the body of the plan, in the land use elements, in the environmental elements. So those kinds of details will perhaps be raised at that point. They're not meant to be lost at all. In fact, that's the point of the broadness of these is so that they can encompass all of the various ideas that would help to achieve the larger themes. So does that mean there would be detail developed under each of these themes and goals to flesh out the goals and objectives, and that would be a document that's followed, or that this would be kept broad and general so that the detail is not in it? And we have yet to work out the full organization of the remainder of the plan. The statute lays out some minimum requirements that we'll have to meet. But within those minimum requirements, we have a latitude that we can do. And one option is for us to take the goals and objectives and then expand them line by line into the body of the comprehensive plan. Another is to organize the plan in a way that, again, supports the work of the Council and the Planning Commission and certainly the public who would be using it, but then refers back to the goals and objectives and says this is an element that speaks to X goal or X objective. So it either could be organized in such a way that we expand this and go down line by line, or we make reference back to this document throughout the body. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Questions? Thank you very much. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim, I just want to follow up briefly on Council Member Gorton's, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Gorton's comments here. I thought, too, in reading this with reference to the protecting the environment theme and the reducing Lexington's carbon footprint, there might be some more specific guidance on energy conservation and innovation. I don't know whether on a local level an energy policy as such is possible, but I hope that that can be explored because I think that's going to be an extraordinarily important point going forward with regard to protecting the environment and to saving on energy costs as well. And the second thing is I'd like to comment on Council Member Stenet's hesitation about the word regulation in relation to creativity. I have a different take on that and would say this is not by any means original, that to the extent that we understand regulation as limits, not stifling, creativity is dependent upon them. There really can't be creativity if there's absolute and total freedom. I think we see this in our urban development where we have vacant land. We don't have much creativity in what we know as sprawl. So whether it's in poetry or in urban planning, creativity really does depend on regulations and limits. So maybe the wording needs to be changed in some way, but don't be afraid of regulation. I think they're going to be very important, especially as we're going to have to be creative within limits. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your points about creativity and regulation, sir. Thank you. Anytime. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I hadn't asked to speak in order to comment on the two gentlemen on either side of me, but I feel compelled to be the middleman between the – I know the poet's on this side, but I don't know how to characterize it. The realist. The realist. Ah, okay. That's good. But my understanding is that what we have done in the past is created new regulation that allow greater latitude to people who are doing development. And so they are regulations in a sense, but they're designed to open up more opportunity. So if we had an area that was zoned formally, let's say, all residential, and you create new regulations that says under certain conditions you can have mixed use, then we get center court and we get other developments that are residential and have some business in them and ways to do that. So that's my understanding is that they are regulations and they do set limits, but what you're thinking about, I think, in this goal is ways to put more things on the books that will allow greater latitude in development. And what the language needs to be for that, I'm not sure. But what I did want to comment on, if I can, in addition, first of all, I appreciate the new set of goals and objectives in their condensed form. I said this when we first had this conversation, and I was new on council, but having served on the Planning Commission, I know that the old document basically could be waived by attorneys on either side of a particular issue, citing things in the goals and objectives that were consistent with what they were proposing or opposing, that they might have had just too much in them. I think the goals and objectives are general and aspirational, and I think appropriately so, and that the plan itself will have more detail in it, And then the Planning Commission is in the position of being able to interpret what the meaning of those is when they get specific proposals before them. Having said all that, I also have a specific question, and that's right at the last theme, which is planning for Lexington, planning with the bluegrass. Again, in my time on the Planning Commission, I know that there are certain governmental entities that are not subject to our rules and regulations, the state, the feds, and so on. So I'm interested in number three, which says increase regional planning. It says compel other agencies in Fayette County to comply with local development. Tell me what that means or what those other agencies might be, and how do you compel them? Well, let's go back to your word, Mr. K., that says aspirational. So I'll thank you. Can I take that back? Of course, you named them, the state government, the federal government, the school system, and others like that. And this isn't to imply in any way that these agencies thumb their nose at this government or the Planning Commission. In fact, we have a rigorous public facilities review process that almost at every Planning Commission meeting, something from another public realm comes for their review. Again, we don't have a whole lot to say about that. But we do get coordination, and we serve with the school system on their local planning committee, and we have the town and gang relationship with the University of Kentucky. And then our MPO, we've got at least that reach into the state transportation planning. So to say all that, we still believe that this really is something that we aspire to, that we continue to develop these relationships to explain our position perhaps better. In fact, I think somewhere along here we talk about doing a better job of promoting what it is we're trying to do and then work with them to the extent that they are able to conform to those regulations. But, again, this is something that reaches bigger than perhaps what a subdivision regulation or a zoning regulation could say. Well, let me, if I can, follow up. I guess when I saw COMPEL, I assumed that that meant that there'd be some move to change some existing state or federal regulations or relationships or to craft something with surrounding counties. But otherwise, I think the word COMPEL is perhaps misleading. But it's something to think about. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. There may be other questions. Vice Mayor, do you want to come back again? Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Compel is, thank you, I had a question about that because I think it's a rather hard word. And, you know, I don't even know if it's possible. So a different word there would be good and might actually change the meaning to imply that working together would be the way to do it. I have one, and I'm sorry I can't get off some of the detail, but I have one theoretical question. So if in fact this were the goals and objectives, could I as a landowner come in and I'm going to pick a very unique detail from the old goals and objectives. Could I come in with these goals and objectives and propose expanding a rural activity center if it was a business that was felt to be compatible in the rural area? Because there's nothing in here about the rural activity centers. And yet in the previous goals and objectives, there was a specific statement. So how does that fit in here? Or is it something that's old and? And, again, not speaking for the chair necessarily, but because that issue was not plumbed to the extent that we're talking right here. But my feeling is that that's been such a longstanding issue, philosophy of the Planning Commission, of the Urban County Government, to hold those rural activity centers to the boundaries that they have. that that essentially is some sort of settled position that almost at this point that we would make another statement if we were prepared to expand those. Also, again, that would be my interpretation because we did not discuss that specifically with the Planning Commission. But on the other hand, I believe that this document and what we expect to come in the remainder of the plan would address issues related to something like that should the planning commission, should the council decide that that's something that they do need to look into. For instance, depending on how the issues with Blue Sky are settled with their wastewater treatment, or some of the public property that remains in Avon, if that was no longer public property, what might happen there? So those are the kind of issues that I believe that the Planning Commission would be happy to take back up again, perhaps even on a specific basis if they needed to. But at this point, I would say that their feeling was that those are settled issues based on past experiences and that they don't need to be discussed again. But they're not, you know, they might be settled in some individuals' minds, but publicly they're not settled. And I specifically mentioned that one. There may be others. to me when we might assume something is settled, you know, council members come and go every two years, planning commission members come and go, it may not really be settled. So I guess I'm a little uncomfortable thinking that the goals and objectives might be settled off paper for some people, but not really be settled. Does that make sense? Yes, ma'am, it does. And again, I go back to the word that I know is difficult for all of us to swallow, but that is the trust aspect of this. And there is a whole chapter related to land use that the statute requires to be made that will have a lot more detail in it than the goals and objectives do. And the Planning Commission can certainly make that same statement in the land use element, and it carries the same weight that the goals and objectives would, because the entire plan is supposed to be considered when making these decisions, not just one aspect of it or one map or one statement. So the opportunity to make those kinds of statements and to ensure that there's no ambiguity in the mind of the government can be made in the body of the plan. So I guess if there were issues that the council itself wanted no ambiguity about, it would be something that we would take up with the goals and objectives. Because I think once we're finished with that, we're done. So is that kind of what you're thinking? Well, that is an opportunity, and certainly the goals and objectives are ultimately the responsibility of the elected government. But also the remaining aspects of the plan are a public process as well, and the Planning Commission will take those kinds of comments as those different elements are developed from whomever is making them and consider whether they should be incorporated. So I would say that certainly you had the opportunity to do what you feel is important with the goals and objectives, but it's not the Council's last opportunity to have a say in the comprehensive plan, and they will be able, as a body or as an individual, to make a statement again during the public input process of the remainder of the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Jim, we may come back to you here in a minute, but I wanted to take input from our planning commissioners, which we're honored and pleased to have with us today. as you all are the professional body, we're the elected body, and they're the appointed body. And if either of you or both of you would like to make some comments, I think we'd very much appreciate it because this is very much taking the goals and objectives and taking the training wheels off of them and letting them kind of roll along. And I think there's probably discussion to be had about it, and the fact that you all have been working on it is something we appreciate very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can certainly not answer in great detail like Mr. Duncan can. and I won't even make that attempt, I might maybe can give you some insight into what we were thinking and where we were going with our breathtaking new goals and objectives. And I might also remind you that we still have the public hearings that are going to take place, and those within themselves probably mean change. And should. That's a very important part. And that's why the word draft is written all over these papers, because what you're seeing today is not a completed document by any shape, form, or fashion. But I can tell you that it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to try to simplify and make a document that was more in line with what many of you might term a business plan, that where the goals and objectives were simplified and easy to read and understand, and then the real meat, I suppose is a good term, of the document would take place later in an explanation. And I think that is the place which a lot of this detail, which you all have concern about and should have concern about, should be talked about where there is the opportunity to talk about it in more detail. We were looking for something that perhaps someone who was unfamiliar with Lexington could come in and pick this document up and have a feel for what we were trying to do and where we were trying to go. Something that we could look at and five, ten years from now say, there may be situations in which we really can't anticipate today. And that being the case, and we want a document, we wanted a document that was flexible enough that we could look at the situation as it existed seven years from now and have the opportunity to deal with it in a more flexible manner. So that's really where we were coming from in all this, and we don't consider this a finished document by any means, But we did feel that it was time to move this document into something that was maybe a little different. And change is always a little difficult for all of us. And it was difficult for the Planning Commission as well. But we certainly welcome and encourage all, you know, we want to know what you like, what you don't like, what you would change. and there's a lot of wordsmithing that I think probably needs to be done. We sort of wordsmithed until we were sort of tired of wordsmithing and thought we would let someone else maybe take over the wordsmithing for a while because everybody that looks at it, you look at it with a different set of eyes and that makes a difference in how you interpret. And I think some great comments have been made today on some words And I sort of agree now that I look back on it. Compel is a pretty strong word. So I think these kind of things can certainly be done to improve and work on this. And it's a joint effort. This is not the Commission's plan. This is Lexington's plan. And that's where we want to take it and with your help. And I'd be happy to make an attempt at answering any questions, but I'm sure that the real experts are sitting behind me. Any questions for the Chair and Planning Commission? I really appreciate your time. I'm glad to be here, and thank you all for taking time with us. It's a very important part of what we do. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Holmes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just add, as you wrestle with goals and objectives, what I've found in planning over the years, it's an art form, it's not a science. and you'll never get that balance of what's the perfect goal or objective for your community. But I think if you can set the vision or where you want your community to go, that's what I think we're trying to reach in goals and objectives. And if you ask 10 different people, they'll give you 10 different opinions on how to do that. But what I do think is important is that goals and objectives are just that. They're very broad. They're set to sort of direction of the community. But that's only in the eyes of who's looking at those goals and objectives. And you'll never get to the point to where you won't have disagreement by both sides and its own change on the goals and objectives. You'll find something in a goal or objective that someone can argue their case on. So I think the Commission is trying to be broad and encompassing, but yet recognizing that the ultimate decisions are going to be left up to the other parts of the document. That's where the detail ultimately will go. And we oftentimes spend way too much time trying to get that perfect goal, that perfect objective that I just haven't seen any plans yet. But the commission, I think, put forth a document, and the comments you've made I think are welcome and they're very valid. I appreciate that. Any comments or questions there? As I did with the previous item, if there's anyone here who wants to give any input, this would be a great time for us to take it since it's our plenary conversation. about this subject, and I see Mr. Simpson. Good afternoon, sir. Welcome. Good afternoon. Bruce Simpson. First comments I want to offer really are as a citizen slash sometimes lawyer participant in planning and zoning proceedings for the past 20-some years. First off, I really do appreciate the work of our Planning Commission because they're volunteers, And they spent a lot of time and sacrificed a great deal of their personal leisure time, if you will, and economic work time coming down here and working at home and offering their best efforts to come up with recommendations with respect to goals and objectives, in addition to everything else that they do, for this body to consider. And this is the first draft, if you will, for your all's consideration about goals and objectives. However, I also appreciate from representing neighborhoods more often than developers over the years and the many hundreds, if not thousands, cumulatively over the years of people that I've talked to, how important it is for the council, who is, I don't need to remind you, are elected, and have a different level of accountability to your constituents. And the comments that have been offered thus far by some of you about things that you would like to see in goals and objectives in terms of word choices or just emphasis in language are critically important to the various constituencies that you represent. And I would only encourage you as a citizen to think even more seriously about those and to think what kinds of word choices and emphasis ought to be included in goals and objectives. Now, having said that, in response to what Council Member Kaye offered up about lawyers taking goals and objectives and arguing both ways, let me be clear. I'm going to be before you arguing both ways on anything that you come up with with respect to goals and objectives. That's just being brutally candid. That's my job as a messenger for the people that I represent, be they a neighborhood or a developer. But goals and objectives are important for this body because that's your only input. You don't have any say on controlling the urban services boundary, except in terms of what you may say about expanding or not expanding the urban services boundary or a rural activity center. And just to follow up on Council Member Gordon and to get into more specifically, without being specific in terms of a land issue, I would be very careful about any kind of prohibition of any blanket expansion of a rural activity center or even the urban services boundary in terms of an outright preclusion. And I'm mindful of this. In terms of economic activity and where we stand as a community, There's no question that the real estate community and all the folks that are dependent upon it for employment have suffered radically and drastically over the past three years, and probably will be until there's more confidence in the marketplace, until banks loosen up some credit and people are prepared to go forward and take some risks, and that sort of thing. So I don't see any big, huge emergency need to expand the urban services boundary by any significant degree. Don't get me wrong. However, I would ask that you keep an open mind about certain situations in certain locations that are adjacent to the existing urban services boundary, which in the long scheme of things are very minor adjustments. These are viable, and you'll hear more about this as I go through a particular application process, where I have an employer that wants to come and locate in Lexington on land that is most suitable, that's not in the urban services area right now. It would be complementary. It would basically fit in with what's on three sides of it. But I would at least give us the opportunity, give the community the opportunity to say yes or no, we're not going to expand or we are going to make a minor adjustment. So I would just ask, as you consider the goals and objectives, not to specifically prohibit any consideration of a minor adjustment to some of these rural activity centers. If they don't pass the test of reasonableness and compatibility and unintended consequences, then you can reject them. But at least let there be the opportunity for a fair hearing and the opportunity to be heard. And it's always been my experience that you look at all the options that are available, pro and con, and particularly in this day and time for jobs, for increased payroll tax to this government, that this kind of development would pay for itself, it wouldn't cost the government anything, you at least ought to have the opportunity for a fair hearing before it's turned down. I would just not make a blanket prohibition or, as Linda pointed out, some kind of, there's an implied understanding that we're not going to do certain things because we've always not done certain things. I think that's a mistake in decision making from any governmental body. Every case, every decision making review process like goals and objectives and comprehensive plan, you ought to have an open mind and say, okay, let's hear what we have to say. And if it's acceptable, let's consider it further. If it's not, let's put it off and say no. So I would just ask some careful thought be given before there is an implied or stated preclusion of considering any minor adjustment to these boundaries. And I thank you for your attention. Appreciate your comments and the background from which they spring. And in that, we have a comment or question from Council Member Kaye. This is a question for Jim, if I can get you back up to the podium. And kind of what Mr. Simpson, as part of his remarks, reminded me of something that I hadn't thought about as I looked at the set of goals and objectives, and I'm curious about the conversation that might or might not have happened with the Planning Commission as these were being drafted. And the issue of the expansion or not, I understand that the Commission took, essentially took that question off the table of whether in this particular comprehensive plan there would be any expansion. But I'm curious if there was discussion about any language that might reflect language that already exists in the previous plan about balancing the needs in the long term of growth and protection of the rural landscape. Mr. K., I must say that I don't know that that specific conversation was had. The focus on this plan from the beginning was to try to do something different than what we were able to do last time, which was consumed with the issue of whether to expand the urban service boundary. And the issues, the first issue that came up was the word sustainable. And so the Planning Commission's desire in crafting the mission statement and the themes and goals and objectives was to do something that would be sustainable for the community and sustainable in all aspects, sustaining our economy, sustaining our natural resources, our people, all of those things. So this may sound like a much bigger and broader answer to the specifics of your question, but I believe that the intent of the Planning Commission this time was to take this plan in a direction that would do what you said, but looking at it and how are the decisions that are made that relate to development going to be something that this community, this government, the people here can sustain for 5, 50, whatever years on down. So I would say that, and I don't think it's unsafe to say this, that implied in the statement about sustainability is looking at the decisions that are made and evaluating them against what the costs are, all the costs, and what the benefits are for those decisions. That helps me. If I can add a comment and not a question, that is that it seems to me that it would be appropriate to have some language in the goals and objectives that reflect what has been pretty clearly articulated by citizens in a variety of ways through public input, and that is the desire to maintain a balance in this community between the rural and the urban. That's one of the defining features of our community. If, as someone said earlier, someone was just to look at the goals and objectives and get a sense of what our community is about, it seems to me they'd be missing something. So I would just be looking for something like that, not to be specific about the urban service boundary. I don't think that's necessarily what it's about, but to maintain that balance that is so distinctive about our community. Thank you, Chair. Good comments, good questions. Thank you, sir. And Vice Mayor. And hearing your comments, Council Member Kay and Mr. Simpsons kind of made an impression on me back to the rural activity centers, and this is a philosophy question, if I can ask you, Jim or Chris or Carolyn, Is there any difference in expanding, and I know there is a difference, okay, let me just say that first, the urban service boundary and expanding rural activity centers? One simply does it contiguous with the built environment, and one simply does the development out in the rural area, correct? So if there is expansion, I mean, is that, if there's expansion of a rural activity center, it's in essence expanding a development boundary. I think that's a fair question. I believe I know what Mr. King is going to say because that's... He was standing right behind you. Well, that issue was raised a number of years ago of creating satellite urban areas, I don't know necessarily within the boundaries or within the vicinity of the existing rural activity centers, but that kind of issue was floated by a renowned planner, and it was rejected by this community at that time. But Chris may want to say more about that. He stood up again. I was going to mention that as well, but also say that you are right. Whether you're expanding the urban service area or expanding a rural activity center, you would be expanding the area allowable for growth. The urban activity centers were anomalies that existed because of decisions made in the past, and the community decided it was best to recognize those, and very, very little expansion has ever occurred in those. So I think, again, all these points have been well taken, and a lot of food for thought for staff and commission as well. I do want to articulate again what Jim said. There will be in the body of the plan specific recommendations for the land use relative to urban activity centers, rural activity centers. I said rural activity centers. So it's not that the goals and objectives will be the be-all and end-all. And, again, as Jim said, there will be many ways that that can be communicated. And again, we are hearing the concern here today, and that gives us food for thought as well. The other thing I just wanted to mention, just a little bit of a clarification. As you know, there has been a statement made about the urban service area and boundary and growth in this comprehensive plan because of the overwhelming evidence of the statistics and a broad consensus among the leaders in this community, both from many aspects that, yes, this is probably not the time to ever depress the idea of expansion. However, you know, we cannot stop anyone through the comprehensive plan process from pleading their case, regardless of that. But we all thought it made more sense to get this message out front before anybody went out and was making wholesale investments and trying to sell community on the idea of expansion. But again, we are going to have public hearings, and anyone who wants to come and advocate for expansion of a rural activity center or expansion of the urban service area, They will be allowed to come to this podium and have their whatever number of minutes they are allotted in the process to make that claim. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're most welcome. And truly today is about the beginning of a lot of conversations with all the topics we're touching on, so I appreciate that background. I just wanted to do, was there anyone else who wanted to make any comment before we kind of roll out here? I had one last question. Have you had any calls yet from anyone saying, what happened to my goal or my objective? I mean, specific people calling saying, this isn't in there and I'm worried about it. No, we really haven't yet. We've had some conversations in our focus group meetings and in our public discussions. Again, I think more, very much along the line of this conversation here today. You know, kind of see where's our comfort level with the condensing. And, again, just putting that kind of thing in. But we've not been overwhelmed with a whole bunch of you're taking this away from me that I felt was important. We're not hearing that yet, I wouldn't say at all. I suspect we'll get a wave of it as we go on here. Well, certainly. And that's very common as we get closer to public hearings, as we get closer to the actual attention focus comes down and people decide what they are comfortable with and what they are not. We expect that that will happen. And we feel ready to address those, whether by making some adjustments in the goals and objectives or offering our advice to the Commission and Council that, well, okay, you shouldn't cross that line. And, you know, that's true of any of these processes. We appreciate your all's time and those at the Planning Commission and the work you have already done. I have asked staff, Paul Schoeninger, to kind of go through and annotate the proposed goals and objectives with the old ones so we can see where things line up and what's in, what's out. Something for us as a tool to work forward on. I've spoken with Chris King as well as with the Vice Mayor about setting up a little framework for kind of a workshop group of meetings for us to undertake this whole group of issues in a fifth floor conference room setting as we come back to both the committee and the council with the work. And that's what we will largely be doing in the next couple of months before our regular meeting. They will be catching up and working on their process, and we're supposed to be done by near the end of the year, and I believe we'll be in good shape to do that. But that was just, today was just the opening conversations, kind of beginning to clear some things in and out, adding to work that's already begun. So I appreciate your all's time. Unless there's something else from anyone here, we would be adjourned at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you.