...at a tea. Open your eyes, Look up to the skies and see... I'm just a cool boy, I need no sympathy. Because I'm easy come, easy go, Little high. Anywhere the wind blows doesn't really matter to me Mama, just killed a man Put a gun against his head Pulled my trigger, now he's dead Mama, life had just begun But now I've gone and thrown it all away Mama, ooh, didn't mean to make you cry If I'm not back again this time tomorrow Carry on, carry on Is it nothing really matters? Too late, my time has come Send shivers down my spine And the body's aching all the time Goodbye, everybody I've got to go Gotta leave you all behind And play you More Window I don't wanna die I wish I'd never been born at all I see A little silhouetto of a man Scaramouche, scaramouche Will you do the bandango? Thunderbolts and lightning Very, very frightening me Galileo, Galileo Galileo Figaro I'm just a poor boy And nobody loves me He's just a poor boy From a poor family Sparing his life From this one strong city Easy come, easy go Will you let me go? Bismillah! No! We will not let you go! Let him go! Bismillah! We will not let you go! Let him go! Bismillah! We will not let you go! We will not let you go! Never! We will not let you go! Oh! So you think you can stop me and spit my eye So you think you can love me and leave me to die Oh baby Can't do this to me baby Just gotta get out Just gotta get right out of the wheel Nothing really matters Anyone can see Nothing really matters Nothing really matters To me I'm sorry. Tonight you're mine, completely. You give your love so sweetly. Tonight the light of love is in your eyes. But will you love me tomorrow? Is this a lasting treasure Or just a moment's pleasure Can I believe the magic of your sight Will you still love me tomorrow Tonight's words Unspoken You said that I'm the only one But will my heart Be broken When the night Makes the morning sun I'd like to know that your love Is a love I can't be sure of So tell me now And I won't ask again Will you still love me tomorrow? So tell me now And I won't ask again Will you still love me tomorrow Will you still love me tomorrow? I'm all shook up Well, my hand is shaky and my knees are weak I can't seem to stand on my own feet Who do you think when you have such luck? I'm in love I'm all shook up Ooh, ooh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, please don't ask me what's on my mind. I'm a little mixed up, but I feel fine when I meet a girl that I love best. My heart beats so it scares me to death when she touches my hand. What a chill I got. Her lips are like a bottle can on its heart. I'm proud to say that she's my buttercup. I'm in love. I'm all shook up. My tongue gets tired when I try to speak. My insides shake like a leaf on a tree. There's only one kill for this body of mine. That's to have that girl and her love so fine. She touched my head and what the chill I got. Her lips look like a volcano that's hot. I'm proud to say that she's my buttercup, I'm in love I'm all shook up I'm all shook up guitar solo Fly from her fingertips Echoed voices in the night She's a restless spirit on an endless flight Ooh, ooh, witchy woman See how high she flies Ooh, ooh, witchy woman She got the moon in her eyes She held a spellbound in the night Dancing shadows and firelight Crazy laughter in another room And she drove herself to madness with a silver spoon Ooh, ooh, witchy woman See how high she flies Ooh, ooh, witchy woman She got the moon in her eyes Thank you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I know you want to love her Let me tell you, brother She's been sleeping in the devil's bed And there's some rumors going around Someone's underground She'll lock you in the night Until your skin turns red Ooh, ooh, witchy woman See how high she flies Ooh, ooh, witchy woman She's got the moon in her eyes I'm out. Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Welcome everyone here today. Should be an interesting day. First things, we need to have approval. We've got a little bit of business that we're going to take care of before we get into the public hearing. And if anyone wishes to speak during the public hearing, there's a sign-up sheet in the back that they'll need to go sign up on, and then they're going to bring it up here to me. So with that, we'll take a motion for approval of the minutes for July 28. I have a motion by Mr. Wilson and a second by Mr. Brewer for approval. Everybody vote. It's going to take us a minute to catch up with electronics. Okay. Okay. I guess I ought to sign in myself. Okay, that motion carries. Next we have the, do we have any postponements and withdrawals? Thank you. all of our diligence work and division planning. We've got two all students doing that. We're in terms of evaluating costs of the . In addition, we're trying to make the diligence costs. My client is evaluating . We need that . Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wish to speak to this? Yes, sir. My name is Joel Corwin. I live in 760 Dawson Springs. I'm one of the neighbors that joins this project. Now, there are only about 20 homes in that subdivision. It was a subdivision that teaser started and kind of abandoned. and the Palumbo now controls the subway, so to speak. We took a petition, all the homes, to a man. Nobody wants it, with the exception of two Palumbo homes that are spec homes. Obviously, they didn't go to them. And there's one person that lives in out-of-town, that lives in California, and we couldn't contact them. But I have the original petition objecting to the entire project. Now, if I may, it was very hard to round up these people. It's like trying to get cats in a room all at once. It's not easy. So the few people that were able to take off work and change their entire schedule, myself included, were here. I got a call yesterday from Mr. Murphy. and he had stated, and he's in the room, that he was giving me a courtesy call to let me know that this wasn't going to happen today. It was going to be postponed for next month. I thought that was rather odd that I get a call the night before at 7 o'clock. There's no chance I can tell these people not to show. There was no time to make any changes, and my whole day was changed, and everybody's what we would like to proceed. We're prepared. And, in fact, the issue that Mr. Murphy is asking to put in the pants needs to be addressed at another meeting. We'll attend that, but we'd like to make our case today, if at all possible. I thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else on that? Whether to postpone or not. Okay. I guess we'll turn it over to the Commission for a motion or comments on whether to postpone or not. Mr. Chair, if I may, I can appreciate the, I've sat out there before in the same situation as to wanting to go forward. However, from what I heard, I think there's a couple of different possibilities that the applicant is looking at, or maybe I should say three, depending on the cost involved. The third one, depending on the cost, would be possibly not even going forward with this. And until we know what is going on, the intentions, I feel like it would be prudent really to wait and postpone on this. I would offer and suggest, and not to put words in Mr. Murphy's mouth, but I believe he would be able to work with the neighbors a little bit better as to what is taking place, when it's going to take place, and give them a little bit more notice than just a few hours. But in this situation, I think at this time, I think we probably need to postpone. Okay. Any other commissioners want to comment? If not, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move postponement of DMK Development Group, LLC, which is MARC 2011-13 until September 22, 2011. And that would be the development plan also? The development plan also, yes, sir. All right. We have a second. Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Any other discussion? Okay. Everybody vote when you can. That motion carries. It will be postponed until September 27. Thank you. Any other postponements? Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today representing the Lexington Speech and Hearing Center. On page 2, item number 1, it's here for rezoning. The staff had previously recommended a postponement. We had talked with the staff last week. I also had a few calls from the neighborhood, and it was my decision at that point to request a postponement to have a neighborhood meeting first, which we're going to have on September 13th at 7 o'clock at the Heritage Baptist Church. Last Friday, I sent letters informing everyone who received notification of the zone change in writing of the request I was going to make today for a postponement and also inviting them to attend a neighborhood meeting on the 13th. So in light of that, we would request a postponement to the September 26 meeting. Or, excuse me, September 22 meeting. Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this, whether to postpone it or not? All right. Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the commission for a motion. Ms. Chairman, I move postponement of MARV 2011-12, the Lexington Hearing and Speech Center, incorporated until September 22nd, and that includes as well the ZDP of 2011-69. Very good. We have a motion and a second by Patrick Brewer. Everybody vote when you can. The motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Next we're going to get into our subdivision items. But before we do that, we have a special presentation to one of our previous commissioners. He's here, and if you all will follow me around to the podium, we'll present it to him. Or would you rather wait until the end of the meeting? I thought that's what you were going to do. All right. Got you all lined up there. This is for Edward Holmes. He served the last four years on the Planning Commission, and his term expired, and we're happy for him that he's going to have Thursdays, his Thursdays back, and that we're happy for ourselves. But anyway, I've got this plaque signed by all of us, and just permit me to read it. For as we, the members of the Lexington Fed Urban County Planning Commission and staff, acknowledge the fulfillment of the term of office of Mr. Edward Holmes from the Planning Commission, and whereas we wish to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Holmes for his valuable service to the Commission from July 10, 2007 to June 30, 2011, having served on the Commission's subdivision and zoning committee, serving as chair of the zoning committee, and parliamentarian of the Planning Commission. And whereas Mr. Holmes has been influential in the adoption of the 2007 comprehensive plan, and whereas Mr. Holmes has been influential in the formation of the South Nexfield Road Small Area Plan, Central Sector, and East End Small Area Plans, the Red Mile Village Development Plan, Non-Residential Infill and Redevelopment Study, and the text amendments encouraging and facilitating infill and redevelopment and – did you do all that? It seemed like I was here too. Whereas Mr. Holmes has consistently shown a deep concern for the citizens of the Lexington-Fayette County as reflected in his decisions regarding land use and development. and whereas the members of the Commission and the staff feel that the service and guidance contributed by Mr. Holmes will be greatly missed by this body. Now, therefore, be it resolved, we, the members of the Commission, along with the staff, do hereby express our gratitude to Mr. Holmes for his service to this Commission and to the citizens of Lexington County, and we, Lexington Urban County Planning Commission, and its staff to hereby wish Mr. Holmes much happiness and continued success and ask that he continue to give valuable guidance to the members of the Commission. It further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to Mr. Holmes and also spread upon the minute book of this body. I realize you have a full agenda, so I want to be the last person standing in front of that. That was just my first part. Now, seriously, I want to thank the commission, my fellow commissioners, and the staff. It gives me great pleasure to have had the opportunity to work with you guys, and I have a great appreciation for Chris and the staff for all the work that you do. It's really quite an amazing job. So thank you. Thanks a lot. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Holmes, you're welcome to stay the rest of the meeting. Oh, okay. I knew once he got that he was out of here. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, There is one final record plan which was postponed to today's meeting. It's on your first page of your agenda plan, 2011-73F. This is for the Derby Landing property. I've also previously passed out at your site a revised staff recommendation for this subject property, which I'll be speaking to. I'm happy to say that this should be a very quick presentation. First, to orient the commission to this property, this is Derby Landing Circle is located off of Cave Hill Lane. If you take Cave Hill Lane out to Harrodsburg Road, you'll be near the Kerr Brothers Funeral Home to get you in the general vicinity of where this property is located. This is a small private street, Derby Landing. It's about 23 feet to the back of the curb or the right-of-way. it was developed as a private street. The neighbors approached the government asking for this to become a public street. So this plat would be to help facilitate the acceptance of Derby Landing as a public street. There are 23 lots on the subject property. The property is zoned R3. At the time of our subdivision committee, it was originally recommended for approval at the time of the subdivision committee with the first eight conditions that are on your agenda. However, it was brought up at the time of the subdivision committee that there was some clarification that was needed. Based off of on the back of your revised recommendation, you can see a memorandum from Kevin Wente on behalf of the administration. There was some confusion or clarification needed to be held about what the actual recommendation from the administration was. And that's because the subject property, the existing right-of-way for the street, is just to the back of the curb. The sidewalks and utility easements are in easements on this subject property. And it was unclear whether additional right-of-way to the normal 50-foot of right-of-way would be recommended or whether just it was recommended that we accept the existing private street right-of-way as public street right-of-way. And that clarification came out, if you'll notice in his letter, in the findings he mentions, one step back, any time that there's a request for a private street to become a public street, It's the government's policy for the administration to send out recommendations from all sorts of different divisions, traffic engineering, planning, engineering, all of the different divisions that would have information. They then coalesce all of that information and make one recommendation on behalf of the government. In this case, engineering did recommend the additional right-of-way be granted with this plan. However, since the time of the subdivision committee, I have been able to talk with Mr. Wente, and his recommendation in the findings was just to document engineering's recommendation for the additional right-of-way, but not to recommend it. The recommendation from the administration is to just simply accept the existing private street right-of-way as public street right-of-way, thereby leaving the sidewalks and utility easements in easements the way that they are today. This is not unprecedented. There are a few other subdivisions in Fayette County that are in a similar situation. Based off of the clarification that we have received now on the recommendation, we are recommending approval subject to the original eight conditions. There was one typographical error that we wanted to clarify also. So as far as the urban forester's approval, this does not require a tree protection plan, but he would be approving the street tree information for the subject property. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to try and answer them. The applicants are the 23 property owners on Derby Landing. The applicant's engineer is here, and I know that some of the members of this subdivision are here, too, if you had any questions for them. That concludes my presentation. Okay. Thanks, Jimmy. Any questions? Does any of the applicants want to speak to this? Mr. Chairman, my name is Gene Alexander. I'm here on behalf of Eagle Engineering. And I would like to say that Mr. Evans has done a fine job. to bring this plan to the point that it is. And my only comment is that we are in full agreement with the conditions and do hereby request approval of the plan. It is plan, well, 2011-73F on the first page of the agenda. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. I'll turn it back over to the Commission for any discussion or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll move for approval of Plan 2011-73 to Relaney. Okay. We have a motion for approval by Patrick Brewer. Do we have a second? I have a second by Eunice Beatty. That is a revised sheet, isn't it, Mr. Brewer? Okay. All right. So everybody vote when you can. That motion carries. Okay. Is that all of our plans? Are we ready for that? Mr. Chairman, that does conclude your subdivision and zoning items today. Okay. Thank you. So next, I guess, we are ready to begin on the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Are you going to start us off, Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe they're switching chairs over here at the admin desk, and we're going to get a PowerPoint up here, and we'll be right started. You all should have some papers related to the public hearing this afternoon. And one of them is a copy of the goals and objectives that you approved for this public hearing at the end of July. There are also several comments from organizations that we have received since you set the public hearing in July. And those are in your packet there as well. Okay. Mr. Chair, we're glad to be here today, and thank you for this opportunity to hold a public hearing to consider the work that you all have been doing over the past eight months. This is the first phase of the first element of the 2012 Comprehensive Plan, and we have a number of inputs that have gone into this to this point, and we're going to review those briefly. During this presentation, we'll talk about what we've done over the past eight months to bring us to this point. We'll review the public and community outreach for the draft goals and objectives, and review the goals and objectives themselves. And at the end, we also have two proposed changes that the staff have discussed since you set the public hearing at the end of July, and we'd like to present those to you as well. To remind us of the significance of the goals and objectives and the comprehensive plan, this is laid out in statute, just as the entire comprehensive plan process itself is laid out in statute. And the Planning Commission's role with the goals and objectives is to prepare and adopt a statement of goals and objectives, which we will then present to the Urban County Council, and they will do the same thing. So, as I said, this is the first phase of the first element. Once you're finished with the adoption of the goals and objectives, the Urban County Council has the same say in it as well. They will very likely hold public input meetings, and we expect they will make some changes as well. In order to publicize today's public hearing, as soon as we set that at the end of July, we updated our website with the meetings and with revised goals and objectives. We also updated all the government calendars, so anyone who was looking at the government site should have been able to find this information. We sent two different notices to our ever-growing contacts database, one at the beginning of the month and one at the end of last week, to try our best to get the word out about the meeting. We also published an ad in the newspaper, and according to statute, we notified the surrounding planning commissions. To remind you of where we are, this is the tenth meeting that the Planning Commission has held this year on the goals and objectives. We began in January where we established a schedule for the 2012 Comprehensive Plan and started reviewing development data and demographic data. Once you got through that, one of the first things you did was to make a critical decision that this Comprehensive Plan would focus on sustainability. It would focus on jobs and economic development, and the issue of expanding the urban service boundary would not be part of this comprehensive plan based on the data. Once you did that, you began reviewing the 2007 mission statement and goals and objectives, and after you got through all 250 of those entries, you decided that perhaps the previous comprehensive plan was a bit bloated. In fact, some of the words that were used to describe that were there's fluff in that, there's things that we don't use. So you set about to make a more streamlined and, in your words, business-like, action-oriented comprehensive plan. And so to do that, we needed to start over again with a new mission statement and new goals and objectives, which you did. But because this new mission statement and goals and objectives was significantly different than what the community has seen over the past few comprehensive plans, we wanted to ensure that the public was aware of it and to gauge their interest and support in it. So over the summer, we held a series of public input meetings and took public comment on the draft and then came back to you at the end of July, reported what we had, and we decided to set a public hearing to consider them. We held two public input meetings in June, one in the south side of town and one in the north side, both in the evening. And then we had two focus groups as well, where we invited targeted interests from around the community to come in and review the goals and objectives, express their own concerns about their organizations, and give us their thoughts on the direction of the comprehensive plan. These agencies included farm agencies, the Farm Bureau and the Fayette Alliance for the rural area. We also had big and small business represented, the universities, and other organizations in town, all with a different perspective and all with a number of good ideas on how the comprehensive plan could be improved and how it could be applied to the community. In addition to those formal meetings, the staff was invited to meet with Commerce Lexington, and we've had a number of meetings with them over the spring and summer to talk about their concerns about economic development. We were also invited to a meeting of the Home Builders Association, as well as the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Our elected officials took notice of what you've been doing, and following your statement about no expansion of the Urban Service Boundary, Mayor Gray held a press conference to publicize that announcement and state that there would not be an expansion of the Urban Service Boundary for this comprehensive plan and compelled us to look at ways to grow creatively and sustainably in the community. The Council Planning and Zoning Committee, the committee that's very likely to review the goals and objectives once they're adopted by the Planning Commission, also took notice and has invited us to two of their meetings already this year, one to present the comprehensive plan schedule in general and then another to present the goals and objectives as you have developed them so that they could give us some early feedback on their thoughts. Other public input besides our formal meetings has come in the way of emails. In fact, as recently as 1230 this afternoon, we were still receiving some emails about the goals and objectives. So we have tried to collect as many of those as we could prior to this meeting and send those on for your review. We've also received other recommendations and spoken comments about the comprehensive plan. plan. And as I said, we have either submitted to you previously or today all written comments related to the goals and objectives, and they will be made part of the public record. Now, we're talking about goals and objectives primarily today, but I did want to remind us that that is just but one element of the comprehensive plan by statute. In fact, the statute compels us to have at least three other elements, land use, transportation, and community facilities, which we will. But the statute also gives us the option of including other community issues that are important to us. And in the past, we have addressed such issues as housing, neighborhoods, green infrastructure, and an implementation chapter, and there may be others. And this is something that we want to talk to you once the goals and objectives are through this process. We want to start talking to you about what elements are important to the 2012 Comprehensive Plan besides the ones that we will be doing, and how we can address the community issues in those. What else is included in the Comprehensive Plan? Back to the goals and objectives, the succinct version, the compact version, the version that doesn't have a lot of detail that we have out for review right now. Well, there has been a concern expressed in the community. What happens to all those good ideas that were in previous Comprehensive Plans, goals and objectives? Do they just get lost? And our response has been consistent that they do not. that there is room for every good idea, either in past plans or what we want to deal with now, in all aspects of the comprehensive plan, particularly the other elements, where it may be more appropriate to include something in particular where we can expand on the nature of the issue and even identify specific projects. So in addition to the goals and objectives, within the balance of the comprehensive plan, We will revisit the small area plans that have been adopted over the past few years, see which ones need to be re-adopted, which ones need to be incorporated, which ones perhaps need to be updated, and identify those. We'll also incorporate the other community issues that have been identified during this planning process and issues that were still important to be carried forward. There's room for those in the comprehensive plan. And there will be new projects, of course, that we'll want to identify. And along the way, we'll continue to seek public input and look for more ways to engage the citizens in the planning process. So the bottom line, really, in this is that the development decisions are informed by all elements of the comprehensive plan. The goals and objectives get a lot of attention, and rightly so. They're the first element that's dealt with in a comprehensive plan, the only element that the urban county council will have a say in. but the statute doesn't weight the goals and objectives any heavier than any other element. So we believe that anything that is not addressed in the goals and objectives can be detailed wherever we want to, wherever is appropriate, wherever is best, in the rest of the comprehensive plan. Okay, so here we are. We've got our draft mission statement and goals and objectives. You all recrafted the mission statement, and you've packed quite a wallop in two sentences. We cover everything from economic development and environmental protection to neighborhood protection and quality of life. So we cover many, many bases in this. And then we punctuate the statement with a strong statement of support for our rural area, our rural landscape, and the horse capital of the world. To support the mission statement, we've developed five themes. housing and neighborhoods, environmental protection, economic development through jobs and prosperity, improving our already desirable community, and a theme for planning that casts a fairly wide net. Within our growing successful neighborhoods, we address a number of issues, particularly related to housing. We talk about market rate housing and market needs, affordable housing, mixed-use developments. We identify citizens that need to be protected, whether they're older citizens or vulnerable citizens. We look at infill and adaptive reuse, preservation, neighborhood protection, and good design. In our environmental protection theme, protecting the environment, we put first and foremost the consent decree, the biggest issue the community is facing right now economically and certainly will be one we're facing for many years to come. But we also tackle other difficult issues with this theme, with addressing our carbon footprint and creating a sustainable community and what that definition of sustainable means. We also look at green building and green infrastructure. In our economic development theme, creating jobs and prosperity, we look first at our local assets. What is it that we have here that's good for growing jobs? We also look at our agricultural economy, and we call that out and perhaps recommend that there are other aspects of the agricultural economy that we've not explored, such as agritourism and local food production that would be good for the community, while maintaining that Lexington-Fayette County is the horse capital of the world. We call on our large business sectors, our small business sectors, our universities, to help be a part of the solutions for our economic development, and certainly we recognize the need to recruit and keep young professionals here. Improving a desirable community. We tackle some of the standard issues related to traffic and transportation, but we also introduce new issues related to complete streets and secured by design. And all of this wrapped in an improved quality of life and health for the community. And then finally, our planning theme. Planning for Lexington, planning with the bluegrass. We want to continue to engage our citizens, to keep them involved in the planning process, and to take their input. We feel compelled to be leaders and to collaborate with those around us, across the borders and our surrounding counties and beyond, to achieve regional planning issues. And then again we close out the goals and objectives and this theme talking about our rural land, safeguarding our rural land, doing a good job and a better accounting for our vacant and underutilized land so that we can stay inside our urban service boundary as long as we can, maintaining the urban service boundary, and a new objective that we're proposing to you today to update the Rural Land Management Plan. So in a breezy breath, that was the summation of the goals and objectives that you all have worked on over the past eight months. I do want to bring to your attention two proposed changes that the staff has put together since you set the public hearing at the end of July. And these were based on comments that we received from two organizations early in August. Number one is to add a word to goal D2, the word accessible. This came about as a result of conversations with representatives of the Mayor's Commission on Citizens with Disabilities. And we believe that adding the word accessible to this statement to provide accessible community facilities sends a loud signal that Lexington is open to all people. We want to ensure that our facilities, public and private, are available to them, and not just the minimum required by law, but perhaps what are the best practices and the best ways that we can achieve this. And we believe that that can be detailed further in the comprehensive plan, but telegraphing that this is a statement that's important to us. And then finally, at the end of the goals and objectives, the last theme, theme E, our planning theme, goal four, a new objective C. The Rural Land Management Plan has served as an invaluable resource over the past years in creating progressive and important policies for rural preservation and for community and economic development in Fayette County. It was developed in 1999, and a number of important initiatives have come out of that, including the PDR program. This plan now is 12 years old, and it needs to be updated. We feel that if we address the Rural Land Management Plan, that we can address a number of important community issues related to agriculture, to rural preservation, and to community development. So we propose that we add a goal that calls for the updating of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. And, Mr. Chair, with that, I conclude the presentation. I'll be glad to address any questions or concerns you have now, and I'll be available throughout the hearing as well. All right. Very good. Are there any questions from the Commission? Yes. Yeah, Jim, this is, again, great work. I've read all the comments that you guys sent in advance, and there's a lot of excellent comments that I've seen. What was the difference between these two that you received that you included in the new draft versus all the others that came in? Well, part of it was the accessible comment was a little different than most of the other comments that we received. That was really targeted on the ability to maneuver through the public realm and through the private realm, not so much some of the other issues. So we felt like that that was a fairly easy fix, one that actually opened up a number of possibilities, but certainly addressed an important issue that had not been fully brought to us before. The second, with the Rural Land Management Plan, a number of those issues came in, of course, just this week to us, those proposals to change the goals and objectives to reflect those types of issues. But we also believe, and by the way, this draft change was made before we received these comments this week, But we believe that by updating the Rural Land Management Plan, that that is a comprehensive plan in and of itself for the rural area and beyond, and that if we address that in the goals and objectives, then that implicitly commits us to look at all of these other issues that are important to the rural area, some that are identified in the goals and objectives, others that are not, but it certainly enables that opportunity, and then that becomes a document that can be incorporated elsewhere in the plan if we need to, but that's kind of the overriding document that we believe would address those issues. Anything else? Yes, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, just one question related to the, for example, since we approved these without these two changes, do we now go back and approve them with these, or do we wait until we hear from the audience at hand and approve all the changes at one time? I think that's the proper way to do it. That was just a suggestion they made. Nobody's approved what they've said, but that's a suggestion they've made. And we'll take all these other comments and mold them into one good comp plan. Maybe even better than we have so far, right? Wonderful. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, sir, it does. Okay, so are we ready to hear from the public? Indeed. All right. We have about – did everybody sign up that wanted to speak? I have 14 people listed here. They want to sign up? Okay. Okay. Can you ask Doug Alvarez, please? Sure. Okay. We'll take comments from people that didn't sign up, but at least we know we have 14 or 15 signed up. So we're trying to get a time on how long it's to last. Does the Commission have something on time limits, any recommendations on time limits for the speakers? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Well, first of all, I'm delighted to see as many people that have come out to express their views and opinions related to this comprehensive plan. But to make sure that we hear all 14 and maybe even more, I would suggest maybe perhaps a time limit of approximately three minutes per person. That would ensure that we get to hear everybody and that we can move our proceedings forward. All right. Very good. Is there any discussion on that? Is that in the form of a motion, Mr. Wilson? Yes, sir. That will be a form of a motion. That's it. Okay. So you've moved that the time limit be three minutes per speaker. Do we have a second? One suggestion that they could combine to have more. Like-minded people would like to combine time with us. That's agreeable with the motion maker. Okay. So if somebody signed up and they want to yield their time to somebody else, that's permissible. Okay. Yield it. Okay. I would second that. All right. So we have a second to that. Motion of three minutes. The commission may vote electronically. She's trying, we're doing a check on the system too. All right, that motion barely carries, but it carries. Okay, so what we'll do is I'll go down this list and I'll try to read these names. And then you can come forward to the podium and state your name and address. We need that for the record. This is all being recorded. If you fail to do that, then your comments won't know who said them. So we wouldn't want that. So first I'm going to call Rick Callup. Is he here? I think he was here on the previous development plan. Okay, next would be Mariana Moore. Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commission members, my name is Marianna Moore. I live at 1796 Bahama Road. That's in Greenbrier off Winchester Road. I'm a member of the Rural Land Management Board. I'm Vice Chair, and I'm speaking to you on behalf of the Management Board. As you know, we are an agency and instrumentality of the urban county government. Our purpose is the preservation and management of the agricultural, rural, and natural lands within Fayette County. In addition to overseeing the operation of the PDR program, our duties include securing legislation that will promote the mission, goals, and objectives of the PDR ordinance. Earlier this year, we unanimously adopted the following resolution, which I would like to read for the record. Whereas the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board, Inc., is a corporation created pursuant to Section 26.2 of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Code of Ordinances, and whereas the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board is empowered by Code Section 26-6 to assist the government by making recommendations regarding the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and by securing legislation that will promote the mission goals and objectives of the ordinance, now therefore be it resolved by the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board, Inc., as follows. 1. The Fayette County Rural Land Management Board reaffirms the recommendation made in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. 2. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan should be updated with the most current information. 3. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan should be reaffirmed and re-adopted as part of the 2012 Comp Plan. 4. The mission statement of the 2012 Comp Plan should contain goals that include the PDR program and the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. 5. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan should be expressly stated as a goal and objective of the 2012 Comp Plan. 6. The PDR program should be expressly stated as a goal and objective in the 2012 Comp Plan. 7. The draft of the 2012 Com Plan Goals and Objectives should be amended to reflect the goals and objectives of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. 8. All text referencing the Transfer of Development Rights, TDR, should be deleted from the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. And nine, there shall be no changes to the PDR program application, the PDR program application process, the PDR ordinance, the PDR ranking system, or the PDR ranking process. And I hope that was within three minutes. It was. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Okay, Jean Alexander, for Sales Road. I was? Okay. He had to sign up too, didn't he? All right. Joel Corwin. Don't change. Andy Bollinger. Mr. Chairman, Commission members, thank you for having me today. I'm Andy Bollinger, and I'm here on behalf of my sister, Jessica Bollinger. Jessica is the owner of Carriage Station Farm, located on Old Frankfort Pike, and has lived there for over 25 years now. I'm specifically here to talk about the theme of creating jobs and prosperity, that section of the proposal, and I want to focus more on agritourism. Sadly, in these economic times, it has become increasingly difficult to make ends meet on a farm of her size and type, which is precisely why Jessica is thinking outside of the box and seeking support of the Planning Commission for small farms to conduct nontraditional farm activities and events that promote agriculture and showcase the amazing farms of Fayette County. The State of Kentucky, as per the Governor's Office for Agriculture Policy, has defined agritourism as the follows. For the purposes of this program, agritourism shall be defined as any economic activity that occurs on a farm for the enjoyment or education of the public to promote agricultural products, services, or experiences which generate additional farm income. The GOAP funds a variety of projects to implement these programs on a county-by-county basis so that activities are developed and regulated in conjunction with county committees. Although Fayette County has an active conservation easement program, it limits agritourism to vineyards only. While land conservation programs protect the land with permanent easements and some limited tax advantages are realized, there is no income stream generated in the process. With the limited size of most central Kentucky farms, there is a critical need for revenue streams to sustain the viability of agriculture and equine operations typically to this region. Agritourism is the primary resource for additional revenue streams available to central Kentucky farms and are ideally suited to take advantage of the resource due to their proximity to three major urban areas, existing tourist attractions. Fayette County is the only county which limits, near to the point of prohibition, the farm operator's ability to participate in such activities. If we save the land but not the agricultural business, our only gain is promoting hobby farms. According to David Lord, former president, Lexington Convention Visitors Bureau, the single most unfulfilled request for tourists in central Kentucky is the chance to visit a working farm. That is a market opportunity. Private and corporate social events and meetings in such rural settings are highly marketable, easy to regulate, and potentially lucrative above many traditional farm activities. Outdoor events might include company picnics, retreats, weddings, wedding receptions. These activities may generate between $1,000 to $4,000 of income for a one-day event, which is only usually four hours, or less actual visitor time spent on site. Eight to ten of these events per year could make a difference in the ability to withstand time up. Time's up. All right. You submitted that in writing, didn't you? Yeah, you guys have. Thanks. Thank you very much. Billy Van Pelt. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Vice Chair Owens, and Planning Commission members. I'll just add a few comments to the presentation made by our Vice Chair. Earlier this year, Mr. King and Ms. Bolin came to the Rural Land Management Board, and they asked us to look at the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan as a board. Our board formed a subcommittee, a comp plan update committee, and we did review the plan, and our committee came back to the full board with the recommendation that the TDR language be deleted, and that was our only recommended change to the Rural Land Management Plan. So in saying that, I would ask that you not approve the goal about updating the Rural Land Management Plan. And updating is not the same as adopting or re-adopting, and I think we need some stronger language. Our board has already reviewed the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. We feel like the only change, and our board voted that the only change that should be made was to the TDR language. and if you decide that the plan needs to be reviewed again, we would be happy to work with you on that, but I would like to respectfully request that you put that back in the Comp Plan Update Committee of the Rural Lane Management Board and let our committee come back to you at a later date with a presentation. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you. I can't make out the name. Hi, I'm Jenny Grolke. I live at 2050 DeLong Road. I am the Executive Director of the Kentucky Horse Council, and we are an educational 501 C3. We're a statewide equine support group. I'm a Fayette County resident. I'm here to express support for the proposal modification submitted by the Fayette Alliance. I have many colleagues and friends in the thoroughbred industry, and the Horse Council basically develops programs to support the other breeds of horses in this state. According to a 2005 survey statewide, 80 percent of horses in Kentucky are other breeds other than thoroughbreds. However, in Fayette County, those numbers are probably flip-flopped. Last year, the World Equestrian Games brought a huge influx of sport horse people. Sport horses, for those of you who aren't familiar with the term, refers to Olympic equestrian disciplines, jumping, dressage, cross-country, endurance, driving. We've seen increased interest already as a result of the World Equestrian Games. Just earlier this week, interestingly, on Tuesday, I met with a group of four people. They had all moved here to Kentucky, to Lexington in the last two years. One was from Holland, one was from France, one was from Germany, and one was from Pennsylvania. So we did have an American in the room. They have a lot of enthusiasm and support for increasing the sport horse business in this country, excuse me, in this county. Every year, thousands of horses of this type go through the Kentucky Horse Park to compete. They come here from Florida, from New York, from California, and we don't want them to leave. This is an opportunity, if the thoroughbred industry does, in fact, contract and leaves farms unoccupied, this is an opportunity to infill those farms with sport horse people. These people are very supportive of the industry. They're very dedicated, and they have some new creative ideas. This is agricultural economic development at best. They bring not only horses but jobs, expanded business opportunities, Also, the retrofitting of a thoroughbred farm to a sport horse facility provides more business to existing services in the area. They also use the same infrastructure, pastures, barns, veterinarian services, farrier services, fencing, feed, supplies, et cetera. So sport horse, I think, is our growth area of the future in this county, and we are already working on initiatives to try and encourage those people to come here and stay. But in order for us to continue those initiatives and for those initiatives to be successful, we have got to protect our farmland. It's just got to be protected so that they know once they move in that they won't have development happening left and right of them. So I encourage you to emphasize the agricultural land aspect, protection of it, in the comprehensive plan update, including the inclusion of a fourth goal objective as submitted by Fayette Alliance. Thank you. Very good. Thanks. Denise O'Mara. Good afternoon. I'm Denise O'Mara. I live at 3168 Arrowhead Drive in Lexington. I'm the Education Coordinator for Equine Land Conservation Resource, which is a national organization that advocates and educates about land conservation for the purpose of use by horsemen, horsewomen, and for the growing of hay and other crops that create feed for horses. This is kind of an issue that comes up in every community. The comprehensive plan needs to support equine opportunities in land, in access, in the ability to grow crops. I would like to commend the planning staff for its efforts in kind of reducing the mass and the fluff of the goals and objectives. I'm also a landscape architect, and I've done a fair amount of master planning, and I know how difficult it is to get through that goals and objectives part and still have it readable so that people don't get halfway through it and say, okay, I've had enough. I think there needs to be a little bit of a balance just to take some of the comments that have come up. There are a lot of really, really good suggestions, and most of them, I think, to do with infrastructure, green infrastructure and land use planning and the rural land protection, all of that. are going to end up in the plan, I think it would help to clarify where that's going to show up, because I think people are looking at this draft and seeing that, you know, these particular issues that I'm concerned about are not showing up in there. I think there needs to be a little bit of attention paid to kind of the importance of particular issues and maybe reword a few of the sections and include some of the terminology, like sustainability and whatnot in some of those issues. But overall, I think it's a really good idea to reduce the verbiage in the goals and objectives. I just think it needs to be clarified where that needs to happen or where that's going to happen within the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Knox Van Nagel. I can barely make that out. Thank you, Chairman Cravens and Planning Commissioners. If it's okay, I may use the time of Charlene Mingus and Kathleen Burke, who have signed up after me. That's okay. I won't take up all of that time. Well, thank you very much. My name is Knox Van Augele, 603 West Short Street, and I'm here on behalf of the Fayette Alliance. As you know, the Fayette Alliance is Lexington's only land use advocacy group dedicated to promoting a sustainable growth model that benefits all of us for our town, our farms, and our future. In furtherance of this mission, we distributed our proposed vision, goals, and objectives draft with cover letter to you earlier this week for your review and consideration. In the interest of brevity, I won't address the entirety of these materials, but I will highlight a couple of important points. First, the community's vision must be written in a way that balances a vibrant downtown, healthy neighborhoods, farmland preservation, and environmental initiatives with the development of our resources to accommodate growth. This is a proven recipe that will continue to produce an unparalleled quality of life here in Fayette County. In this time of economic recession and uncertainty, our quality of life is our biggest calling card for economic development and job creation, as 70% of workers today pick city first and job second. Where the workers choose to live is where the companies choose to go. So a balanced and sustainable growth strategy is instrumental to becoming a destination for a strong, creative, and recovering economy. Second, the goals and objectives must expressly address the stewardship of our rural services area through affirming the current principles and recommendations of our Rural Land Management Plan. This plan was adopted roughly 10 years ago after a diverse cross-section of our community including leaders from the home building, real estate, business, neighborhood equine and ag sectors, met for two years to determine how best to manage and promote our irreplaceable bluegrass landscape and its various economic, natural and cultural resources. Their work led to our nationally acclaimed PDR program, the 40-acre minimum rule, one of the largest national historic districts in the United States, and countless other land use policies designed to preserve and enhance our precious farmland and $3 billion agricultural economy. While the statistical information of the Rural Land Management Plan needs to be updated, the importance of its goals and objectives cannot be overstated, and its current principles should be affirmed. Like Toyota and Lexmark, our equine and general ag industries are major economic drivers that, too, have a factory floor of their business. Instead of bricks and mortar, our signature industries exist not in a physical building, but on our precious bluegrass soils and farmland. Any sound business plan manages and leverages its facilities or factory for purposes of economic growth, and our farms are no different. Although our entire economy is in a state of contraction, from finance and home building to the horse industry, we have even more to lose if we don't mine the store in our rural area. Here are some key facts about our farms and what they mean to our local economy. Our rural services area supports over 21,000 local jobs, from farm laborers, suppliers, tour guides, to lawyers, vets, animal science researchers, and sales agents. Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton are respectively the largest thoroughbred sales agencies in the entire world, last year attracting international investors to Lexington from 49 different countries and selling over a billion dollars worth of thoroughbreds. The thoroughbred industry, as reflected by the recent Keeneland, FASIG, Saratoga, and OBS sales, has stabilized. The average and gross sales numbers have increased 30 to 40 percent from previous years. While projected full crops are down, Lexington and the state of Kentucky are still the epicenter of an international industry in breeds, foals, and raises more thoroughbreds than other states combined. And Fayette County is not just about thoroughbreds. We're in the largest beef-producing state east of the Mississippi River. The Bluegrass Stockyard is located in downtown. It's the second largest stockyard in the United States. And last year it sold roughly $144 million locally and $350 million statewide in cattle alone. And food is a big deal. With grocery prices, transportation costs, and populations reaching record highs, Fayette County farmers are growing more food than ever to satisfy the need, with crop receipts totaling over $14 million. With improved processing, distribution, and marketing systems in place, food could become an incredibly powerful Fayette County industry in the near future. And tourism is huge. The World Equestrian Games had over a $200 million statewide economic impact and jumpstarted a growing and documented sport horse industry. The Kentucky Horse Park is home to 35 national equine operations, which contribute over $260 million to our local economy. Nearly 2 million tourists came to our town last year to visit the horse park and Fayette County farms, investing needed money in our hotels, restaurants, and local business. Many tourism programs are ongoing. A young program is underway at the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association to aid in booking public horse farm tours. More than 1,200 hours of tours were completed in 2010 alone, and it's growing. In this fall, the mayor is convening a committee to examine the challenges and opportunities for agritourism in Fayette County. We must balance agritainment opportunities with the very real business and legal interests of agriculture. In light of these facts, the 2012 goals and objectives must address the stewardship of our farmland beyond answering the question of not expanding the urban services area. While answering this question was an incredibly important first step, we can now seize the opportunity and spend more calories on the goals and objectives so they provide a clear, thematic blueprint of how we grow and manage our most important community assets over the next several years, from housing and neighborhoods to the environment and farms. The 2006 Comp Plan had over 40 goals and objectives addressing the rural area. The 2012 draft potentially has just one. Even in light of the new format, we hope that our bluegrass brand, farms, and signature industries and other community interests will be given their due. The current draft of the Colson objectives must be both concise and pointed. Otherwise the comp plan will be subject to unnecessary legal confusion and wrangling as we adopt future land use policies. Thanks so much for considering our comments here today. We ask that you recommend the adoption of our proposed 2012 Goals and Objectives Draft, and thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much. Susan Enloe. Susan Enloe, Board of Trustees Meeting, Board of Trustees Meeting, Board of Trustees Meeting, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you for permitting me to speak. My name is Susan Enloe. I live at 2382 Walnut Grove Lane. This is on the back border of the Greenbrier subdivision. I'm the president of the Greenbrier Neighborhood Association. However, I'd like to emphasize these comments today are strictly my own, so I will share those with you. I can appreciate your efforts. I know a lot of time and thought went into your development of your proposed comprehensive plan. Having said that, I would like to just state that I'd like to see a little bit more structure in these plans. I see and agree with a lot of what we should do, but I don't see how it's going to happen. And having been through a very long and involved process with our neighborhood and a development that was undergoing a plan adjacent to us, it was very helpful to have more structured guidelines to go by. It helped both the developer side and the neighborhood side, in my opinion, get to a point where we could agree on things and we didn't have wrangling and confusion or a nebulous interpretation of where we should be. I think it just helps us to have some handrails, if you will use that term for me. And the more subjective plans are, the less it helps us from the neighborhood side to work with the planning division, the planning commission, and our neighborhood, the citizens in our neighborhoods. I would like to say I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Gray's comments about maintaining the current service boundary for urban services, and also to be as creative as we possibly can in infill efforts within the city. I drive around and see every day someplace that's stagnant or empty, and I think, wow, we could do something with that. And I think we have a number of those available. Third, I would like to see the rural services plan developed with input from the rural stakeholders. We are on the edge of the horse farm beginnings at Greenbrier. We see the effects of the piano key developments directly down Winchester Road that happened before planning became much more involved in development in this county. And I'm sure you've driven by and seen the little tiny houses all in a row. So we would like that development to have input from rural stakeholders and the Fayette Alliance recommendations. I'd like to know what the specifics are regarding incentives for development, incentives and regulations. And I like your bike path coordination efforts. That will cut down on your carbon footprint. Thank you very much. Very good. Next is Andrea Strasburg. Andrea Strassberg, 175 Malibu Drive, number 23. I'm here to speak to you about the mission statement and goals and objectives for the 2012 plan and long-range plan. I'm chair of the Mayor's Commission for Citizens with Disabilities. And I would like to first thank Jim and his people for all the hard work he's put in on this and everyone here. And for the change that was made in Goal D2 where to provide accessible community facilities and services to meet the needs of the Lexington citizens. That's a great step. And I also thank him for mentioning that he wanted more details should be included in the plan to address our community once and wanting to use the best practices and go above and beyond the ADA regulations that are already in place. And I think accessibility should be mentioned in the mission statement as well, because other cities that have used the term accessibility in their mission statement have seen nothing but economic growth. And if it was in the mission statement, as well as more goals, you'll see your sustainable communities that you emphasize already. And you'll see your successful neighborhoods as your verbiage already. And I just think that that should be one thing that is missing currently in the goals and objectives and in the mission statement. And I appreciate your taking, for me to take the time to let you know that accessibility is a big deal for people. And accessibility only means sustainability in everybody's eyes. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you. I have Joel Corwin again. He must have signed up twice. Walter Hillmeyer. Good afternoon. I'm Walter Hillenmeyer. I reside at 440 Bristol Road. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the Fayette County Farm Bureau. We would like to state for the record that we agree with the revisions that the Fayette Alliance has submitted. pertaining to the 2012 COC plan goals and objectives. And furthermore, that we ask that the revisions be adopted. We feel that it is important that this process, that you readapt the goals and objectives of the Rural Land Management Plan set forth by the Rural Land Management Board. The mayoral appointed board represents a cross-section of individuals that work together towards promoting and protecting our bluegrass landscape. Therefore, we feel the goals and objectives should be reinstated in each comprehensive plan update. Along with the Fayette Alliance, we would like to see that the 2012 Comp Plan goals and objectives more clearly address current needs in this changing economic times, such as infill, incentives, affordable housing, aging programs, regional collaboration, water quality issues. With this being said, we would like to say that you evaluate each section of the comp plan to ensure that they are clearly defined. We would like to ask that you address and define the rural areas as much as possible as it pertains to preserving, protecting, and providing services. Thank you for your consideration and time, and we appreciate all your services. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. If I may, Mr. Kellenmeier, would you mind leaving that with the staff? My pen wouldn't write as fast as you were talking. All right. Thank you. Mr. Ben Kaufman, please. I'm Ben Kaufman, Lexington. I own several properties, including farmland, historic buildings, et cetera, et cetera. I'm kind of going to follow Susan Enlows. But I also want to say that I know Jim Duncan and the staff here does a fine job. But what I want to get to is specifics. What this is is great ambitions and goals, but there's nothing specific about it. I would like to know where you all think that we should have certain structures downtown. We finally have some grocery stores, but Lexington's been looking for grocery stores for years. for years. Do we have a good drugstore downtown? Do we have dry cleaners? What do we have downtown? We have a bunch of empty lots. Can't we have a game plan as where we think these places should be? How about low-income housing? How about doctor's offices? How about accessibility to all these items? Everything is kind of general here and nothing specific. I would I'd like to see something there. I go to other cities all over the world and I see great communities. Lexington is a mismatch and it's pretty ugly. I don't want criticism like no one exercises in Lexington. But, you know, look at Lexington. Go downtown. You have parking lots, you have this. What are you going to do with the lot on the corner of Broadway and High Street? been sitting there forever. The place, as you come into town on Richmond Road where they were going to have a drug store. I'm not going to get into the Webb's property. Unfortunately, I think it's going to be a long time before it's developed because of economics. But where are we? Our government needs to combine the old and the new. You go to England, you go to other countries, and you see that. I think we need a game plan for subdivisions and shopping centers. I have no idea how that subdivision got placed out off of Richmond Road by the park. There's something just not comprehensive, and that's what I want to see. I want a game play. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And I have Bruce Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here today representing the Crutcher family, and I wanted to address the proposed goal E4, which pertains to maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding the rural land, and specifically E4B, about maintaining the current boundaries of the urban services area and the rural activity center. I think it's abundantly clear to me as someone who's been privileged to practice before this body for a number of years, and also privileged to practice in a number of counties around Fayette County and far out into the reaches of the state, that in Fayette County, over the last 15 years certainly, this community has adopted a very important land use policy of preserving our agricultural land. And though I've represented interests that have challenged that from time to time, the consensus is something that most of us accept, that in terms of land use decisions, preserving the rural areas is important. And just about everything we've adopted in the last 15 years in terms of land use regulations has underpinned that principle. And I'm not here today to detract from it or propose changes that would harm it in any way. Fayette County, clearly above all the surrounding counties, has adopted land use policies that further the objective of preserving rural preservation more so than its neighbor to the south, which is Jessamine County, which in its last comprehensive plan update approved 6,700 acres for one-acre lots. It's amazing the difference in values that people have from one community to the next about land use. But 6,700 acres for one-acre lots just across the South Point line and Nicholasville Road, it's an incredible drastic difference. But Fayette is Fayette, and I'm here today to share with you while it is important to preserve these rural interests, It is also important to recognize that we need to be careful that sometimes in our legislation, in our policies, we can paint with too broad a brush. And we can lose opportunities to create economic development, enhance the environment, not hurt existing property owners, and provide much-needed job opportunities by not allowing a minor amendment. if it can be documented, if compelling evidence can be presented that fulfills those terms and conditions I just met, that at least ought to be considered. These are changing economic times, to be sure. But if you have property that's surrounded by the interstate, surrounded by major arterials, surrounded by other urban zone uses, and clearly not appropriate for agricultural use, to have a prohibition against any consideration of a change of a minor nature, I believe does injustice to that property owner and does injustice to this community in terms of losing opportunities for employment that it otherwise would have. So I would ask for a minor amendment. I will be submitting that to the council as they consider your all's draft that's before this body today, and I thank you for your attention. Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes the people I have signed up. Now, is there anyone that didn't sign up that would like to speak? I want everybody to have a chance. Okay? Okay. Hello today. My name is John Tucker, and I would like to thank you for your time. I've heard several proposals presented here today, and I've read over the comprehensive goals and plans and objectives, and I kind of agree with Mr. Hillemeyer and the Fed Alliance. some of these things need to be drawn out that we need to be a little more cut and dry of what we're doing instead of being so broad. Because I'm dealing with an issue that's been going on now for a little over 12 years. We're actually going to get one of them going to court because they didn't obey the law that you all have passed. I mean, it's been a big joke. I think that's a little bit long. And, I mean, that's what we're trying to say. And Mr. Kaufman, I agree with him. When you do something, we need to know what the law is and don't be so broad with it. Let's have it cut and dry. Let's have it explained to the people. Let the people know what they're getting into. That's what the goal should be. When you come and read this thing, if it says that's what it is, then that's what it is. But what we find out is sometimes these zones get approved, and then they change with amendments. And the amendments sometimes hurt other people in the meantime, and that's basically where I'm at. So I'm here today. Thank you, and I'd like to listen to your goals and all, and I agree with the Fed Alliance proposal that we need to make this a little bit broader with the aspect that we're making it cut and dry. No if situation. Don't bring in the if. Let's do it that way or no way. Let's make a plan. And that, and I thank you for your time. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, I guess our next step is to close this hearing and turn it over to the commission for some comments or questions or action. Does anybody from the commission wish to comment? I'll make a comment. As I kind of said at the beginning, I think we've got a whole lot of excellent comments here. And I'm not sure what the plan is as far as staff or the chair as far as timing, but I would discourage trying to run through this and finalize anything today. I think we need to give all the excellent comments due consideration. and I would propose that we, I mean, everybody digest what you can. We had a lot beforehand, but we got a lot today. And come back, whether it's next week or as soon as possible, with the work session to hash this out. I don't think it's something we can finalize today. Okay, very good. Yes. I would echo much of what Mr. Brewer has just said. But I would like to thank those of you who took the time out to make your comments. And I was writing fiercely trying to capture some of it, and I hope that we will have copies. Is that correct of what they were presenting? You'll have minutes of today's hearing. Okay. They are always very detailed, so that will suffice. I think whether it's in clarifying some of the terminology that we're using in the goals, objectives, or going back to clarify some of the items that you all pointed out, I think all of that is very good information. And although we have spent a great deal of time on these goals and objectives, as well as the staff, I think this gives us an opportunity once more to go back, take a look, and tweak it just a little bit more. So thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Mike? Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would, as Ms. Beatty said, echo the sentiments of not only her, but also Patrick, and the fact that being a good old slow Kentucky boy, I don't need time to digest this from time to time. We've received one letter here from the Home Builders Association, which I scanned through real quick and would like to get into even more. I think overall it's pretty positive, but still just scanning through it. I do have one question. I don't know, considering where we are at this point in time, the best way to go about it. I don't know if it would be for the staff. or since Billy Van Pelt is still here, if it would be for him, it's definitely his department. It would be a question as to, there's been a lot said as far as the rural land management plan today. and it sounded like that the PDR program was kind of in the ballpark under the realm of the rural land management plan. Is that a fact or is it something that is actually separate? I guess that would be my question for whoever could answer it. Go ahead, Billy. I think from, you know, we followed the direction that we were given by Ms. Boland. She made a presentation at a Rural Lane Management Board meeting earlier this year, and we were directed to review the Rural Service Area Lane Management Plan. The Board formed a Comp Plan Update Committee at the very beginning of this year to handle issues like this. Our committee did look at the plan. We reviewed it. We felt like we sent some questions to Mr. King, which he answered, and we took that information and we made a recommendation to our full board about the TDR language. At this time, the board has unanimously adopted the resolution that that is the only change to the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan at this time. However, if we also want to work with you, if you feel like there are issues that you would like for us to work with you specifically, then we would like the opportunity to put the plan back in the Rural Land Management Board's Comp Plan Update Committee, let us allow us to review those items and then allow us to come back to you with a presentation at a later date. Okay, very good. Mr. King. I'd like to speak and clarify because there does seem to be confusion, not only from the speaker but other speakers, as to where we are on the plan and what is before the commission. The only thing that is before the commission today and the only thing being heard is the draft statement of the goals and objectives. And, for instance, there is no reference within those goals and objectives statements about transfer of development rights within the Rural Land Management Plan. As Jim pointed out in his presentation, and will need to be restated again, particularly for those that wanted more detail, that's coming. Those are the later elements of the comprehensive plan. comprehensive plan. If you look at the plan some of you have here, the goals and objectives, even at the size they are now, is a mere fraction of the entire plan document. And all those details will be coming later. And at any point when those details touch on issues, for instance, that affect the Rural Land Management Board, their operations, the PDR program, updating the Rural Land Management Plan, they will be engaged and they will be included in those conversations, as will others. Again, the only thing before you at the present time is the goals and objective element, which must be adopted first before we can go on and proceed with the other plan elements, which must logically follow the goals and objectives. So I hope that clarifies a little bit where we are and that this is not the end of the process. It really will be the beginning of the longer process. Mr. Chair, if I may make one more comment. I think we'd like the opportunity to take a more holistic approach to the rural lane management plan rather than being in a reaction posture to be proactive. And I think we can look at issues in a holistic way and present those rather than having the board continually come back to the planning commission as issues arise. it seems to me that it would be far more efficient to deal with the plan as a whole, address anything that you don't think that we've addressed, and that we come back to you and make that presentation. And also we talked about the difference between updating and adopting. I think we need that adopt word in there and not update. Thank you. Very good. Ms. Phillips. Billy, before you step down, go sit down. It was obvious to me after reading your input that our goals and objectives don't specifically address the rural areas. We say in the last policy, excuse me, the last statements here about maintaining the current boundaries of the urban service area and rural activity centers, but we don't have something that's explicitly addressing the Rural Land Management Plan, and I support incorporating that here. But to get back to Mike Owen's question, isn't the PDR program, because by supporting the Rural Land Management Plan, we are implicitly then supporting the PDR, are we not? Because isn't the PDR an executed implementation strategy of the Rural Land Management Plan, and isn't it a standalone ordinance? Well, it is. I think a couple of things. The Rural Land Management Plan made a recommendation. One, it made two main recommendations, as Knox Van Ogle pointed out, about the 40-acre minimum and about the implementation of a purchase of development rights program. Well, we've already implemented a PDR program. The ordinance was adopted, and the Rural Land Management Board was established after the Rural Land Management Plan was adopted. So now we're moving on. We're beyond that. So the recommendation has already been made that we have a PDR program. We've already adopted an ordinance in January of 2000. We have a board. We've been operating now for 11 years. So it is a standalone, to answer your question. And then I think the other thing that concerns all of us is that the PDR program or the Rural Area or the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan are mentioned on nine pages of the goals and objectives of the 2007 plan. And again, I'll echo the concerns of everyone else that's come up to this mic that what we have now is just far too vague. So our board would like the opportunity to bring back any information that you feel necessary. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Ms. Blanton. I'd just like to point out that the old goals and objectives were 34 pages long, so that kind of gives people an idea of the magnitude of what we were dealing with in the past. My concern about just not updating the rural service plan, and I'm not an expert in this, but a plan that's already 12 years old and will be 17 years old by the time this process comes around again, that's a pretty timeless plan. And I can't think of any other plans that I've been a part of or come across that have held up for 17 years. So I think it's always worth, and I think that I'm just addressing this to the commission, I think our hearing is closed. But I just want to throw that out there to the other commission members, that it seems to me it's time to look at things and see if, with the changes that have taken place in all of our lives, if it can't be tweaked in some way. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else on the commission have some comments? Okay, Lynn. Yeah, I think we have a lot to think about here, and I think it would do all of us, as well as the public, a lot of good to be able to digest and to methodically go through each one of these comments and try to incorporate them to the best of our ability. I don't think we can do it today either. No. All right. All right. So I guess the Commission is saying they want to take all these comments, these good comments that they've made, and maybe schedule a work session. Is that what you're saying? Is that what the rest of you? Do we need a motion for that or just consensus? Mr. Chairman, I don't think you need to necessarily take a motion as long as you are satisfied continuing with your regular schedule. You do have a regular work session scheduled for Thursday, September 15. And you could, you know, you have a lot of options. You obviously could drill down into these today. I'm getting the sense you want to digest, think about. And you would have the opportunity to do that your September 15th work session and tentatively make some, you couldn't vote on anything official at that work session, but you could, as you have in other ones, have agreement on changes in language to then bring back for an official meeting, say, on the 22nd of September for final action. That would be one way that you could do that if you were not comfortable proceeding and trying to get to a vote on a draft to send to Council today. Okay. Are we under any time limit on this draft to the Council? Well, you aren't under any time limit, but to be honest, the entire rest of the plan process, which is the bulk of the plan, is somewhat hostage to the completion of the goals and objectives process. And again, as you recall, they must be forwarded on to Council and the Council will be reviewing and adopting at some point the goals and objectives finally. And then that will inform the rest of the decisions that this Commission makes on the remaining plan elements. So again, we had hoped that the goals and objectives would be completed by the end of the year through the Council. This will certainly cramp that somewhat, but again, to the extent that there are goals and objectives that are crafted that there is a greater deal of consensus about, It may be time spent that we'll save now that we'll save time later. It's hard to judge for sure. Okay. And it was your position that while these – I mean, I think that's how we started out, was to streamline these goals and objectives, and then you're detailing them in the other parts of the plan, such as the land use and the – well, several parts. Is that what we started? That's where we started out. That was the philosophy that you all started out with in trying to streamline the goals and objectives and, again, put a lot of the specifics that are currently in the goals and objectives into the later elements of the plan that will be coming along. All right. But, again, it is your, as a body, your decision on what set of goals and objectives you want to recommend to Galaxy. All right. I wanted to ask a question of Chris. Statutorily, it is not imperative that the goals and objectives be adopted by the Council prior to our proceeding with the rest of the plan, is it? Not per se. I know that's been the way it's done in the past. And couldn't we, while we're cogitating on the goals and objectives, couldn't we still get data from staff on existing conditions and have some write-ups on, you know, status reports on where we stand as well as projections on where we're headed? Certainly. But statute does require that the plan has to logically flow from the goals and objectives. So to the extent that that work might conflict with goals and objectives, it would be adopted by counsel. You will have to backtrack. Well, I think it's worth the risk in the interest of time. Okay. So I'm feeling a – I would ask another question. If we are going to take another work session, do you think that having it during the daytime hours when people would have to take off work is a good idea, or should we consider scheduling something for after work hours? We'd have to schedule a separate meeting for that. I'm comfortable with it being during – of course, I'm taking off work, too. All of us are off work every Thursday, and we find the time to do it. But that would be entirely up to the majority of the commission. Yes, Carla. My thought is today was the public hearing. And so I'm hopeful that we can still kind of stick to the goal of being as concise as possible and that maybe we're just tweaking some things that were brought forward by the public, but that our work session would pretty much be an internal discussion and we could come to some consensus fairly quickly and move forward, because I do think time is of the essence. And while there are some things that staff can bring forward while the council is finalizing this, I also don't want to ask the staff to do some things that then you've got to go back and redo, because you're very busy and I don't think that's a good use of time either. So I think we just need to be mindful of striking that balance. All right. Ms. Beatty. I would agree. I certainly don't anticipate prolonging this. And it appears to me that most of the comments from the public hearing today centered around the same idea. So it's not like we have lots of comments on all of the different areas of the goals and objectives. So I think we could go into our regular work session, as Mr. King has stated, and probably not have to spend a great deal of time on it. I just think having some time to digest it, read back through it the minutes, make sure that we captured everything that everyone was saying, and then go into a work session, I don't anticipate us drawing this out a long period of time. I would hope not. Mr. Chair, with what Ms. Beatty and Ms. Blanton both just said, I think it's very good. I don't think this will take a lot of time. We did have our public comments section today, which we heard from, and I appreciate very much. And as Ms. Blanton did say, you know, the 2007 goals and objectives were, I think, 34 pages long or something. We're currently at four pages. I don't think we're going to push double digits by any stretch of the imagination, but I think there is some tweaking that could be done. And striking a balance, as she said, would be very good. And I think a work session would pretty much take care of it. Okay. So I'm feeling a consensus of the commission that we have this at a work session to go over the comments that the good people have made to us. and then we'll set a goal to have, do you want to do that at the next work session, September 15th? Can I give everybody enough time? Staff? Okay. And then can we maybe vote on that on September 22nd? I think we can get along that far and get these things on to the council. All right. Okay. All right. So that's what we'll do. Mr. King. Just for clarification for advertising and other purposes, let me recap then. You have held the public hearing required by statute and you have closed the public hearing, correct? I'm talking with counsel, I believe what you can do, you do not have to take action in a public hearing, but you do in a public meeting. So, again, just for advertising, what have you, we will put this on the agenda for your September 22nd normal public meeting, but we will not advertise it as a hearing on the goals and objectives because you have held and concluded that today. Is that what the commission – that does not mean that you cannot, if you wish to at that time, open it up for some public comment. You would have that prerogative, but again, you have held and conducted the required public hearing. And I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads, and I hope that everyone agrees with that. And the work session is a public meeting and is open. It is not televised, but anyone in the public that wants to come and observe, as you move through and discuss these changes and which ones you will try to put together for the consideration on the 22nd, We invite the public to come and join us in this room at that time to observe. Okay. And the public can certainly still send written comments in to us. We'll still take those. And I kind of like the written comments because I can look at them and I forget sometimes what people say during a meeting. But with them written, we have a good record of it, and those are very helpful. So that's what we'll do on September 15th, work session, September 22nd, try to conclude this with some sort of action. Is there anything else to come before this commission today? Any business we overlooked? All right. Seeing none, we will have a motion for adjournment. Yeah. Motion carries. Thanks. I'm going to go. with her memory It's a living hell here after dark All along with a haunted heart I say I'm all along with a haunted heart Come to my door, baby Face is clean and shining Black as me Thank you.