# Planning Commission Continuation of Public Hearing - September 7, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 7, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4334 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4334?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-09-07 - **Last revised**: September 7, 2017 - **Length**: 14,667 words - **Speakers**: Renee > ⚠️ **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 Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 7, 2017, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chambers on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission continued its public input hearing for the Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update Goals & Objectives, which was ultimately approved during the session. The meeting included substantial public participation, with commissioners hearing 3 public comments from community members regarding the comprehensive plan update. Throughout the proceedings, the commission conducted 3 formal votes on various matters related to the agenda item and meeting procedures. This session represented a continuation of the planning commission's ongoing efforts to gather community input on Lexington's long-term development and planning goals as part of the comprehensive plan update process. ## Attendance All members were present at the September 7, 2017 meeting. **Present:** • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson • William Wilson **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three roll call votes on matters related to the draft Goals & Objectives document. **Motion to Recommend Approval of Draft Goals & Objectives** Frank Penn motioned to recommend approval of the draft Goals & Objectives as presented, with a second by Mike Owens. The motion passed by a vote of 7-4-0. Those voting in favor were: • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn • William Wilson Those voting against were: • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson **Amendment to Add New Objective to Theme E, Goal 4** Will Berkley motioned to add a new objective to Theme E, Goal 4, with a second by Mike Cravens. The amendment failed by a vote of 5-6-0. Those voting in favor were: • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Richardson Those voting against were: • Headley Bell • Patrick Brewer • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Mike Owens • William Wilson **Motion to Remove Last Sentence of Preamble** Mike Owens motioned to remove the last sentence of the preamble, with a second by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion failed by a vote of 4-7-0. Those voting in favor were: • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy Those voting against were: • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Frank Penn • Carolyn Richardson • William Wilson All votes were conducted by roll call with no abstentions recorded. Transcript timestamps were not available for these votes. ## Public Comment Three speakers addressed the meeting during the public comment period, focusing on agricultural resources and historic preservation concerns. **Mr. Morris** from the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association spoke about agricultural resources, emphasizing the significant economic impact of agriculture in the region. He highlighted that the agricultural sector employs thousands of workers and contributes $2.3 billion in revenue to the local economy. **Ms. Campbell** from the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association addressed historic preservation issues. She requested that changes be made to ensure context sensitivity to historic properties, advocating for protections that would consider the unique characteristics and needs of historic areas. **Mr. Bartley** also spoke on historic preservation matters, requesting modifications to the proposed goals and objectives to ensure they maintain context sensitivity to historic properties. His comments aligned with the broader theme of protecting historic resources while accommodating development and planning initiatives. The public comments reflected two primary areas of community concern: the economic importance of agricultural activities and the need to preserve historic character in neighborhood planning efforts. Both the agricultural and historic preservation advocates emphasized the importance of maintaining existing community assets while considering future development plans. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for these public comments.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured significant debate over the expansion of the Urban Service Boundary, which generated heated discussion among participants. The primary disagreement centered on whether to expand the Urban Service Boundary to accommodate future development needs. The debate highlighted tensions between addressing housing demands and providing adequate land for economic development projects. Participants expressed differing views on the appropriate scope and timing of any potential boundary expansion. The discussion revealed concerns about balancing community growth with infrastructure capacity and environmental considerations. Some participants emphasized the urgent need for additional developable land to address housing shortages, while others raised questions about the long-term implications of boundary expansion on municipal services and community character. The contentious nature of this item suggests fundamental disagreements among stakeholders about the community's development priorities and growth management strategies. The debate encompassed both immediate housing needs and broader economic development objectives, indicating the complex trade-offs involved in urban planning decisions. *Note: Specific participant names, voting outcomes, and detailed positions were not available in the provided meeting data. Transcript timestamps could not be included as they were not provided in the source materials.* ## Continuation of Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update Goals & Objectives Public Input Hearing The Planning Commission continued its review of public input regarding the Goals & Objectives for the Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update. This discussion item focused on incorporating community feedback received during the public input process and considering potential revisions to the proposed framework. Key speakers during the discussion included William Wilson, Jim Duncan, and Chris Woodall, who participated in evaluating the public comments and proposed modifications to the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives structure. The commission reviewed feedback from community members and stakeholders regarding the draft Goals & Objectives that will guide Lexington's development and planning decisions through 2018 and beyond. The discussion centered on how to best incorporate the public input into the comprehensive plan framework while maintaining the document's overall vision and strategic direction. Following their deliberation on the public comments and suggested revisions, the Planning Commission approved the continuation of the Goals & Objectives review process. This approval allows staff to move forward with incorporating the discussed changes and refinements based on the community input received. The Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update represents a significant planning effort to establish the city's long-term development priorities and policy framework. The Goals & Objectives section serves as a foundational component that will influence zoning decisions, infrastructure investments, and community development initiatives in the coming years. The commission's approval of this agenda item demonstrates their commitment to incorporating public participation in the comprehensive planning process while advancing the timeline for completing the overall plan update. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-4): Recommend approval of the draft Goals & Objectives as presented - **Motion** — failed (5-6): Amendment to add a new Objective to Theme E, Goal 4 - **Motion** — failed (4-7): Remove the last sentence of the preamble --- ## Full transcript Tell her how I feel Cause if tomorrow never comes Will she know how much I love her? And I try in every way To show her every day That she's my only one And if my time on earth's worth it She must face this world without me Is the love I gave in the past Gonna be enough to last If tomorrow never comes So tell that someone that you love Is what you're thinking of If tomorrow never comes So he's leaving the life. He's come to know. He said he's going. He said he's going back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, it's 3 o'clock. I'd like to welcome you to the special call meeting of the Urban County Planning Commission. This is, in fact, a continuation of our public hearing on August 31, 2017. First of all, I'd like to thank the staff of the excellent minutes that were presented to us. I had a chance to read them before I got here, and I thought they did a very good job of capturing the essence of that meeting. I'd like to also thank all my commissioned colleagues here today. We've got 100% attendance. And I'd like to remind you that the last time we met, I asked us each to sort of give us an idea of what they heard. and at the very end of that meeting I turned to the staff and I asked Mr. Duncan what did you hear and Mr. Duncan wisely said he gave us some generalities but his point was they hadn't had an opportunity to consider some of the thoughts and opinions that had been expressed here so I thought today what we'd do is start off by asking them again what they heard and what tweaks they've made if any and I think Mr. Woodall's going to do the honors on that And then after Mr. Woodall gets through, if you have any other questions or clarifying thoughts, opinions, we'll go that way. And then we will then hopefully be able to take a vote. If my estimation is right, we should be out of here by 12 o'clock tonight. I'm just kidding. Okay, Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, if you're feeling some deja vu today, it's because we were in this chamber about a week ago today to hear the public's response to our proposed goals and objectives. And as a staff, it was interesting for us to hear from the public, but also from the commission as well. As Ms. Plumlee stated so well, we all have two ears, but we hear differently. What I heard was similar to what Mr. Forrester and what Ms. Richardson spoke to, which was hearing a passionate community that is speaking out from a place of genuine desire to make Lexington a better place. This was not surprising to us since we've been working with the public for almost a year on this process. This has been a common thread for us, the passion of the community, and I think that's certainly encouraging for us moving forward. So following the August 31st public comment, we as a staff took a page from the chairman's playbook and gathered together to take stock of what we collectively heard from the public. One thing was clear from many of the folks who took the time to speak that a vibrant economy is key to Lexington's success. Ms. Blanton from Commerce Lexington reinforced the need to continue providing jobs for our citizens, which in turn would provide revenue for continued infrastructure, public services, and projects that will move our community forward. Staff could not agree more that providing jobs and maintaining a workable framework for our economic development efforts is vitally important to achieving the rest of what we hope to accomplish in this plan. Our call for identifying, providing, and sustaining readily available publicly controlled economic development land is in direct response to this need that was identified early on in our process. We believe there are many benefits to this model, and we will do what we can from the planning perspective to help achieve this goal. With the government potentially owning the land, providing infrastructure, putting in zoning, and clearing other hurdles to making land shovel-ready, we could then turn to recruiters to spur economic development. That would mean jobs for our citizens and payroll revenue to match. Additionally, on the subject of economic development, we heard from Ms. Speckert from Fayette Alliance, who spoke to the fact that we have recently passed text amendments to both the ED and the P2 zones, attempting to remove barriers to developing the hundreds of available job production acres in accordance with modern practices. We agree we have an obligation to see these recently inked policies through. In addition to commercial interests, we also heard from agricultural interests as well, stressing the importance of our agricultural resources not only from a quality of life standpoint and a global brand standpoint, but also as an economic driver for our community. Mr. Morris of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association cited that the agricultural cluster employs many thousands of people, accounting for $2.3 billion in revenue and is a key contributor to the overall economic success of Lexington. We believe by continuing to reinforce our infill and redevelopment policies and maintaining the current urban service boundary, we can continue to protect this valuable resource. As far as the housing is concerned, we heard concern from some that we would not be able to meet our projected housing demand highlighted in the housing demand study. Now, we acknowledge that the housing market is currently tight, but based on our data, research, analysis of vacant land and redevelopment opportunities, and our future growth scenarios, we believe we can position ourselves to meet this demand with a wide variety of housing options that are affordable at all levels. However, this does mean that we cannot continue to develop at the same patterns that we've been developing at, but instead must be more conscious, mindful, and efficient as we develop our land. And so, as we continue to develop in a more intentionally intense manner, it's important to consider the impacts of development and how we can leverage it to enhance our existing neighborhoods. Two speakers last Thursday specifically hit on how this relates to historic features. Both Ms. Campbell from the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association and Mr. Bartley, who spoke after her, seemed to understand the importance of increased density but requested changes to the proposed goals and objectives that were a little more deliberate in ensuring context sensitivity to historic properties. We've taken that to heart and proposed a change that we'll discuss momentarily that reflects this. Also, many members of the Planning Commission conveyed that the word flexibility stood out to them as they listened to the public comment, and we heard the same. Attorney Jacob Walburn stood in front of you and reiterated a point that we agree with, which is to reject the all or nothing philosophy on whether or not to expand the urban service boundary. As a staff, we believe the study proposed in the goals and objectives has the potential to drastically shift the decision-making process for the expansion question, question while at the same time identifying key agricultural assets for long-term preservation. As a result, the process will work for the community as an outcome-based process, putting emphasis on quality development. Long-range proactive planning would be the result. So, given the volume of information we received from various sources and the number of good ideas we heard we came up with a few revisions we feel both respond to the input but also enhance the proposal we recommend the following be included into the goals and objectives including this on the screen here theme C goal to objective a which if you look at the sheet in front of you which is titled revised proposed goals and objectives you will see that this was a part of what was formerly theme C goal 1 objective D we have taken that objective and proposed to split it into two separate goals and objectives, which both elevates the importance of the publicly owned land concept by prioritizing it as a goal, and reinforces what we've been saying for months, which is that the comprehensive plan may be revised in between five-year update cycles should an extraordinary circumstance present itself. So to get back to Goal 2, Objective A, this revision gives the prioritization of strategically targeted employment sectors and the infill and redevelopment component its own objective and supplants language that existed as former theme C, goal 2, objective D. The next revision, which is the second half of what was originally theme C, goal 1, objective D, has been elevated to a goal status and has been separated to convey the importance of having the readily available publicly controlled economic development, economic development land I spoke of earlier. Again, it also highlights what has always been available to the commission by statute, which is amending the comprehensive plan when necessary. This revision to theme E, goal two, objective B, was initiated in response to both planning commission members and the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, who expressed concern for the initial proposed wording, which was, require intense and sustainable development of all types within the urban service area to accommodate future growth needs and safeguard rural land. Our edits were designed to accommodate the concerns while keeping the initial vision intact. We believe we have done that by ensuring all developments are economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable. The final edit we proposed of the goals and objectives was Theme E, Goal 1, Objective D. And again, this was in direct response to public input that was provided by Ms. Campbell and Mr. Bartley, who I mentioned earlier, regarding infill and redevelopment and its potential impacts to historic neighborhoods. Though we did have language about context-sensitive development and also language about maximizing development, we did not have a goal or objective that married the two concepts, nor did we have language that related new development to historic features. We thought that was an important thing to add. We felt by simply adding the words in a manner that enhances existing urban form and or historic features, we could again respond to the input while improving our proposed draft. So our next steps. I'll reiterate where we go from here for those of the audience who weren't with us last time and just as a general refresher. The time has now come where the Planning Commission gets to vote and react to what they've heard from the public and the proposed draft in front of them. The council will have 90 days with which to make a final decision on the goals and objectives. And then from there, the Planning Commission will get back to work doing the elements and implementation in 2018. So in conclusion, let me personally say that I've enjoyed engaging with you all in the public in this process. and our staff are pleased to have been able to imagine Lexington with you and the public as well. We're eager to move on to the next phase where we can start implementing what we see as a visionary plan for Lexington moving forward. And that's all we have for now. So I guess at this point in time, we'll put the ball back in your court and we'll be able to assist when you need us. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Woodall related to these new revisions? What I'd like to do at this time, the last time I asked our commission members to listen as carefully as they could and to tell us what they heard. Now I'd like to give each member, if they so desire, an opportunity to tell us what they think and how they feel. and so I'll open up the floor for that shouldn't take let me simply say that in accordance with the amount of time we have here I think three to four minutes would be sufficient for each member if they wanted to mr. Owens thanks mr. chair before we get to that I think I do have a couple questions for the staff Mr. Woodall. Is your mic open? My mic on? Yes. Yeah. Mic on? Okay. As I said, before we get to that part of it, I do have a couple of questions for the staff or Mr. Woodall. With the proposed new language, can you, you know, theme C, goal 3, identify, provide, and sustain readily available publicly controlled economic development land? Can you define, give us a definition of publicly controlled? Yes, Mr. Owens. What we're talking about is a situation in which the government would control the land, be able to potentially provide infrastructure. From a planning perspective, we could work on zoning, the appropriate zoning for the property, in all intents and purposes, making it to be shovel-ready and government-owned. and at that point it could be turned over for recruiters to be able to recruit some economic development interests to locate here. So that's what we would mean is that the government would sort of own the property and work to put some of those pieces in place before bringing companies in. As a follow-up or the rest of it, identify and provide. Who's supposed to be identifying and providing? Why is that? The question is, I don't think it's supposed to be us. Who's supposed to identify and provide? Mr. Owens, I believe this would be something that the government would take the lead on. We have a number of economic development interests from the mayor's office on down. And working with other economic development officials, I believe this is something that we would take the lead on. I agree the planning commission would not be expected to do that. But this is the kind of thing that we would look at the land that's available, the land that would be appropriate, and then how could the government have that land or have access to that land in such a way that it would provide meaningful, shovel-ready land for job development. Yeah, okay. Thank you. To me, that's, you know, I would think if the government does this, you know, obviously we're going to support it anyway. And this language is just confusing to me as to why it would be in here at this time. Mr. Brewer. I'd like to follow up on that, Jim. Okay, without getting into the wordsmithing here, just the idea of the government taking control. Are you talking about eminent domain and condemnation of property? No, Mr. Brewer, I don't believe that's the tact that the government would want to take. This would be something between a willing seller and the government, or some opportunity that the government had to obtain land, whether it would be from another quasi-public agency or public agency that already controlled land or even some of the government's own land that could be repurposed for economic development uses. And is that – do you have – I mean, this actually gets into one of the problems I've had with this whole process is the numbers have been tortured in both directions so many times. I'm not sure which way is up. but how much land are you talking about that the government currently has that could be made shovel-ready? And if that's not significant enough to meet the demand, there's no money to do the stuff that we need to do now. Is it realistic that the government's going to be able to go out and buy at market value property to turn it over and sell it again? I think that's part of a larger question that the government would ask. No, the government does not have industrial land right now, to answer your question, but the government does have a lot of land. And would it be feasible to repurpose some of that land, some of that that's being used for recreational purposes now? It's a question. It's a broad question. So that might be where we would start, repurposing some of our existing land or acquiring land through some other methods, whether the government has something that somebody else wants and we would be working through that kind of process. being elevated to a goal I'm I guess I just have my note here that's a big walk you know how would you do this because this well I think it's admirable I think it'd be a great thing to do we don't have a magic wand to do it and we don't have the funds to do it so to me it's a very big question of how that would be done I think that's a fair question mr. brewer and again I think this is one that we would still look to the administration's economic development team to help us sort that out. Mr. Berkeley. My question is kind of along the same lines. I want to make sure that you would not be, like, for instance, the Bluegrass Park, I guess the most recent example, the Chamber of Commerce, I think, actually purchased, developed, and sold that property. property. Are you saying that that type of agency would not have the ability to perform under this goal or would they be considered publicly controlled? I think the intent, Mr. Berkeley, is to ensure that the government has some sort of mechanism to ensure that the land will not sit idle and that it will be used to attract the kind of jobs that the community needs and that it may very well include a partnership with another agency that could help the government certainly with the recruiting or say even some of the financing of that if that was necessary. And that could be the agency you mentioned or it could be another agency, but the idea is that the main thing is that the government has some sort of mechanism to ensure that the land will not sit idle and that it will be used for its intended purpose. I understand that, and I know that's been somewhat of a problem. But I just wanted to clarify that, that we're not talking necessarily about LFUCG, but LFUCG has other ways of going about this. In fact, I think multiple ways. Mr. Penn. The question that begs to be asked right now is, would the University of Kentucky qualify as a quasi-government? entity mr penna if you if you would allow me to give a longer answer than perhaps the the question you asked we certainly would see them in that capacity as long as the land that we were using with them was not constrained in the way their economic development land that they have now is we would not want to be constrained to a lease only option or a certain development design option, those kinds of things. So the university could certainly be a partner, but we would want a different business model than the one that they are using. Well, to follow up on that, Mr. Duncan, they own quite a bit of land that they can or cannot repurpose. And so it's not necessarily just the land that they have infrastructure on right now. on a lot of other land that doesn't have that infrastructure. My question is to see, is the University of Kentucky land a quasi-government control land? The University of Kentucky is its own state entity, so that would be a public, I believe, I think that would be a public type agency. Mr. Cravenson. You, Chris, stated several times it would be shovel ready. Does that mean it's zoned and identified and ready to start construction? What did you mean by shovel ready? Well, that's, yes. I mean, that's what we would be able to have some control over the zoning process and making recommendations on that, too. So, again, as Mr. Duncan stated, it would have to be all of this done in conjunction with the administration. But we would certainly see that as being a component. When we talk about shovel-ready, we talk about infrastructure, we talk about zoning and getting all that in place. Ms. Mundy. Could this identify, provide, and sustain readily available public controlled economic development land include land that could also possibly be in the urban service area? Yes. Okay. Any other questions related to the? Not related to where we just were. This is related to the second part. If I understood correctly, Chris, you said that the ability to amend in between comp plans is already existing by statute. If that's correct, why do we need to state it again here? Again, this was, it is permitted by statute. It's something that's always been permitted by KRS 100 as an option to the Planning Commission. It's in here as just sort of a reinforcing for some of the concerns that folks had about our ability to respond to the extraordinary circumstance that we're talking about. Okay, so maybe I missed the answer, but why does it need to be repeated? It was, again, Mr. Brewer, it's more a way of punctuating that this is an option available to us as a way of addressing concerns that these goals and objectives are not responsive enough to the needs of the economic development request. You're right. It is saying something that already exists. We have not said it before, but it is a reminder that should an extraordinary opportunity present itself, that the Planning Commission and Council have the option of amending the goals and objectives in order to address this need. Again, I'm not an attorney. Don't aspire to be one. but I would look to the legal team. To me, the extraordinary circumstance that comes about everybody's going to agree to do what needs to be done. So I'm confused as to why we would need to put another punctuation point on that one if it's already existing. I think the question's more of not so much is it required, but based on the comments that people heard and the concerns that you might be fixing in time something right now and then not for another five years is that what's why that it's in there I mean it's not gonna hurt anything for it to be in there Mr. Cravens and then Mr. Berkeley yeah you know Chris Woodall got up there and said that he thought they thought the housing they had enough to cover the housing that's needed and and i disagree with that and i mean i might like to see the same same sort of goal stated for housing that if it's to ensure that we have housing for people that we can amend the comprehensive plan as necessary to ensure it remains up to date and framework i mean why didn't you do something like that again i think that through our and again we may disagree on this point but we we do feel like we have the ability to meet the housing needs that that we've talked about that were identified in the housing market study well until last week you felt the same way about our industrial land and then you heard some comments and you changed it to put this in even punctuating even reminding us that this commission can amend the plan whenever it wants to we all know that but you you punctuated it and then i mean i think housing should have had the same consideration because it's it's probably going to run out of land even before the jobs land Mr. Berkeley. Guys, you keep saying extraordinary. That's not written into your goal. And that bothers me a little bit that you keep referring to that as this being some extraordinary event. but the goal says to identify, provide, and sustain readily available. You used the example of BMW, I think, in our meetings. I don't think that's what we're necessarily talking about. I mean, that might be great, but we're also talking about a business park. And I think we've been talking about that all along. And so it bothers me a little bit that you are interjecting this word extraordinary. You don't have it in your goal, so maybe I'm not hearing what you're saying then. Mr. Berkeley, as we talked about, the government presently owns land that could possibly be repurposed. It may be a long shot, but it could be repurposed. and there is other land that's inside the urban service boundary that is not presently designated for economic development that perhaps could be in cooperation with the government. So in those instances, the urban service boundary would not need to be expanded to meet that goal. It's to the point that we have exhausted all of our efforts to create our own business park within the urban service area or with land that we already control and that we see that the changes that we've made to the P2 and the ED zones are not attracting the businesses that we need and that we are becoming in a situation where we don't have land to recruit anybody. At that point, I think we'd call that an extraordinary circumstance, too. That wouldn't be necessarily recruiting a big user to the community, but it would be addressing a very critical need. Mr. Owens. Yeah, thank you. As a follow-up, I guess, to a couple of comments made, amending the comprehensive plan as necessary, if needed, extraordinary conditions, whatever you know if you know I'm and I'm looking at land outside the urban service boundary because I think you know the anything inside can be a given would that land be have to be contiguous to the urban service boundary well we would in some instances now mr. Owens the the land that the government controls is not contiguous to the urban service boundary. And I'm not sure that we would want to necessarily lasso that land just to make it contiguous. So I would not want to obligate the government to annex its own land into the urban service area for purposes of economic development. However, if we were looking at incrementally adding new land that the government didn't presently have, particularly if we were converting private land directly to economic development. I think we'd want to look long and hard at ensuring that that was an appropriate march outside the urban surface boundary and not creating additional rural activity centers or satellites. Well, and that's one place I was going because we're trying to hold the line, so to speak, on those areas. So would we be creating a new one or would we be expanding an already existing rural activity center? And if so, wouldn't that be contradictory to other parts of the Com plan? Again, to keep from contradicting the plan, we would need to amend the plan to address those. Any other, Mr. Bell? Is this just a question period? Thank you, I don't have a question. Go ahead. Well, my comment is that I have been impressed with the whole idea of Imagine Lexington. The fact that there's a theme that we are attempting to follow to make Lexington the very best it can be. And I personally, as you all know, I'm new to this. However, I've tried to ramp up as well as I possibly can in a short period of time, and I've tried to listen. I've been personally very, very impressed with staff and their willingness to listen themselves. and I commend this effort here to try to stay within the bounds of what we're trying to do which is quote not expand the urban service area and to find opportunities because the the pro development side says there are no opportunities really available and staff suggests that there are so they're willing to even take it a little further to say you know if we're going to exhausted but if we can't here is another card we can potentially play and personally as I sit here as a neophyte new boy on the on the block I commend you all for your efforts no thank you thank you for your comment any other comments general comments are we on general comments or can we continue with questions well if you have questions we'll continue with the question it's It's again, it's a similar question, and this is under theme E, goal one, objective B on the back side. Ensure all types of development are environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. I think that's a wonderful objective. I don't know how in the world we can do that. Can you give me some idea how that's feasible in the environment in which we're currently living? Well, I think we would want to define exactly what we mean in the elements of the plan and give some metrics as to what those three things are and what we're looking in when we're talking about environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. So if we were talking about things like we had previous, the previous iterations talk about compact or intense types of developments, and what we're really trying to get at is development that is sustainable and it would be compact. It would be walkable. It would have all those different things, but the specifics of that could be sort of fleshed out in the elements of the plan, and so then when we're evaluating plans that come before you, you would have some additional guidance in terms of what those three different things should mean in terms of Lexington. The answer to the how is it's to be determined at a later stage? I would say the principles are sound, and as you alluded to, that those are noble goals, but we would want to, and as it sits as an objective in the plan, we would want to flesh that out with policies as to how we can accomplish that. Yeah, I agree. They are definitely noble goals. I just don't know that they're realistic in the current environment. So I'm hesitant. I guess I'll come back to a comment that I heard when I was reviewing the tapes from the public hearing. After a bit was over, flexibility was one of them, balance was the other. This is ultimately going to be a balancing act of yeoman stature. And I think we should be very careful about what we set out there as an objective if we know we can't achieve it. Mr. Brewer, if I may, this is a term I don't believe has come up this go-around yet, but it did come up frequently in the 2013 plan and in the 07 plan, because I was in Chris Woodall's position, so I know that it did. And in many ways, we're looking at the goals and objectives to not be necessarily the checkoff list, but the aspirational statements for what we want the community to be. And we would like for every one of these to be fully measured and to be able to say we have achieved those. And as Chris said, when we're working with you all in 2018 on the elements of the plan, should this remain a goal that the council adopts, then we would look to identify what those specifics are. And even in the implementation, what sort of ordinance changes might need to take place in order to help us with this and what sort of metrics that we can use to measure whether we've done this. But at this stage, I don't think it's being irresponsible at all to be somewhat aspirational with our goals and to say this is what we would like to do and we're going to do our best to try to figure it out. And we may only get two of these three or we may only get half of all three of these kinds of things as we go forward. But we've set the bar and then each time we'll try that iteration again. Ms. Mundy? I think it's good to have lofty goals. My mother-in-law shared with us when we were very young, it's always good to dream big, at least you'll amount to something. So I think lofty goals are necessary when you're looking at a plan, when it's a plan for your future or our future or the city's future. One of the things that bothers me a little bit about this statement is the comment, it says, ensure all types of development are environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable. The term that was used a lot with reference to some of the property was patient capital. When you come back to the 1031 exchange issue on some of the properties that could be identified as possible properties for development or that, you're going to run into a situation, I think, again, where it's going to take patient capital to get there. Because if they don't have something to exchange that property for, a like-kind investment, then in all probability, you're going to have to wait for that person who may have owned that property for 30 or 40 years to die to be able to, for their family, their estate or whatever to sell that at the stepped-up basis because otherwise they've got to recoup capital gains, they've got to recoup depreciation, and they've got to pay some pretty high taxes just to sell that property. Whereas if you have a property that was not an investment property that someone wants to sell, it's a little different. But along a lot of the major corridors, those properties are going to be held by either families who've owned them for years that maybe have owned the mom-and-pop hardware store that we used to enjoy going to or they may have owned a tobacco warehouse those kinds of situations so i think there's got to be somewhere within this as we're looking at it and maybe we can't do it here but somewhere we've got to make some adjustment whether it's in the comprehensive plan or wherever that we can't just um and i'm using and probably bad terminology, but we can't force people to sell their property because we've got a plan for that area. So that's where it really gets to me that we've got to have some flexibility. If that family doesn't want to sell, and maybe another major, like BMW comes in, and we've got that situation, that's where that flexibility, I think, has to come in with this goal under the economically part. So what are your thoughts on that, Chris? So I would say that we're not really forcing anyone to develop their property or even redevelop their property if we're doing things like we're talking about with our corridor study where we're taking a deeper look at the commercial properties along that corridor. What we would probably be doing in those studies is identifying opportunities and identifying barriers to redevelopment. And so if some of the things that you were discussing come up as barriers to redevelopment or development throughout those small area plans, then that would be some things that we would probably discuss at that point. And, Ms. Mundy, I believe the staff also agrees, and we heard this from you all, that when it comes right down to it, a person's property, they can choose to develop it or not develop it. And at no time have we suggested, and nor do we suggest, that there be aggressive means to do that. We certainly, on our end, the government's end, we need to look at our regulations and are there barriers there that are discouraging development of these kinds of properties, and we want to break those down. And that's something we've already started doing, and we will continue to do that. But you're absolutely right. Ultimately, a person's property, they can choose to develop it for whatever reason or not develop it for whatever reason. And that's something that we accept. I interject here just for a second. Mr. Cravens has a question that is of a specific nature, but it does have some overarching policy implications. And I'm curious to hear, but it relates to, was it Mr. Basler or Mr. Forrester? Yes, Mr. Chair, I was just going to ask staff, was there any consideration to Mr. Basler's comments last week? He referenced the, I think the Athens-Boonesboro corridor. Just curious about that. I know you've addressed a lot here, so that was just one of the things that I knew he was stressing about. Mr. Forrester, I'll start, and Chris may want to help fill in. But we certainly worked with Mayor Basler and others who have property in that vicinity over this period. They've been meeting with us for months, and they expressed their concern to us, and they've expressed it to you, and we appreciate the way that they've approached us. They were all, the mayor was, and others were too, very respectful when they were working with us. Ultimately, it was our recommendation that neither the urban service boundary nor the rural activity centers should be expanded at this time, that we can accommodate our growth without that. And so, therefore, in order to get some of them to where they wanted to be, that would require that those kinds of changes be made, and we just don't believe professionally in the data that that's a necessary step at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I mean that land he was talking about out there, that's been considered really in the last, in 2007 that was always thought to come in. In 2013 it was always thought to come in. and now we're building a school on some of that property. You know, we're talking about the nose out there, we used to call it. And then I think back that when you laid these goals and objectives down to us, I mean, we never even got the chance to discuss expansion. I mean, it was just laid down to us. And it said, from you all, no expansion. And we discussed it, I guess, in a way that, because we were complaining about it and we were given all these possibilities. But as a whole, we never had the other part of the discussion. It was just laid down to us and said, no, by you all, you think we've got everything we need? And we argued about the housing studies and all those things. And then this land is the most shovel-ready land that we have. It's bounded by an interstate in 8th and Spoonsboro. We're building a school in it. There's a church that wants to relocate out there. Can't do it because it's outside the boundary. I mean, where are we going to build new churches with this plan? You know, there's no land for them. And there could be a lot of housing put in this land. I figure maybe a couple thousand. But to just simply ignore those comments, I mean, you say you've been working with them in the background. Maybe you have. But we never got the chance to discuss any of these properties from the goals and objectives. You just laid them down on the desk and said, no expansion. And we've been arguing about words and sentences and, you know, some of these goals and things. But I just wonder why that was. I mean, it's like we should have had the opportunity to discuss the other side of it. Well, Mr. Cravens, we believe that that's what the summer work sessions were, was the opportunity to discuss the recommendations of staff. Yes, and that's something that I would also echo. I think this has probably been the most inclusive process that, because I've only been around for one other comprehensive plan, plan, but considering the number of people who responded to the first plan, I think it was around 200 or 300 and we've got over 11,000 people who in some way engaged in this particular process, I think it's been open for anybody and everyone to discuss at any time any issues related to expansion or not expansion. I think we've given an opportunity for that. Now, I can see that we might disagree in terms of the amount of time or whatever but I can certainly say that I think we've given ample time to that to that possibility of discussion Mr. Cravens well I didn't say we didn't discuss it I just said it's kind of hard to discuss something when the guy comes in and throws it paper down and said no expansion okay then that's where we got to start from we didn't have that I mean who's going to own this plan is the Commission going on it or is their name is going to be on it. Well, I can answer that one. All of us are going to own this. That's right. I mean, every one of us, and it's important for that. We're going to own a plan that they wrote, and I'm saying that when they come to the position and they just said, okay, we're starting right here, no expansion, and then we're going to argue about all these goals and things. Well, I would say, Mr. Cravens, that in addition to making their recommendations, what they also came with was some facts and information to back that up. Now, I understand we may not agree on the facts, but they offered a factual presentation related to why they felt like we should not expand the urban service district boundaries. I understand that there may be some disagreement about the interpretation there, and sometimes there was even some discussion about the facts. I note that in one of the things as I was listening and it's come forth again that we had this discussion about available land versus vacant land. I remember that being a highlight of a discussion. But I would simply say that it was not simply thrown. It was offered with substantial information and background information as to why that recommendation is what it is. Well, you know, and I've said this through the work sessions. I mean, I felt like a lot of our information was not considered. Maybe they have. I mean, they've got it all where all of it works. But, I mean, somebody that's in the business and on the front lines every day trying to do this stuff, I just think we didn't get a fair shake on it. Anyone else would like to comment? I think if you have additional questions, that's fine, but I think to move our process along here, if you've got any other general statements that you'd like to make, any other thoughts you may have, any feelings you may have, I think this is the time to offer that and to move along. Well, if not, I tell you what. I've got a few thoughts. and again I'm not trying to cut anybody off and we set this continuation hearing so that people could give some additional thought to it but first of all I want to again thank the staff for putting forth what I think is not only a reasonable plan but a very reasoned plan in other words you presented it with the information has a lot with the facts and figures this plan is not perfect and we should understand that but i think it properly executed and that's a part of the trick there it's got to be a properly executed i think our community will move forward this is something i don't normally do but i feel that i just lay my card hand down here i am very much in favor of supporting the the staff's recommendation of the goals and objectives for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. More specifically, I am in favor of keeping the urban service boundary for now, and that's the key issue for now, as is. But I also want to emphasize that I personally support more ED land under the control of, and I know we've discussed public, private, whatever the case may be, with the thought that that land could be added and introduced into the urban service boundary at the proper time do believe that we'll have some good discussion on that and i do believe that rooftops follow jobs we need jobs to keep our community vibrant and i think we need to figure ways to do that but let me be clear about this we have land Now, we can argue whether it's available or whether it's vacant upon which to build for the next five to ten years in this community. But let us also be clear that our land is not competitively priced, and we're running up against some economic issues. When you take the fact that our commercially developed land is selling here in this community at an approximate cost of $225,000 per acre, and when someone can go to Scott County and get their land up there for approximately $50,000 per acre or Jessamine County, they can get that land for $35,000 an acre. That's an economic thing, and I think that most people would go and gravitate where they could get the best deal. But in any event, we've got to figure some ways that we can get more ED land, and hopefully then we will be able to talk about how we can expand other areas at the appropriate time. At one other point I'd like to make, the goal is established. There was a study group. We've called it just about everything, an urban service, urban growth study group. We've called it just a general study group. And I know that any time you set up a committee of any kind, I always squeam just a little bit because a lot of the success of committees and things of that nature depend upon who's on them and how they're weighted. But I'm thinking and I'm trusting in a process here that if we get the right people, professionals as well as other stakeholders, I think this group will help us iron out what I think are the most important thing, and that is the triggers to when we would open up that land. And that would be an objective process. It would be an open process that anyone and everyone could see. So finally, again, I support the goals and objectives for the 2018 plan, and I would encourage my fellow commissioners to do likewise. And I'll leave you with this final thought, that a plan is somewhat like the headlights on a car. It will not guarantee that you will not run off the road. It simply is designed to illuminate your path as you travel. With that, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Penn, I'm going to give you one. This is it. All right, Mr. Penn. That's all I need to do. As most of you know or all of you know, this is my third comp plan. You have my condolences. Well, I need it. I've been looking for three comp plans for a plan that the Planning Commission and the staff would follow. Because I think if you do this and you don't follow it, it's exercise in fertility. It's a lot of exercise in people's time and efforts. I'm also looking for a plan that you can measure. It blows my mind that we can't definitively say how much land we've used and what different categories for the last five years. For the next five years, I want us to be able to tell us at each year at the implementation stage how much of our undeveloped land has been developed, how much we have left. and going forward we need to be able to measure that all the way through and I'm hopefully hopeful that this plan will be good enough that we can do this the third phase and the most important phase for me is the leap of faith this is a leap of faith for me for farmers for agriculture and from the landowners perspective and here's why that's so I'm concerned about PDR and the reserve concept because I think that's something that needs a lot of vetting before we go down that road. I'm concerned about the urban development reserve because that leads itself to a lot of discussion and a lot of work. Those triggers that are going to be put in place are going to affect both of those. I'm going to take a leap of faith because I can see over three terms that we're no closer to knowing why we need to expand than we were three comp plans ago. It's a feeling. It's an emotion. It's two sides trying to put their best case forward, and neither one of them can measure anything. All they can say is, we need more land. Well, I need more money. But I've got to know how I'm going to get it, and I've got to know how I'm going to get it, and I've got to know where I'm going to get it. So my hope would be that the fellow commissioners would say, and one other point that I've forgotten. We said we needed 23,000 homes during this next comp plan. Well, guess what? 51% of the people that work in Lexington aren't living here. Is that going to automatically go away? Are we going to go for 100% of people going to live here? We've never discussed that. We need to factor that in. We need to factor in why people live where they live, and it's a choice. So these are the triggers that I'm looking for. I think this is the mechanism to make it happen. The shovel-ready stuff and the sustainability and all of that comes in the implementation stage. And if we do just as much work in the implementation stage that we've done in the goals and objectives stage, we'll have a sustainable one. But guess what happens, folks? once the council rules on what they're going to do with our goals and objectives, we run to try to finish. I've seen it two straight times. And if we don't put the time and effort in the implementation so we have the measurements that we can use, then we've wasted a great opportunity. So that's where I am. I'm going to vote for it on a leap of faith, and I'm going to vote that the very best people we have in our community, regardless of what their persuasion is, the very best thinkers we can find and the most creative people will be willing to serve on these trigger committees thank you sir with that what i'd like to do and we don't have to stop the discussion i would like a motion on the table so you want a motion on the table before we finish this discussion well we'll continue the discussion after the motion's on the table we'll give a time again for additional that's okay i'll move okay move it then okay i move that we accept the goals and objectives presented by staff today and moving on to the council is there a second second okay the motion's been made by mr frank penn second by mr mike owens that we move the goals and objectives on to the council now for discussion uh anyone else like to make any points well mr chairman yes um i object to this motion we haven't had a chance to discuss it fully here i mean what What's the deal with this motion all of a sudden? Prerogative of the chair, Mr. Gray. We still have an opportunity to discuss, but the motion is now set forth. By parliamentary law, we shouldn't discuss anything until we have a motion and a proper second. But by custom and tradition, the way we normally handle that is we allow people to express themselves in what ways. and of course I've opened it up and tried to let anybody and everybody talk about their particular activities and you still have an opportunity to do that while the motion is pending so if you'd like to take your opportunity and and we can also offer amendments you can okay any other discussion any other points Mr. Berkeley? I think we did get a little ahead of ourselves. I wasn't quite ready to discuss a motion, but so I'm going to backtrack a little bit. I kind of would like to know more about this study process. I'm very concerned about the timelines. I've mentioned it before. You all sent out a proposed revised timeline, and one of the things you say there, It says this new process resulting from the study must be incorporated into the next goals and objectives to become policy. Well, if I'm reading theme E, goal 4, objective A, it's in these goals and objectives. Why does it have to be pushed off to the next goals and objectives? If there were to be, I'm sorry, am I? Go ahead. May I? If any expansion was to be proposed when the thresholds and triggers are met at that point, there would be no expansion that would be possible without revising the goals and objectives. Because of the other goals and objectives that talk about maintaining the current urban service boundary and rural activity centers. So for it to be enforced for an expansion, it would have to be incorporated into the goals and objectives which would require the amendment process. What happens in the event that, I mean Jim put a price tag on this study of a half a million dollars, what if we don't ever get this study? What if it doesn't, what if it's never funded. Where do we go then? Mr. Berkeley, that is an unknown because we would be looking to the council to fund this. So if this were to proceed as proposed and the council were to adopt this as part of the goals and objectives, we would expect that they've already bought into the idea of doing this study. Now that doesn't mean they bought into the idea of paying for it, but we would start laying the groundwork immediately with them to acquire funding to do as much as we can get funding for. And if ultimately we can't get funding for anything, then the staff would do this. And I believe our staff could do this. It would mean that there would be a lot of other things that we would have to postpone in order for us to focus our efforts on this, but our preference would be to hire an outside consultant. We believe the community oftentimes accepts the word of somebody coming from the outside in a way that they don't necessarily like what what insiders say, and I don't necessarily mean somebody outside of Lexington, but somebody outside the government. That would be our preference, and if we only get some of the funding that we that we need for this, then we would hire the kind of research or public outreach or whatever it is that we can get from that and the staff to fill in the rest and I would imagine there would be a role for staff in this anyway this isn't something we would just turn over to a consultant but we would start laying the groundwork immediately with council to try to secure funding for this and if not we would do it ourselves. Well you know that that is my concern because we don't have a road map at this point and Frank you referred to that as well and and I you know it's too important of an issue to this community to just go on that in my opinion. Mr. Chair, I want to offer an amendment that I think goes to exactly what I'm talking about with the study. What is your amendment, Mr. Berkman? This would be an amendment to theme E, maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land. Go for objective C. So it's an additional objective. Where I'm coming from with this is while this study will establish triggers and things of that sort, I'm not so certain that it would look at how we're doing, which Frank has mentioned. That's the kind of information we need. and we need it before every five years in my opinion. You know, it's something that we need to know a running total on. So my amendment would state to ensure that the long-term land needs of the community are being met. Excuse me, where are you? This is a new goal. Oh, it's a new one? It's a new objective, I'm sorry. Okay, under which? I've written it out. I'll be glad to put it up on the screen if you want to look at it. Yeah, that would be good, but yeah, because I'm... I know it. I think it kind of, it also goes to some of Mr. Craven's comments, you know, about, well, we've gone back and the staff has re-looked at the jobs land and sees the necessity for having flexibility, and I think that's what this offers. I'm sorry? I'm sorry? It would be under Theme E. Theme E. Go for, and it would be a new Objective C. and that's the wording up there, maintain, I can't see it, maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land. Is that what I'm reading? That's what it is. But what's the amendment exactly? I'm trying to get the wording. Do you want me to read it? Yeah, read the amendment that you have. Again, this would be new objective C. To ensure that the long-term land needs of the community are being met, the Planning Commission shall review and revise the comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives two years from their adoption by the Urban County Council. This shall include technical evaluations of land inventory, land use efficiency, housing prices, demographic and development patterns, economic development, infill, redevelopment, and corridor utilization within the urban service boundaries since adoption of these goals and objectives. And be prepared to amend the comprehensive plan to allow for expansion of the urban service boundaries, assuring that the comprehensive plan remains an up-to-date and workable framework for development. So moved. Okay. Do I have a second on that amendment? Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment that is displayed here would be a new objective for gold under theme E, objective C. Is that correct? Goal 4. Goal 4. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Chair. I think this amendment is redundant. It's wordy. It's already covered. I think theme C, goal 3, is redundant too that we discussed earlier because all this is covered in the one sentence in the preamble. So I'm not a wordsmith, but I think simplicity is a better way to go here. And we don't need this one. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other comments on the amendment? Ms. Mundy. I have to say one thing I like about it is it does, as Frank has pointed out, it gives us accountability, which is something that he has pointed out time and time again, having been on these committees three times. I've only been here twice. But, you know, there's some accountability given with this amendment that we go back and look at things. there's going to be a technical evaluation. So I think this kind of puts us a little more on top of what's going on. Okay. Mr. Penn. You know, I was talking about a concept when I talked about it earlier. Now we're talking about things that may fit in the implementation stage. and if you're going to implement everything that you put in a goal in the goal then what you're actually saying is we need to do a new comp plan every two to three years and i don't think that's long-range planning i don't think it's the concept that you're supposed to have in a comp plan and to try to change it at this hour and make it a goal and objective I think it's completely out of place. Any other discussion, Mr. Brewer? Wow. Yeah. I'm going to make the comment about the amendment, but it actually goes back a little bit to earlier discussions. Fully support the intent of having metrics that can be consistent and agreed upon by all parties. That, to me, is critical to this process, and the difference in the amount of free acreage or buildable acreage, pick your terminology, that we've seen in this year's discussion, I think, indicates clearly there's a huge disparity in what one party may view as buildable and free in another. So, Will, I like that part of your intent on this. I think it is too wordy. I think it's too much for this point in time. but this does need to be addressed before we pass this or shoot it down. We need to have, in my opinion, more discussion on what this study is going to be, who's going to be doing it, who's going to be on the committee that appoints the people, how is it going to be measured. All those things are critical to the success of something that we're pinning. The biggest elephant in the room that's always during the comp plan is expansion, no expansion. and we're doing something that I believe is the correct thing to do. We're trying to get tangible triggers, thresholds that say, if these are met, it's time to have that discussion. But I sure don't want to have that discussion every year or every two years unless there's some reason to have it. So I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here when we don't know what this study is going to be or who's going to be driving the boat on it and if it's going to provide the information that, well, I'll speak for myself, that I think I need to make a conscious, a good decision that's balanced on all the parties that are involved. And I just, I don't have that yet. I don't have that sense of confidence of what, I mean, the leap of faith, I'm with you. And my trust of staff, don't take this as anything less than that. You guys do great work. I just don't have a comfort level yet to vote on a motion, especially at this level of detail. This is granularity beyond anything that I have had a chance to review. Okay. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I would agree with Patrick on a lot of it as far as what Will's providing there. I think most of that is what will be and should be covered in the study as we go forward. And to try and do this two years down the road, I think, is defeating the purpose of the comprehensive plan itself and just not allowing any long-range planning to take place. And it just leaves the door open for debate as far as expansion on a constant basis. I'm sorry I cannot support that. If the lower two-thirds of it was all said, to me, that's the study. Ms. Richardson? Like Patrick said, we don't know who is going to drive this boat. And I really feel like the detail in this is probably a good thing because that gives direction to whoever is going to drive the boat. And I think we're at a crossroads in this community, and I don't think that every two years just to look and see if these triggers have been met is unreasonable. It has nothing to do with continuation of long-term planning because there are lots of things in these goals and objectives that talk about long-term. term and I think that's important I don't I think you have to do it all I think you have to look at where we are now and where we want to go and to I think a little detail I think and I this is something that I usually this is almost contradictory of what I really have often said in regard to the comprehensive plan I've always thought we've been too wordy but it hasn't worked as well so maybe we need to get a little wordier. I think the detail in that is probably all of those things that Will has listed need to be dealt with and looked at in order to properly determine whether or not we need to go forward. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Cravens. Yeah, I think it's a good amendment. I'm afraid that some of the assumptions that were made by the amount of land we have, whether it will work for five years or not, may be flawed. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they're wrong. But I don't see the harm in checking in two years. for this commission to review it again and just frank said we don't know how much land we use every year okay say in two years uh people are leaving lexington uh say the revenues are flat because of the jobs can't come here uh say the home ownership rate drops lower than i mean it's already at 51 percent that's dangerously low i mean we need to have some ownership of homes people need to have ownership and we can't run that off with all this multi-story stuff can't buy those and i don't see the harm in looking at it in this commission i won't be here frank won't be here but in two years i know that's a good thing for some of you but and uh in two years just look at it again what's the big deal Mr. Duncan do you have any thoughts about it thank you Mr. Chair for letting us speak during a motion I believe if you all will look at the next theme theme F implementation goal 2 implement the plan objective A establish a continually updated series of metrics to mark progress implementing the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. I think you would agree that that is a compacted version of what is proposed here, and we're recommending that we report to you often with these kinds of updates. and as far as the detail goes, that and anything else that the commission would believe would be important to report on could be enumerated in the elements of the plan once the goals and objectives come back to you. So you could call out for the kinds of things that you want the staff to report on and when you want them to be reported on, but we're already recommending that we make that report to you. and these are the kinds of things absolutely we agree that we would want to look at and you all may want to identify more and those could be codified in the elements. Okay. Mr. Berkley? Mr. Duncan, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you that that's what that says. It says, yeah, you're going to establish these metrics, but if the metrics are not good, it doesn't say what we're going to do. and we have to wait five years for that. And that's where I disagree. Any other discussion? If not, then what we'll do is, the way we do this is that we first of all vote on the amendment and then depending upon where that goes, then we'll vote on the main motion. Is that agreeable with everyone? I mean, have you had a chance enough to express? Okay, well, you want to have discussion on the main motion? Oh, yes, we can go back to that. Right now we're talking about discussion on the amendment. Okay, well, we've got a main motion, and then we've got an amendment. The amendment is stated there on the, well, it was on the screen someplace there. There it is. Okay, there's the amendment. And, of course, we understand that it may be a little wordy, but I think in the discussion here we got the concept that they were asking for more metrics with a timeline that's more specific than what is indicated here as such, or in the present goals and objectives. Whoa. Now, we're voting on this verbiage as stated. That is correct. Okay, well, what you just said sounded to me an awful lot like we like parties. I'm just simply saying that it has been wordsmithed. I'm trying to give the motion or the amender credit that he didn't wordsmith it, but you get the essence of what he was trying to say through this. So you vote on the amendment as it is written and as it is displayed on the screen. You're voting for the amendment or against it? you either vote for the amendment or against it. Now the motion was made properly in the sense that it was made in a positive way. It has been second. So all those in favor of the amendment vote yes. Those who are not in favor of the amendment, you vote nay. Mr. Chair, you won't be able to vote on the screen on the amendment. Granicus doesn't outline that way. So you'll need to take a voice vote on the amendment, and then you can do the computer vote on the actual motion. Okay. Okay, then we'll have a show of hands. For those who are in favor of this amendment, would you please raise your hand? One, two, three, four, five. Those who are opposed to this amendment, please raise your hand. One, that's six. Amendment fails. Now we go back to the main motion. any other discussion on the main motion yes sir you're moving this right along aren't you well I think in fairness to people here and again I don't want to rush through a process that's going to be around forever but at the same time I think we've had almost nine months I really want you to answer that You know, I've been, this is my third comp plan also, and I've been to all the meetings, and I just can't support these goals and objectives. I don't like the change I think it'll make to Lexington. being born here I don't want to change the character of it I don't want to look like any urban city with all these high-rise buildings and all the density density brings lots of problems it puts people too close together and you know the city just didn't develop that way it's it's more spread out and it's actually inside the boundary to me it's just as beautiful as some of the land outside the boundary. We have many beautiful neighborhoods, we have historic areas, we have tree-lined streets, we have parks, we have all this and I hate to see a self-made noose of a boundary destroy all that where we have to go back and and redevelop things that was done properly to begin with. I mean every every house sitting on every lot has been seen by this Commission over the years and every street every turn every right in right out every every street you see has been fought over and compromised and approved by this commission all the subdivisions and I hate for us to have to go back and start filling things in where they don't belong there's something in these goals and objectives says require intense development uh that means that we have to develop intensely we can't just put houses single family houses on on larger lots if we wanted to and if we're trying to match the surrounding area you know it's got to be intense and that means when it comes before this commission all of them buying into this no expansion and it's been said we got to develop intense we want nine per acre and somebody brings it in it's right next door to you all and you don't want it get out of the way because it's going to have we're going to approve it we're required to the plan's requiring us to and things in this plan also require an ordinance to back them up and jim and i talked about this you're going to have to change a lot of ordinances i think the word require in there would take out all the r1 zones you'd have started r3 and i just don't think this is a plan for the future i think it it goes backwards it's negative it if someone were reading it from outside the county they'd say that county's closed for business they don't want to expand they don't want any more business coming in there and I don't want to have to force my grandsons to live in a box three stories up in there and ride a bicycle around downtown I mean that's that's not 80% of the market wants their own houses single-family houses I mean that's proven and all along I've made these points in in these meetings and they still want to do it the other way and so you know what if somebody wants to build a new church where are they going to build it you go outside the boundary you can only have a 10 000 square foot church and infill is not going to do away with the problems of needing more schools if you start packing and stacking people in here you're going to create a lot of density And the schools are going to have to be built out like the one we're building outside the boundary in a few years. Schools are going to have to all move out there, and you're going to have to transport people back and forth to them. You're not going to find land inside the boundary for school. School takes 10 acres, elementary school. And all the needs that people have when they live in high-density stuff is going to be out a little ways. You're not going to have room for it. And so I'm not going to support these goals and objectives. I just think it's wrong. It's wrong for Fayette County, and I'm not happy with them. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Dolan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try and be brief here. You know, last, coming out of the public hearing, I think the word at the end of it was flexibility, and I agreed with that. and I agree with the various definitions of that, I think, and I'm going to agree with staff's definition as far as flexibility and being flexible looking forward with the study that will lead us forward and give us flexibility to develop as I think we should. it is a leap of faith as has been coined but it's a leap of faith for everybody mr. Wilson you said you know as far as land cost I think what we're dealing with here is a cost of land situation not an availability of land it doesn't matter what we're talking about the cost of the land is the first thing and it's always going to be that way whether we expand or not we're still going to have that as a guiding force and the cost of everything is going to be very expensive um i feel like we've got ed land i feel like we've got p2 land to that's got the possibility of taking care of jobs land i'm not opposed to what we're talking about as far as publicly controlled economic development land if if the that process goes forward and if the need is there I'm not opposed to that I don't think that government documents such as this is a place for redundancy and when we start talking about language that makes the recommendation to amend the goals and objectives yeah we're being redundant we've already said that the state statutes gives us that ability but yet we've got it in here two times now we've got it in the preamble and we've got it under theme C goal 3 I don't think it's needed particularly twice i can support this language here i would like to make an amendment to remove the last sentence of the preamble which states as always the planning commission may consider making recommendations to amend the goals and objectives in the interim I still think it's redundant, but I'm willing to leave it in the new language under theme C, goal 3. So moved. Okay, it's been properly moved that a new amendment is on the table that we move. As always, the Planning Commission may consider making recommendations to amend the goals and the objectives in the interim. Is there a second? Second. Okay, it's been properly moved in second that we modify the preamble by striking that last line. I think that's essentially it. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. My withdrawal or request is not working down here. I'm sorry. Can you all speak to the weight of the preamble in these goals and objectives? I mean, it's not a goal, clearly. So can you speak to that? Because I need to understand a little bit more about what we're actually voting on with the preamble. Because I think there is some conflicting language in there. Mr. Berkley, as a reminder, the preamble, this is a carry forward from the 2013 plan, and the preamble at that time was added by the Urban County Council. So we're bringing that forward. The idea, I believe, in speaking for what the council's intent was in that, was to sort of provide a prelude or an executive summary of what the goals and objectives represent. The mission statement can do that as well, but it's meant to provide clarification for what is in the goals and objectives. There shouldn't be anything, and I don't believe there is, in the preamble that contradicts or otherwise is different than what is in the rest of the goals and objectives. Well, I would have to ask the question, then, if his motion is not out of order, since he has stated that he does not have a problem leaving the review language in the goals and objectives, but wants to take it out of the preamble. And I also question about, it states a five-year cycle. Clearly, what you all have put forward would allow a review of the comprehensive plan prior to five years for ED purposes. And as a clarification, Mr. Chair, Mr. Berkeley, we are not saying anything that you haven't already had the authority to do for decades. State statute lays out the process for amending the comprehensive plan. So we're not saying anything that's in addition to what you already have the authority to do. And we don't have to say it in the goals and objectives for you to have that authority. Thank you. Jim, for clarification, this discussion came up a month ago in work session when the preamble was asked for and you gave the same statement that this was something that was added by the council. I think at that time the staff was adding the last sentence to that. The original preamble did not include the last sentence. It was new language that was added at that time. And that's the only thing I'm asking to be stricken. Well again, is it not in conflict with what what our goal and objective of theme C goal three is what that allows mr. chair are you looking for a response from staff on that I suppose yes okay mr. Berkeley let me let me catch up are you saying that the last sentence of the preamble. Your question is, is that somehow in conflict with another part of the comprehensive plan, the goals and objectives rather? No. Let me step back. Today you provided us revised proposed goals and objectives and it is theme C, goal three. And that is a new goal I believe because we split it in 2. And it says, identify, provide, and sustain rarely available publicly controlled economic development land to meet the needs for jobs, amending the comprehensive plan as necessary. And what he is asking you to do is strike that from the preamble. But he has stated in his motion that he does not have a problem with that staying in the goals and objectives. So my My position is that that's improper. And Mr. Berkeley, our response would be it doesn't need to be either place for you all to do that. It doesn't have to be in the preamble, it doesn't have to be in the proposed goal. You have that authority and if by taking it out of the preamble does not leave a conflict with leaving it in the goal, vice versa. I have a question. Are we taking the revised proposed goals and objectives as now part of it? Or we haven't voted on those. We haven't, I mean, have they been automatically added? What's that? No, we have not voted on anything. No, I know. Okay. So it's just, are we going to? I mean, there was a lot of discussion. Okay. Well, that's what I was asking at the early part, because what we've done, what they've recommended is that this just be substituted for the act. Okay. What have you? So it goes in the package there. Yeah. Now, back to. So this is now part of. Yes, it is. Yes. Ms. Dawins. If I may, just to clarify as much as I can, to me the difference in the last statement on the preamble and the statement in theme C, go three, theme C, go three does say amend the comprehensive plan as necessary. It continues to say to ensure it remains up-to-date and workable framework for economic development. There's a difference there. Okay. Mr. Cravens? Yeah, we had this debate over that preamble in a work session, and in my mind, in the preamble, that would speak in his words. He said we need to put that in there to kind of remind us to think about that, that we could do it. But in the preamble, that would pertain to the whole plan, and in this goal over there with the that was only for publicly controlled jobs lands i think there's two different statements and and i know we can amend it we can amend it tomorrow if we want to but do whatever we want but um we talked about that and we said doesn't hurt anything to leave it in and it doesn't hurt anything and leave it in in the new language you had. But that was publicly controlled jobs land. This is the whole plan. Okay. Any other comments or discussion on the amendment? Okay. The amendment is, as I understand it, to strike the last line of the preamble. It's kind of interesting how this all works out because this preamble has been in, has been taken out, has been put back in, has been taken out. So we're down to the last line here. As always, the Planning Commission may consider making recommendations to amend the goals and objections of the interim. In the interim, that's the motion. It has been made by Mr. Owen, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee. Are you ready to vote on that amendment? All those in favor of making that change to the preamble, would you please raise your hand? all 1, 2, 3, 4 all those against would you please raise your hand 1, 2, 3, 4 ok it loses alright so that is back in with that said with everything that we've been talking about today is there anything else because if not someone should call for the question Do you think we could take maybe a five-minute break at some point? Yeah, we could do that. We'll take a five-minute break and give you a chance to clear your head, if that's okay, in respect to our senior citizens here on this. You've got to get a first. A couple of things for us, and then after that we'll move along. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, we do want to make clear that the two-sided sheet you have, that has revised proposed goals and objectives on it, that the green language is the direct response to Thursday's public input. Either based or and or comments that you all shared with us between Thursday and today. So we believe, Mr. Chair, that by you calling for the adoption of the goals and objectives and the motion that was made to do so, that that would include these changes and if the planning commission does not want to if they prefer this version then we recommend that you specifically reject these changes that we offered you today or you don't have to reject them all you can take one or two or three or four or make changes to these but we believe that if you if that's the way the planning commission is proceeding that these changes are incorporated into the draft before Okay, does everyone understand what's going on here with that? And just as a reminder, Mr. Cravens was asking that, talking about require intense and sustainable development as theme E, goal one, objective B. You will see on our revisions that we have rewritten that statement in response to Mr. Cravens' concern. And then that's where the environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable language comes in. Okay, very good. Everyone understand what we're doing now? Getting ready to have the vote on the motion that was made regarding the, let me see, where was it? The motion on the floor is to approve the goals and objectives for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. As presented. As presented September the 7th, 2017. without any further ado including the revisions including their revisions including their revisions including the revisions all those in favor of the goals and objectives that have been presented including the revision please vote those against please vote whatever motion carries 7 to 4 The goals and objectives go forward as we have indicated. Ladies and gentlemen, let me thank you again for this process. Let me thank you also for the work that you put in, but I have to remind you that our work is just beginning because we've got an implementation program that we have to work on, and we will need your help and support in doing that. There's no other business to come before this body. And without objection, meeting is adjourned. Thank you. I have been drunk now for over two weeks I passed out and I ran it and I struck a piece I got to stop fishing, got to go fishing.