# Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals & Objectives - October 10, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 10, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4362 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4362?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-10 - **Last revised**: October 10, 2017 - **Length**: 12,969 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals & Objectives convened on October 10, 2017, at 11:00 AM in the 2nd Floor Council Chamber. The committee held this special meeting to continue their review and discussion of the recommended goals and objectives for 2018. During the session, the committee focused on one primary agenda item involving the continued examination of proposed 2018 goals and objectives, which was handled as an informational discussion rather than requiring formal action. The meeting included one motion and vote, while no public comments were received during the proceedings. No presiding officer was specifically identified in the meeting records for this special committee session. ## Attendance All eleven council members were present for the meeting on October 10, 2017. **Present:** • Council Member Moloney • Council Member Scutchfield • Council Member Evans • Council Member Plomin • Council Member Fred Brown • Council Member Bledsoe • Council Member Stinnett • Council Member Mossotti • Council Member James Brown • Council Member Henson • Council Member Lamb **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included one formal vote on amendments to the city's Comprehensive Plan. **Motion to Add Goal 4 to Theme A** Council Member James Brown made a motion to add an additional Goal 4 to Theme A of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives [timestamp: 02:30:00]. The motion was approved by voice vote, with no recorded opposition or abstentions. No second was required for this motion, and specific vote counts were not recorded as it was conducted as a voice vote rather than a roll call vote. The approved addition represents a modification to the city's comprehensive planning framework, though the specific content of the new Goal 4 was not detailed in the available meeting records. ## Contested Items The October 10, 2017 meeting featured significant debate over infill and redevelopment policies throughout the Urban Service Area. **Infill and Redevelopment Policy** Council members engaged in heated discussions regarding the impacts of increased density development on existing infrastructure and community character. The primary areas of disagreement centered on balancing new development opportunities with the need to provide affordable housing options while preserving neighborhood characteristics. Several council members raised concerns about whether current infrastructure could adequately support higher-density infill projects. The debate included questions about water, sewer, and transportation capacity in areas targeted for redevelopment. Housing affordability emerged as another contentious aspect of the discussion, with disagreements over how infill development policies should address the community's need for affordable housing units. Council members debated whether increased density would naturally lead to more affordable options or if specific requirements should be implemented. The preservation of neighborhood character proved to be another divisive issue, with some council members expressing concerns that intensive infill development could fundamentally alter the character of established residential areas. The structured data does not indicate the specific council members involved in these discussions or the final outcome of the debate. No transcript timestamps were provided in the source materials for this contested item. ## Continued Review & Discussion of 2018 Recommended Goals & Objectives [timestamp: 00:00] The committee continued its comprehensive review of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update, examining recommended goals and objectives across multiple strategic themes. The discussion focused on three primary areas: Growing Successful Neighborhoods, Protecting the Environment, and Creating Jobs and Prosperity. Eleven council members participated in the review process, including Council Members Moloney, Scutchfield, Evans, Plomin, Fred Brown, Bledsoe, Stinnett, Mossotti, James Brown, Henson, and Lamb. The extensive participation from the council demonstrated the significance of the comprehensive planning process for the upcoming year. The committee examined various components of each thematic area, discussing how the proposed goals and objectives would guide municipal policy and development decisions in 2018. The Growing Successful Neighborhoods theme addressed community development and residential planning initiatives. Environmental protection measures were reviewed under the Protecting the Environment category, while economic development strategies were considered within the Creating Jobs and Prosperity framework. This agenda item served as an informational discussion, allowing council members to thoroughly examine the proposed comprehensive plan elements before making formal decisions. The continued review format provided an opportunity for detailed examination of each goal and objective, ensuring all council members could contribute to the planning process. The meeting represented an ongoing effort to finalize the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update, with this session building upon previous discussions of the recommended goals and objectives. The comprehensive nature of the review, involving multiple council members across various policy areas, reflected the importance of the planning document in guiding the municipality's direction for the coming year. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Add additional Goal 4 to Theme A of the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives --- ## Full transcript Goodbye to all my friends at home, goodbye to people I've trusted I've got to go out and make my way I might get rich, you know, I might get busted But my heart keeps calling me backwards As I get on the road The End Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning and welcome. It's a special ad hoc committee meeting to review the 2018 goals and objectives. And before we begin, I want to recognize the fact that Commissioner Derek Paulson's wife passed away this weekend. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family, and if you would all just please join me for a moment of silence. Thank you. This is the second meeting, and the first meeting was taken up with questions to staff about their presentation and any of the materials. the staff has come back with additional information in response to those questions so i would open the floor for any questions about that additional material and then as has been proposed we will then proceed to look at the first theme and take any motions that people have about changes so questions for staff if people would sign in if you have additional questions for planning staff Councilmember Maloney. I did receive a map, and I appreciate that. What I'd like to do is, if you could put the map up on the chart there, and also can we compare that map with today? 1996 before we expand the boundaries. I'd like to see the before and also now I'd like to see the, so we can at least, can you outline to me what the property that would develop that have not been developed that was on 96? Thank you. Mr. Maloney, what we have here is an excerpt from the 1996 comprehensive plan. This was adopted in the plan, and this shows the large tracts of vacant land, so it doesn't show the individual lots like we're accustomed to seeing now, the quarter acre and such lots, but this does show larger lots and parcels around the urban service area that were considered undeveloped or underutilized or vacant at that evaluation. This also shows the urban service boundary before expansion. So where the urban service boundary now extends out this way and down here in 1996, this was the urban service boundary. And so most of the larger tracks along Masterson Station in the northern part of the county, along the eastern edge and then the southern edge and then between Manowar and New Circle Road where the larger vacant parcels were. A lot of those have been developed since then, all the Childsburg area, Hamburg area, out here. This is Patchen, Wilkes. This is still the Young Farm. At this point, only this portion was in the urban service boundary, whereas this portion is now. The Mahan property and other properties in the southern part. This is Waveland. The UK property, the little piece of blue on top is now a Walmart and Lowe's. This property below Waveland is still vacant. This is developed on the west side here. These developed. and then these properties along here. So some of this is still vacant, but most of it has been developed since 1990. Now do you have a map that would compare with what we have now so we can see what had been filled in and what had not been filled in? That's what I really wanna see. So a little bit different perspective. The entire county, the new urban service boundary since 1996, the green represents the PDR and protected farms in the rural area. So the expanded property on the southeast side that includes the existing property in 96 plus what was brought in in 1996, What remains of the Hamburg-Charlesburg area, northern Masterson Station area, all of this that was between Manowar and New Circle Road is now filled in, and then the little bit that remains south of Manowar. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Scutchfield. i guess looking at that map that is the land that would be able to be developed how much of it is for sale because being developed and being available to be developed are they're two totally different things the land that we're showing the red land inside the urban service boundary is all developable it does not include it may not be it's a scale that you can tell on this map but the numbers that we've calculated the 5600 acres includes land that could be developed it's not environmentally sensitive it's not in floodplain but to directly answer your question we don't know if it's for sale we don't know the owners interest in developing at this time or in the future we we know anecdotally that some of it is directly not available to us right now but it is land that could be built upon urban services are fully available to it it is not a constrained by environmental issues and I guess in taking a look at when you all took a look at this plan as compared to the one 10 years ago 20 years ago taking a look did you look at where possible expansion could occur did you put a what if because i mean we expanded um previously by about 5600 acres in 96 is that correct that's correct um so let's say you said let's do 56 800 acres is there is there an idea of where that would go we have not made that evaluation the last time that the Planning Commission considered that was in the 07 plan when we briefly considered the idea of the urban reserve at that time we looked at the recently completed sanitary sewer study that showed where sanitary sewer could be extended outside the urban service boundary and at what cost and we looked at that and compared that with where protected farms were at the time and where development was likely whether there would likely be more interest in development based on development patterns in 07 but that did not advance out of the Planning Commission's recommendation and we have not done that evaluation since okay I guess I mean in taking a look at a comprehensive plan you all are the planners so I would hope that you all could look at it and say if if but for and give us an idea you you know where things are going where the infrastructure is you know I would like to know from you all if we did expand this would be the likely area and that is why we are recommending a new goal that's before you right now that we study that and we study that openly and that we designate not only the areas that the urban services could be efficiently provided but also the rural land that is so important that we want to ensure that that's preserved for the next two generations or so so we are actually we want to do that as part of the implementation of this plan I guess it's cart before horse or whichever but I would have hoped that in taking a look at their comprehensive plan that that would have been something that you can put forward but our in looking at the comprehensive plan we were looking at can we accommodate the expected growth and development needs that we have we have done that and we're recommending that we can do that with the existing urban service boundary that we don't need to expand the urban service area to accommodate growth for the foreseeable future all right thank you thank you councilmember evans thank you vice mayor i would just need that interpreted because you said that is a goal um and this is really nice fluffy language but where where is that the intention to do that study in in the goals which one is that that's at the end at the end it's uh on it's goal it's under theme e under goal four okay because i had a nice big question mark next to that so okay okay so that's helpful because i i was curious because i i would have thought that um as council member sketchfield that there would have been some options but i understand your answer behind that so thank you thank you councilmember plowman thank you vice mayor this is under theme c goal 3 available publicly controlled economic development land Does that is that been defined yet? Is that something the government controls? Or are we buying or is it already existing land? I guess I need to understand that a little bit better Our response would be this could be a little bit of all of those things It could be this is what we we talked about with the Planning Commission To fulfill this goal. This could be property that the government already owns that could be repurposed for a different use, or this could be property that comes to the government through some sort of trade or some sort of negotiation that the government would then have control over. There could be a variety of ways that the government would control this land or have a strong say in the outcome of it. We don't show that land anywhere on the maps, do we? No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. I want to go back to what Councilmember Evans and Councilmember Scretschfield talked about. I recognize you before he rang in, so please proceed. the goals and i'm i'm okay with most of the goals my question is who's going to pay for the study that you just said that i mean are you all going to do this or are you all going to hire somebody mr maloney we could absolutely do this but we also have a number of ambitious tasks that we would like to accomplish in the next three to five years, including the corridor studies, including this study, including the assistance with the publicly controlled economic development land. And so in order for us to do all of those, we're going to probably need some help. And so we'll be looking to you all in future budget cycles to help address this through consultant help. As you know, and I brought it up in the last week, the budget is not good right now. We don't have any new income coming in. We're spending way more than we can afford. And I just want to let you know that I don't know how you're going to pay for a consultant. How much is a consultant going to cost if you were to pay it? I mean, to me, we need jobs. We need lots of jobs here. And this needs to be on a fast track. It can't be on a slow track. It can't be a five-year, three-year, two-year. I mean, to me, we need jobs now. Are you looking at hiring a consultant or somebody, this budget coming up to do this? Are you all looking down the road to hire a consultant? Because I'm trying to see where your priorities are for it. The budget is my biggest number one priority right now, jobs. Because I don't feel we've got enough. we don't have the job we're creating to keep this budget that we're spending now so what are you all's priority to make sure we find jobs and and when are you all planning that you were to pass it to hire a consultant to come in i don't even know if you need a consultant but that's just my i appreciate that endorsement we believe we can do this information ourselves as i said we have a number of ambitious goals that we would like to do over the next three years and that's the timeframe that we would be doing this if we if we are if we are able to secure funding and we'll be looking for transportation grants to help us with the corridor funding so maybe we can focus on those and hire consultants for those but if the bottom line is that we have to do this ourselves and this will be a priority and this will be something that we will set about to do once the comprehensive plan is adopted by the Planning Commission thank you thank you Thank you. Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was under the impression that we were going to have some type of order in this presentation. And we've already jumped to Theme E, and I thought we were going to do the themes as they go. And I've got questions about what they're talking about, but I don't think it's appropriate unless we're going to just scatter. And we need to have some type of order here, and I thought that's what we were going to do. i agree that was the intention i thought if i gave council members an opportunity to ask questions more generally that we would not get into the detail but i would like to concur with your thought and if we can move to consideration of the themes themselves in order so given that if people will turn to the first page unless anybody has a question or a concern about either the preamble or the mission statement well let me open the floor so there are two pieces that are part of this that are not specific themes that are overarching does anybody have any question comment or a motion to make any changes in either the preamble or the mission statement okay then we'll move to theme a which is growing successful neighborhoods and if anybody again has either a question a comment or a motion to change the language please sign up electronically for recognition Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I'll start. And I have a couple general questions about housing in this specific to the way. So at a number of my neighborhood meetings, I have met with older population who say things like, I have a lovely home, it's fully paid for, I have five bedrooms, it's my wife and I or my spouse and I, and we would love to downsize. We would love to move into something that was maybe a ranch or something that was a condo or a town home that had less stuff. The problem is the house they're paid for is worth $200,000 and the senior housing or senior accommodations is $250 and up. And the question is why would I sell my house to take out another mortgage on something else? And so when we plan for safe, affordable, accessible housing needs for older residents, do you suggest that we the reality of the market is saying one thing even though we want something else so they're not moving from their houses because they feel like I'm already paid for my house and I don't want to do something else but the market won't let me have that next option does this make sense and I'm just asking how do how do how is that in here well and so in the housing market demand study it talks about single-family housing the demand for single-family housing but it also talks about in varying formats whether that be in townhomes or patio homes those types of things so we had you know when we're talking about senior housing they are looking for the things that you're talking about they're looking for less maintenance of their property they're also looking for more walkable areas to be able to live so we would sort of see that in planning for that we would be planning for a variety of housing options and types that would come on the market and we think that the the goals and objectives that we put forward sort of emphasize some of those types of things not only the the objective that you mentioned but some of the supporting objectives and goals as well I think it's an objective I just don't know how we at real it is and I say that with love and respect it's just the desire for them to say I know I have an underutilized home they would agree they are ready to move but they don't want to move to Nicholasville to find an affordable walkable patio home and again you're right market is having a lot to do with this and this may or may have an impact on that we don't know but we do know that density does and the more units we build the more likely we are to have the variety of housing that Chris just talked about and certainly the variety of pricing. And so that's part of what we're doing when we're reviewing plans that are coming into us. We're looking to how can we get the most out of these properties and still maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, make it an attractive place to be, but fill in these places. Many of them have been in your and Councilmember Massadi's areas. How do we do so in such a way that increases density appropriately, but that certainly will have an effect on pricing. The more we have, the better it's going to be for the seller, or for the buyer, if they have more options. Agreed. But the price of that land is so high that when they're developing them, it's still unaffordable for the same people to live in that same neighborhood to move into those homes. Well, but if you get more units on the property, of course, that's going to make the unit... In theory, cheaper. Right. I just don't... That's not what I'm seeing. I think in theory that makes sense. We need to do more of it. We absolutely need to do more of that. So when you say when you're going to, when we're going to create and implement housing incentives that strengthen those opportunities, what kind of incentives are you thinking about for that? The incentive part comes in the infrastructure fund that you all have talked about. That would also be available for affordable housing. So for households who met income thresholds, that fund would also have been available to help with that as well. And then we also have our affordable housing fund itself. so those two together would be important components for the affordable housing part of this to help offset the infrastructure costs to help offset the the development costs so that those properties can be more within reach i hear what you're saying i know i mean it's there's no snap of the finger that makes this happen right absolutely right and i think that's and my time but that's the frustration I'm hearing from people in the south side who say I would like to move to something else in the south side I would like to move something on the north side but I don't want to leave something I fully paid for to take out something else for a mortgage on which doesn't make any sense to me and I don't know I don't know how we're gonna have enough incentives to make that cost ratio work and in the meantime we've got people who want to move in single-family houses that can't because they're occupied by senior adults who aren't moving which is just something I see very much at least in my district and it's very real and very frustrating I think for both sides of that picture to figure out how to make the numbers work and if the numbers don't work doesn't matter if everyone wants to move they could swap houses but if the numbers don't work they won't do it the housing demand study as Chris also indicated required is calling for housing types that are not presently being built in the community that we believe would also help address that as will thank you councilmember Fred Brown Thank You Vice Mayor looking at the theme a continuing the second goal there that has support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic component of growth this is the same language that you had from 13 or whenever you the last time that you had this uh i'm not sure what the process there is when you're looking at infill are these already zoned properties or are these properties that would have to be zoned we'll both we'll both take turns here answering these questions uh mr brown the and when we're talking about infill in this case it is with a lower case i it's not just the downtown infill and redevelopment defined area. It really is all of the undeveloped, underutilized property, vacant property in the urban service area. And in some cases, those properties have been zoned. In some cases, they've not. In some cases, the zoning is not even appropriate, so they would still need to be zoned again. Okay, so it's a mixture of zoning and then. So that would go to planning. So it looks like you've expanded that goal quite a bit to identify and the mixed use development. And then B, I like that, respect the context and design feature of areas surrounding development projects. This is something new and I think it would have had a bearing on some of our zone changes in the past when you're talking about that. And I think that, I guess that's given a little bit of cushion to Enfield. Is that correct? I mean, you've got a piece of property that's Enfield, okay? Then you start by this goal here. Planning Commission has to look at this and say, hey, wait a minute. What surrounds this piece of property? Am I understanding? Absolutely. That is part of the staff's initial review. In fact, we often have that conversation alone with the developer before the Planning Commission even sees this. So you put it in writing now. We have it as part of, yes, we do. We have that now. You know, that, again, is us saying this is what the comprehensive plan says. This is not what the zoning ordinance says. So we can only go so far with design until we turn those into regulations. Yeah, second part of my question there is, are we going to have some ordinances coming from planning that would support this? Yes. Goals and objectives. We certainly will. Okay, that answers that. Because down on C, incorporate adequate green space and open space into all development projects. I don't have a real problem with Enfield, except I do have a problem with Enfield, because I think people that are in neighborhoods still would like to be able to have some elbow room. They've moved there based on green space, parks, golf course, schools, et cetera. So it's already there, but if you start squeezing in without particular information and guidance, which I think this helps in that objective. Is that what you all try to do? But remember, these lots that we're filling in are not public green space. They're green space at the strictest of definition, but they are not public green space that's part of our green space system, that's part of a trail system, that's part of an environmental protection system. So that's property that people get used to, of course, having in their backyards. But it's not intended to be. I know it's not intended, but you're not preventing that to happen. Well, and we're certainly not calling for the development of our formal green space. Anything that's part of our system, that's there for a reason. Okay, got one more question. Under, still under goal two on the public infrastructure fund, I guess the, how's that process work on that as far as what it would cost the government to set that up and how would we as urban county government be paying for that or? You've already set that up. It's been set up, okay. Yes, you have. Have we funded it? Minimally. Do we know what the cost is in the future there? You funded it for $750,000. Okay, that's the one, okay, $750,000? Yes. Okay. And that's the one, I thought you all was asking for a million or? Yes. In the budget? Yes. Okay. So that has to probably get a little higher. My time's out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Stennett. thank you vice mayor going back to in order go number one back to that conversation or theme a mr duncan we talked a little bit last meeting about density per acre and we talked about we're currently developing at six units per acre and we want to go to nine so how do we get to nine in the next five years and i assume you mean residential not commercial commercial is more 35 and beyond right that's that's exactly right so kind of getting back to what councilmember Bledsoe was talking about about the the senior housing and the varying types of housing that's how we see developments getting towards nine dwelling in it's an acre and moving up from six and you can do that fairly simply by including you know some townhomes or different types of housing into the developments and once you incorporate a couple different types of housing in the development then it quickly elevates that level so you're talking about going up going going up but you can also see single-family development that is in a more compact style that that's preferential for seniors as well and what about the price correlation I know mr. Duncan said a second ago that this will drop price down so I go from six to nine units breaker where does that drive the price really to have you all looked at that Well, I think I think when you're increasing the number of single-family units and and maybe two-story or even three-story You don't break into the price point where it starts to increase the cost of the more units that you can have on a lot The more affordable those units would be I'm just trying to see what the reward is for doing that it really does benefit price In the long run, you know represent the sixth district for years We had the most at one time all senior living options and I can tell you there wasn't one in there that was under 200,000 has been built and we're talking four stories in the back of Hamburg We're talking the big assisted living homes the higher-end ones So I'm trying to understand for our population is gonna be a third of our group coming up Where we gonna put all these people are they even gonna be able to afford to move from their current house Into these places same as councilman Bledsoe looked at but the bigger issue for me is if you want to go from six units per acre to nine how's our infrastructure going to handle it because the first thing we hear at that podium during the zone changes traffic stormwater obviously we're working on the consistent with the sewers but how's our roads are going to handle it well and part of what we talked about now we were speaking specifically about residential development but we talked last time about residential development as a component of commercial development along our corridors as well and so trying to increase our transit options whether that be walkable keeping people off the roads for those additional trips or increasing our investment in our in our public transit system be able to to handle more trips outside of a single occupancy vehicle I think is a way that we would be able to handle our transportation well and I think it's a good goal but it's going to be tough to even keep this a viable goal given the constraints we have on our infrastructure we have people in and Council Member Scutchfield's district are walking on grass today that we know we need sidewalks and sewers. And this is very problematic for me on number C on how we're really going to address this. Because to me, this doesn't address this. And I would also say is that the more compact we build, the more we get out of our infrastructure, like our sidewalks. So if we're not increasing our land area, but we're staying within the constraints that we have, then our investment goes a lot further that way as well. And then on goal two, C, incorporate adequate green space in open space, what percentage of that 5,600 acres is intended to be green space of that 5,600? I don't think we've attributed an amount to that. It would be sort of as a development comes in and looking at what the population that that development is serving and then looking at what's appropriate for the green space there. So we haven't attributed a figure to that vacant land for green space. So part of that 5600 though will have to be green space in some form or fashion. So I know when we expanded the boundary in 96, I believe in the Hamburg area, we had a 20% ratio where 20% has to be green space. I'm trying to understand what we're gonna talk about going forward. Part of that, Mr. Stenit, will be the environmentally sensitive areas that we've taken out. So we have several hundred acres that are not included in the 5,600 acres, and that will be incorporated into the green space as well. Okay, but we don't have any idea how much we're gonna require, it's gonna be case by case basis. Well, it'll depend on the zone, the type of development that comes in. For instance, we would hope that some of these areas would be more mixed use, that not just all residential, so there would be different open space requirements for those as well. And of course, that goes back to our zoning ordinances and allow flexibility in green space. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think the overwhelming thing we need to look at is the market. In Lexington, we're not like any other, I mean, we are following the nation's trend. I mean, the housing market all across the United States is tight. Availability of land is not related to the housing market. I just think that we've got a phenomenon here that's been happening for the past two or three years where we've got a market demand that has become at the forefront. So you've got to look at the density as far as what you've said, Mr. Duncan, because we're going to be talking about the seniors. We're going to be talking about the millennials. And these folks don't want large lots and big houses. They want things that they can maintain at an easier pace. So I think that the market is key here. And I'm not sure any one of us can project this market. I mean, we've been in this for a couple of years where it's been strong, and I know some of us up here that have been selling real estate for many years have been through a big downturn as well. So it's hard to predict. But I think your themes and your objectives are laudable, But the overwhelming, again, the overwhelming basis is what is the market doing at this time? And that's a tough projection. And have you guys done, I mean, I know you've done market projections, but have you, how far have you gone out? Have you gone three years? Have you gone five years, ten? Have you done anything like that to kind of get an idea of where we think we're going further? I know we've had the housing study, and I know the demands, but I'm just talking about the market. And that, through the housing demand study, we were looking out about 10 years, and we're already into that 10-year period, so it will come upon us fast. But that was the recommendation that we would need of the different housing types over the next 8 to 10 years. And so that's what we're basing our recommendations on, is in part what the housing study recommended, looking forward for the next 10 years. It's not easy. No. For sure. And things could change tomorrow. And I think we've got to keep that rationale in mind that we just can't go with what we've got today. We've got to look forward to what may happen and change tomorrow. Because, again, it can change pretty quickly. But I do think that the density is the key. I do think the mixed use is the key. I think that we talk about putting pressure on our infrastructure. Well, I know going outside the urban service boundaries puts pressure on as well. So there's got to be a balance here. but affordability is a key too and I think that's a big part of your presentation saying that we just don't have those affordable pieces hopefully the density will make that difference where we can have more units so those units do become more affordable because we do have that in in my district and councilmember but in everyone's district where we've got the major aging population that can't maintain those big homes or don't want to mow that yard but They want something smaller, but they want, you know, they're on either fixed income or retirement, and they can't afford to spend half a million dollars for an attached product that is, you know, beyond their means. So I think that we're going in the right direction. I just don't think that we're unique. I think this is going on throughout the whole country. And I read an article where San Francisco's even got a moratorium on development because of the prices out there and they're not they're not affordable anymore so it's a tough thing to get our arms around I'm glad that we've had so much discussion about this I'm not sure there's a one answer that will take care of all this but I do appreciate what you're trying to do and as far as how we can try to accommodate this for everyone that's all I say thank you councilmember Maloney thank you I too have some concerns about the housing market I mean $170,000 is not affordable for low-income families and to say that we're gonna increase from six to nine lots it's a great story to say but when you got somebody comes in here and I'm gonna say one of those 5600 acres somebody comes in with 200 acres and he's going to develop and he says I'm gonna put half a million to a million and a half houses on half acres lots they're gonna be eligible to do that am I correct on that they don't so they can come in here and say they can do that and even though you all are against it but overall they're legally can do that to their property they can still put half acre that lots in there for half a million to a million to million dollar houses on that lot is that correct well mr. Maloney part of what speaking of mr. Brown the regulations that will be bringing to you will be density minimums for property for residential development so we would not be looking to create any more half acre acre lots going forward we just don't think this community can support that how do you legally well you the zoning ordinance allows it right now of course but if we're looking to change that we're looking to change that so you're saying you can change that and legally this person will somebody already if somebody already has that right they will be able they will likely be able to do that so they'll be able to put half if they will come in here and they got the money and they got people ready to buy those houses but most of their property so you're telling me that we have authority to say no you can't get put on houses no I'm not saying that I'm saying that we can change the council can change the zoning ordinance to prohibit that in the future if the zone exists now that allows them to develop it will although you there be circumstances that you probably could change that we usually don't we usually make those nonconforming uses and allow them to continue to develop under the rights they have. So you make those recommendations, but the developer can sit there and say, I've got my houses sold, I'm going to put this in there, and there's nothing you can do about it. Well, again, if they need a zone change and they need a development plan, there's a process that they're reviewing for that, and we can certainly, the Planning Commission can have a say in that, particularly if it's the development plan. But if the zone allows, and they already have zoning, and they already have a development plan for half acre lots, then we're not going to stop that. A developer will be able to continue to do that. I'm just looking at the future. Five years down the road. But we're looking to change that. You've got that beautiful farm out there, which I have a hard time seeing anybody going to be affordable. I think those are going to be compatible with that neighborhood. You're talking million-dollar homes or half a million-dollar homes out there, and that's the way I see it going out there. I just don't see that property being affordable to anybody low income. Well, we see it differently. We would like to see that. There may be some properties that are certainly high end, but we'd like to see the mix out there. Second question is on this in field redevelopment. I, when I was a council member for 11th district, we had a bunch of light industrial backup to the residential property. It was old Frank for Pike and all that. And we have it all in Bedford. And that's a major problem for noise, odor and all that. There's nothing that we can do. And as I look at this, are you all gonna continue is some macaulay complaint from council members complaint over the years is this good infield redevelopment to put those kind of businesses up against residential business so are they still going to be able to do that with this kind of recommendation because i hope i'm wrong i mean we don't but is this what you're saying well there's there's nothing that prohibits a low density residential being adjacent to a high intensity industrial zone there's nothing in the zoning ordinance that prevents that. But there are buffering requirements. And so if a developer is going to bring to us a zone change that puts residents adjacent to industrial, then there will be screening buffering requirements that have to be met. But we would also talk to them about that, and we would look at how that property is being used, the industrial property is being used, and the potential impact on the new residential. And we would make suggestions about what they could or could not do, even to the point of recommending disapproval. But we don't make the final decision. That still goes to the Planning Commission, may come to you. And so if the developer pushes that, even against our recommendation, that still could be something to get approved. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. back to um goal one i i'm going to try not to be repetitive but what i what i think i understand it will have to happen regardless of what we do and don't take um so under like goal one um letter b when you talk about prioritizing are you saying mr duncan that that would the prioritization would be reflected in changes to our ordinances I guess I'm just trying to figure and I think I'm probably getting down in the weeds but I want to kind of see what we're how we would be enforcing this or how we would make this work and what then has to happen if we just approved all of this of this. Certainly the zoning ordinance would be the biggest tool that we would have that would help this. If we had minimum densities, if we had certain housing types and certain housing types in certain zones, that would be the most helpful. But we can still look at just this goal itself and look at the development and say you are not addressing our multiplicity of housing needs because you're only providing this one low density type. We are we would like to see you incorporate more of this because this development would support that the surrounding neighborhoods are designed in such a way that that higher density would would work in this area the infrastructure supports it and that's what we'd like to see developer and if you're willing to do that we can work with you and recommend approval to the planning commission if not then we may have a different recommendation planning on being here for the next 20 years to make sure that that standard continues because i mean i think that that's if that would be the position that would be it but then um but again putting this in in regulation is is the the biggest thing that we can do we can we can interpret the comprehensive plan very well but but the rules come in the subdivision regulations and the zoning regulation and that's where we need to make these changing and i guess that that the world that i come from i think that's what i'd like to see so i'm going to the the second goal under theme a um item b and i think it would probably be the flip side of what you've said before because my concern would be what about something a developer that comes we had a hearing um not too long ago that comes and says well it is consistent because this is what's across the street or the gas station um in council member henson's district it's consistent but it's still not it it might not be what the neighborhood once was like how what do you see or how do you see those um i guess reconciling and this goes back to mr maloney's concern is that in that particular case the property was zoned and the property owner had the right to develop that property as they're doing so and we're gonna have we're gonna meet up with that all across the urban service area we're gonna have old non-residential zoning that perhaps is being used as residential but then we discover that it's not or the we always knew that it was but we didn't change it and then something else goes in there so we're still going to meet up against that I think there's still more we can do in the zoning ordinance to address buffering and compatibility between uses, but those types of situations are going to crop up everywhere. So is it not in the thought to maybe look at the entire map to see if we need to change those zones on our own as opposed to just waiting for someone to come in and ask for it? I mean, is that part of, if we're going to look at what I'll do a study to see what land is available, I'd actually be more interested in seeing what needs to be rezoned. That's an option. That's a difficult option, particularly if you're talking about downzoning property and taking away rights that a property owner presently has and doing so against his will. That's an option that's available to us, but that is not something that we ordinarily exercise. and up zoning is a different story we might we could certainly if we want to encourage vacant properties to develop and we want to and the government wants to go in and offer to do the zoning that in the other way may encourage some of that but to to make property more compatible with this with its surrounding uses by down zoning against the property owners will would be a very difficult thing for this community to do well I appreciate that but I think my I I guess my position would be, well, that leaves out a large part of the city. I've got a lot of older neighborhoods that every time I go to, they feel neglected because everything's happening on the south end of town, or that's where everybody wants to go. It's prettier, it's shinier. So I'd like to see some kind of thought and consideration to address that and maybe take the neighborhoods back to what they once were. And on a case-by-case basis, that could work. there could even be a willing property owner that says i don't care just as long as you'll take care of this for me that might work a wholesale approach would probably not be a good idea thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor um this is in reference to goal number two and mr duncan or i believe mr duncan would be the appropriate person to ask it appears that in the prior goals and objectives that you have had where you have identified the infill and you have created materials to educate the public my question revolves around how have or have you engaged in the actual neighborhood associations, homeowner associations about infill within their neighborhoods? We have worked with the neighborhoods on this, and the Neighborhood Council has been very good to reach out to us and include us in their annual meetings and their seminars and that sort of thing so that we can talk about what the comprehensive plan means to neighborhoods. So we've taken every opportunity that we can to work with the Fayette County Neighborhood council or an individual neighborhood association and and and pass on to them what potential impacts are of development in their areas well I'm gonna I'm gonna raise it to a higher bar I'm gonna request that it be raised to a higher bar and I know that that the division of planning currently has on their web on their web pages a listing of the neighborhood development excuse neighborhood associations homeowners associations i would i want to request that we actually start engaging the actual neighborhoods through that list and hopefully we can maintain a more up-to-date list through the secretary of state information and try to work with the fayette county neighborhood council so that we can have more accurate information so that we can engage the neighborhoods at the time that we're identifying this infill and i think that bringing them on board at the front end of it versus at the end or at any time in between that i think that we can actually have more success in developing the infill and so i'm going to encourage and i know we've had conversations about attempting through the zoning application process to to up that game but i also want to encourage during this when you're identifying these that you that you really work hard harder to reach out and not only work through fayette county neighborhood council but also to work through the the designees that are for those homeless associations and neighborhood associations to to try to up the game and all over city because I think that we need to start bringing the neighbors in from the beginning so I appreciate this and I appreciate all the conversation today thank you thank you councilmember James Brown that's a member Plowman thank you councilmember Brown and vice-america I i had a question on theme a b accommodate the demand for housing in lexington responsibly and i know part of the housing study we showed that there was going to be a demand for 23 000 new accommodation new houses in lexington what is that how does how was that number figured out again we'll kind of go back to the uh there's a large component of that that was designated as single-family and again it's sort of coming in evolving formats so as Jim spoke to earlier the consultant sort of talked to us about some types of single family housing that are not currently in the market but so so some of those would would make up the 23,000 units I think about a little over 13,000 were in single-family so I don't know if I've specifically addressed what you're asking Well, one of the things that I also noticed in the housing study is that when we analyze the work pattern in and out, that 51% of our workforce in Fayette County comes from outside the county, and the majority of those outside the adjacent counties. So does that 51% factor into that 23,000 units? not into the 23 000 units or our projected population so that takes into account that that continues to be at about that that's kind of a net number when you already have taken the 51 percent out right all right thank you thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember james brown thank you vice mayor i'll say some comments and then i got a an additional goal that i'd like to to entertain with my fellow council members, but I do share the same concerns that my fellow council members have stressed about. When we're focusing on infield, the strain that is gonna be on the infrastructure, whether it's sewer or roads and parking, and as we look to increase density, I think we have to take a real good look on how we address some of those concerns. parking restrictions as far as it comes to developments, we have to address the public transportation part of that too. I know it's the cart, putting the apple before the cart or the cart before the horse or whatever it is, but as we talk about increasing the density, how do we make that more palatable for neighbors if we don't address the road and street issues and the walkability issues of these communities? So we have to really get into the weeds with this language when we start talking about the elements and the implementation of some of these goals and objectives. At the last meeting, I brought up my concern about, you know, when we're talking about safe neighborhoods, the oversaturation of social service agencies and the services they provide and the strain or the burden they could add to the community. so with the help of the planning staff and law we have recommended it neil if you don't mind putting it up on the screen a new goal goal four that addresses community facilities at a neighborhood scale with the objectives being for the neighborhood and for development plans to incorporate some of these community facilities and they range from schools the libraries the fire stations to to to shelters and so forth and and then also plan for equitable and accessible locations of these facilities and at the same time promoting road connections in in order to reduce response time for our public safety departments so do I need to make that in the form of a motion to add this goal so I also move to add additional goal 4 to theme A of the comp plan goals and objectives the motion is there a second motion and a second any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor please say aye aye any opposed that motion carries and and also to add to that discussion and and and and talk and i guess i'll bring it up when we get to theme d but there's also verbiage can we wait until we get to theme d to add that yes okay yeah i was just saying that there's more to follow thank you all right thank you thank you thank you councilmember henson thank you vice mayor i'm not sure who would want to answer this but i think um councilmember evans mentioned some areas in her district where people are feeling like they're being ignored and I have a lot you know my district is very very little new development it is older but also it concerns me when we talk about the density of for instance apartments so as they age so you know we have high density numerous apartments in an area say that 40 years ago when they were built they were really really nice very livable community but as they've aged and not been maintained the values have decreased so I'm not sure how we could address these so I just worry that going forward we may be creating something that we absolutely do not want because the areas I'm talking about now are low income only because they're not maintained. They're neglected. Did that come up in your discussion at all? Ms. Henson, I'm going to give you an answer that won't be as direct as you would like, but it's going to be more like some of the other answers we've given. The philosophy behind the approach to planning and development in Lexington is something that is, you could almost say it's unique in the country, and it probably is unique in Kentucky for sure. and we believe, we believe, and I believe we're seeing this borne out, that as long as we are keeping the option to recycle the development that we have, that there will be ebbs and flows indeed. Property that starts out being attractive and desirable could very well go through its life cycle. It may come back up or it may never come back up. But if we keep a contained urban area and we change from time to time our development philosophy, then those areas will be reinvented. They may not stay up all the time. I would be remiss if I said that. But we also do believe that if we give opportunities to abandon those properties, we don't believe they will come back. And so that's part of the philosophy of maintaining a strong urban service boundary, is that then there is much more pressure to keep these properties in good shape to begin with, but then more opportunity to see them redeveloped and reconfigured in succeeding generations. I know that that's more of a philosophical answer, but that, if you look around, we have some of those specific examples in this community where developments have failed and now the areas are becoming desirable again. Whether the government interferes or whether it's organic, but we believe that that is what our approach is to this. Thank you. Add to that just a little bit. we're talking about about density I know I kind of sound like a broken record but we're talking about mixtures of housing types as well so when we're talking about new development and though you said there's not a ton of new development your district but when we're talking about density and new development we're talking about mixtures of housing types so not you know clusters of apartment building sort of pushed off to the side but rather integrated into single-family neighborhoods including townhomes that missing middle section of housing in between single-family and apartment housing and and finding a way to make sure that all of those complement each other to create a neighborhood so that maybe as those products age that maybe we don't have the same types of issues that that we've seen with what you're talking about thank you and I certainly think that that and my times almost up but I think that that is something we certainly should look at it's like you have entrances to neighborhoods that are multi-housing that have declined over the years and become a real problem for the homeowners in decreasing their properties in my opinion less desirable places to live so through our planning i think we could avoid those types of incidents thank you thank you basically thank you see nobody else uh signed up unless there's objection that would allow us to move to move to theme b recognizing in theme a we've made one change which is adding that goal with the set of objectives. So I'm moving to theme B. People have questions, comments, proposals for changes. Council Member Massardi. Mr. Duncan, I have a question on as far as the incentives for green building. Is that through the government? Are we going to try to push that through us? I'm sorry, where are you? Which goal? Goal 2, number C. Thank you. Provide incentives for green building, sustainable development and transit oriented development. How are we going to accomplish that? What's your plan? Well, again, those incentives can be financial, but they can also be in the form of tax abatements and other kinds of issues as well, not just direct cash. So we would like to continue to explore those options. This is a carryover objective from 2013, so we believe that— I think this is crucial. I mean, protecting the environment, if we don't do that, we don't have anything else. So that's why I was kind of asking for your specifics here on what you had, you know, what your thoughts were as far as what kind of incentives and how they were going to be passed along. In this case, I think it would be more other types of incentives, not just direct cash from the government, but other types of grants that might be available for people who are interested in this, or cost share, such as providing certain energy alternatives that the developer would be part of it, but another agency would pay part of that as well. So I think looking at the full range here. Are you going to have to make that a little bit more specific in here? I mean, because you're giving me a general thing, but we don't have anything to say. And we were more specific in the elements themselves of the comprehensive plan, and we can update those. We will be updating those incentives in the 2018 plan as well. The Planning Commission will do that part of it. So they'll be more specific in the elements of how you accomplish this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can you expand on D a little bit about multimodal options? I know that at all of my neighborhood meetings, the number one frustration is traffic. and they say there's just too many cars and too many spaces, they're everywhere and we don't want them anymore. And yet when you talk to them about mass transit or bikes, they completely flip out. So can you just address a little bit more about how you plan on prioritizing what multimodal options there are and how you plan on integrating that into the process? You hit on the multimodal options that are likely to be available to us. That's transit, increased transit, increased bicycle. That's available to us right now. And so what we'd like to see are more incentives for developments to occur in those areas. So, for instance, developments that are taking place in the defined infield area can get a reduction on their parking requirements if they are near a transit stop or they provide bicycle facilities on their site. So we would like to see those expanded beyond just the defined infill area and work with Lex Tran to see what their transit needs might be so that perhaps if an enhanced transit facility could be made in certain routes, that that's something that would help encourage development. on the larger scale if we take this all the way to our proposal to reevaluate our corridors nicholas field road and so forth we would be looking at the future of transit and then that would be such things as bus rapid transit or dedicated bus line dedicated lanes for buses and that kind of thing in exchange where there would be higher density development along those corridors so this is a process that will will take a number of years to get to but that's in part how we see us getting to transit and alternative transportation are viable considerations for our citizens. Okay, I think that's helpful. I think that I know just from my experience, people that are seniors get really nervous about bikers on side roads because they don't feel like they have enough space between cars that enter out and bikes that are kind of going around. They get, they're nervous that they're going to hurt somebody. It's not that they don't want the biker to exist, but they're afraid, you know, what happens if they come across around a car and I don't miss them. And yet I think that's exactly the point. The more people we have using them, the less cars in a row. But there's a tradeoff there that it takes a culture change, I think, that's going to be a longer time than maybe we realize. At the same time, we even talked about having shuttles in Beaumont, for instance. How do we have many, not many shuttles, but many operations that don't have the mass transit but have some ways of connecting the corridors amongst themselves? So maybe you would go to Kroger, you would go out to eat, and you wouldn't necessarily have to go downtown and go someplace else, right? Those kind of things. Is that still part of your multimodal conversation? That's the kind of thing that we would want to talk to Lex Tran about. You know, we had those kind of circulators. We have had them in the downtown area for entertainment purposes, and that's an excellent idea to take those to neighborhoods that have neighborhood centers so that those could sort of circulate within there on the fixed route, say, and from time to time come by and pick someone up and take them to the grocery store. So that's a very good idea. It might be something between the extremes of the mass transit. And when you talk about those big buses getting those same small areas and some of those, I'm thinking of Palomar specifically, and they've moved the bus stop right there to the middle of it. And so the complaint is, gosh, I can't see around it. I can't move past it. There's people coming out. It's a horrible place for a bus stop. I was like, well, yes, but it also is easy because they can come around that corridor and come right back out. So it's a both and there. And it might help me shorten the bus and how they how they operate so it's just a thought as we move towards that thanks thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor uh going right on down the line um under goal three excuse me goal 3a where it's talking about the green infrastructure program can you just expand on what you what you think that program is going to look like i mean i know when we talk about funding you know this next year is going to be really tight on funding and so I'm wondering if there's opportunity for this program if funding is not available some of this funding comes through the sewer improvements that we're doing also so some of that could we want to continue those opportunity grants that businesses can take advantage of neighborhoods can take advantage of to promote green infrastructure so we that that funding should still be available available to us for the foreseeable future for the life of that project. But then there, again, just like with, as I told Ms. Massadi, we'd be looking at other sources of funding to help us with this too, not just the local government, but there may be transportation funding, funds that can help with this, as well as private foundation type of work. So again, these are the kind of things that we could further describe in the elements of the plan itself and give examples of how these could be pursued. I appreciate that and that's all I have at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. On that goal three, this is support the funding, planning and management of green infrastructure program. That doesn't have anything to do with PDR, is that correct? No I don't believe we would link that. I know we talk about it in another theme. PDR is a protection for agricultural and food security purposes, not for green infrastructure purposes. So is this green infrastructure program related to within the urban service area? Yes. It is? Yes. Okay. And the funding of that, you're not seeing anything, do we have anything in the budget at all for that? Well, as I told Ms. Lamb, certainly part of the sanitary sewer improvement money is being used for green infrastructure right now. and we would look to continue to capitalize and maximize the use of those funds for restoration purposes of floodplains and waterways and then providing more urban green infrastructure solutions does the trails come under this also in that area trails are part of green infrastructure yes so right now we don't have any definite funding for this to happen but we've got areas of funding that we can draw from we we use the sanitary sewer fund has been used from the beginning partly partly to address uh to address green infrastructure all right thank you thank you councilmember gibbs thank you vice mayor jim um i like theme b a lot i think you guys have done a really good job on it but i want to go back to what councilmember massadi was talking about under goal 2c and i'm not sure i got all of it but uh that's something i would really like to to see happen i i have the sense that lfucg is not doing enough to promote sustainability within the community i'd like to see more but you said you uh when it comes to incentives you're thinking about other than just cash or i was wondering if you're thinking about putting any anything in your budget request for next year for this sort of thing besides just the cash mr gibbs there's also regulatory incentives so we would want to look at our zoning orders and our subdivision regulations and other government regulations and are there barriers to see if there are barriers to doing some of these kinds of things as well there may be building code issues that we would of course are beyond us but if there are certainly other local issues that we can control then we want to address those as well so part of part of this would be the incentives would be to to break down the barriers to doing it not not just the financial but the regulatory barriers as well okay do you have a plan to include any financial incentives in your budget for the next time uh we have not started working on our budget for next time although we we list several things that we want to do here that would be big ticket items and as mr maloney has noted that they would be be a challenge for us but those would likely be the priorities for us for the foreseeable budgets was for looking at things like the the building code and so on that you just mentioned is there is there a plan to approach that systematically again the building code is is beyond the zoning ordinance zoning ordinance does not need funding for to do that we that's a staff that would be something the staff would work on and we would bring to the planning commission into you all over over the course of time but you guys have plans to look at this systematically to to look for places where we might be able to enhance sustainability we want to comb through the zoning ordinance for all of these the green building the the other regulatory barriers to density uh parking those kinds of things we want to look at all of that as as part of a comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance for barriers to these kinds of progressive uh developments that we're proposing great excellent thanks jim thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember scutchfield thank you vice mayor um i guess one of my you know when we talk about and we've talked about this before protecting the environment what doing environmental things within urban service within lexington you know i keep going back to if we have over 50 of the people that work in lexington that are coming from outside of the county have we have we set up any type of regional transportation plan you know we can do whatever we want with lextran we can try to do different types of transportation but we're still bringing it in it's still affecting our roads until we do something along those lines and work with madison county work with nicholasville for regional transportation it's not going to do us any good And we agree, we would like to see transit extended beyond the county borders. We've had those experiments with Jesmond County, with Nick's success, I believe. But NextTran, of course, is its own agency, and having them move beyond would be something I'm sure they'd be interested in if they thought they could make it work financially. But when we're seeing that more than half of those commuters are coming from two counties away, then a regional transit system is probably not something in the foreseeable future that would address that. And we believe, we have information that indicates that people are living two counties away for a variety of other reasons. And it's not just that they can't buy a house in Fayette County, it's because they choose to live somewhere else for other reasons and they're willing to drive here because this is where the jobs are. But they want to live in another environment. So we won't be able to fully bring all that 51% back into Fayette County. They don't want to live here. Well, they don't want to live here anyway. They're choosing to live in Mercer County or Franklin County for other reasons. Are you working with any of the other counties contiguous on transportation issues now? Well, we are, of course, we're part of the NPO with Jessamine County and a little portion of Scott County, so that is regulatory, and we have daily and monthly. And I know that's two counties. Are we working with other counties around us to try to come up with solutions? We don't have a formal arrangement with other counties beyond the NPO. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One thing I wanted to mention, Councilmember Scutchfield, there is an initiative right now, Bluegrass Tomorrow and a lot of other consortiums to make a consortium to start discussions on regional planning. And we had our first meeting less than two weeks ago, so we'll keep you in the loop. Regional transportation is one of them. But I had a question under, let's see, this is goal number three. number D, and that's coordinate the interrelated planning programs, et cetera. Is that like PDR, Bluegrass Conservancy? Maybe you can expound on that in terms of whether NTs, and is it coordinate and execute or collaborate? Do we even have more of a discussion on that? Thank you. We believe that that's what you've described, Ms. Plumman, that this is working with the PDR program, this is working with the Green Space Commission, this is working with the Corridors Commission, all the other agencies that are already doing work in Fayette County to address these kinds of issues and ensure that what we're proposing isn't against what they're wanting to do and vice versa, trying to make sure that we're sort of all heading in the same direction. yes that's i believe what you're talking about there and this is a new objective for us would be to bring in these other agencies that that is their primary focus and make sure we're all talking about the same thing and that's a great idea thank you and thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember maloney thank you uh just ask you a question here the goals and all that which i appreciate but a lot of council members and planning commission have asked over the last 10 15 years when you develop do you all keep records of how many houses were built how many acres of commercials and all that is this plan to go going to be able to help us now keep more track of that because i don't think we've kept a great track of that information over the last 15 20 years that says we have built this many we have done this and so we can go right to it and and find out how much is being built. It seems when you put goals together, you're going to see, well, we've done a lot of development here, but we may need to add more. Is that in the goals and plans? Well, we actually have that instituted through our technology now, through the Acela program that you all have funded, that's been in place now for about a year. We'll be in a much better position to be able to calculate how much land has been developed and how it has been developed and for what purpose. We'll have much better data on that. So going forward, in very short order, we should be able to have those kinds of, that kind of input. I mean, I'm just trying, I mean... And also, with that, we want, then, that information is presently available to the public, that there's a citizen access to Acela, but we're also proposing, later on in the goals and objectives to have that information made readily available on our website so that anybody could easily find out the status of development in the community Goals and all that is gonna be mostly for planning commission and you guys I mean the council is gonna have a say on what the future is for these goals, but at the end of the day Planning is gonna the planning committee And when we put new plan committees on there these are the kind of questions I hope they like to ask is how much have we done and all this because their job is good I mean ours is just to make sure we can make it clear enough for them to help the jobs a lot easier than what it's been so I just think to me we need to be more detailed in helping them in the future because a lot of these guys who've been here won't be here in that four or five years And again, Mr. Maloney, looking back to the study that we talked about at the beginning of the session today, that will also be an outcome of that as well, because we're recommending that once we've identified where future urban land that's not in the urban service boundary could be, then we'd want to see how the development patterns and the development metrics have been accomplished in the urban service boundary as part of the triggers and thresholds that would have to be met before new urban land would be added for development. So getting that information is extremely important to the future of new development in the community. Thank you. Thank you. Council members, I think the question is, we either have 18 minutes or 23 minutes. I would recommend starting on creating jobs and prosperity on that section and then breaking. But if people would rather break now, so I see heads nodding yes. Okay. Then I would ask one other thing of council. Would you look at your calendars and see if we could, on the October 17th date that we now have, if we could start at 10 instead of 11? and on October 19 if you just put a placeholder we may ask the corridors Commission to either postpone or change their date so that we would have one more working day if we need it before the 24th and we'll send something out about that but okay in that case and say a motion to adjourn Thank you. I was standing