Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. We're a little behind. It's 10.03. Not too bad. Welcome, everybody. Hope you had a good holiday weekend. Mr. Phillips, I know you had a nice weekend on Sunday. Hey, no problem, no problem. I just want to welcome you today and start this agenda out. We want to go to agenda item two. We do have approval of the previous meeting summary minutes. Are there any changes? Please state those changes. If not, the floor is open for a motion. So, I'm ready. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Second by Vice Mayor Wu. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. We do have a revised map based on direction from the advisory committee last week that we will review, but I also want to address some questions that have come up over the past couple of meetings and just want to make sure we're kind of all on the same page. One of the questions that has come up is why are we using the sewerability maps as a basis for building these maps? And we've talked about that in that, of course, the sewerability maps are topographic maps. They represent the ridges and the rills of the areas around the urban service area, or in plainer speak, where sanitary sewer service can be more easily provided, particularly from gravity flow. The sewerability maps were identified in the late 90s and first studied in 2006 as part of a sewerability study. That 2006 study formed the basis for a number of comprehensive plan decisions in 07. And then that sewerability study has continued to be referenced because it also factors into the scoring of PDR applications. So it's been an important policy of this community for quite some time. If you recall looking at the sewerability map, there are sewerability areas that touch almost every part of the boundary of the urban service area. And where they don't, it's in places like Calumet Farm and Masterson Station Park and the Blackburn Correctional Center. And then there are a few other places. And one of them you all identified last week and asked us to look at that was not part of the sewerability area. But we looked at that as the basis for forming where do we want to start thinking about growth, expansion of the urban service area, and use that along with inputs from the council, the direction from the council, inputs from PDR to determine how we rank these sewerability areas as far as their potential for having the least impact on our rural area and having the most impact on meeting the council's criteria and addressing future sanitary sewer infrastructure needs. So that's why we use the sewerability area as a basis. But as you certainly know, last week we stepped outside of that. It certainly formed the basis for this, gave order to the work, and it still provides valuable information. gross versus net and i'm afraid the staff has contributed to that confusion sanitary sewer used one calculation for gross versus net based on lot size and staff uses a different distinction based on the the land itself where we are with gross versus net in all the reports that come to you on these maps is gross is boundary to boundary. So everything within any of those boundaries, when we say gross, that represents gross. And we're going to do our best to speak only gross acres. The net acreage represents the removal of the floodplain because you cannot develop in floodplain. So that land is not suitable for development, although it can be incorporated into development, but we take it out, and that's a long-standing planning practice when we're talking about vacant land in the urban service area. What part of that is encumbered by floodplain? We look at that at development plans or zone changes, so that's a long-standing practice to exclude floodplain when we're talking about development of land, and then this committee also asks that we not consider publicly owned land. LFUCG, Commonwealth, United States, schools, UK, that kind of thing. For purposes of the mapping that we have done so far, only two small areas show up as publicly owned, and that is a little thumbnail of the city's Cardinal Run North Park and then the Brenda Cowan Elementary School. None of the other land that you all have been considering is publicly owned, but there is floodplain in most of these areas, and so we have reported that. Gross and net will come into play should this committee reduce the recommendation to the Planning Commission to the 2,700-acre range because this committee decided last week that they want to send to the Planning Commission 2,700 net acres of land. So that means taking out the floodplain and the publicly owned land. So that total number might be 2,800 acres or so. But if you send an upper limit to the Planning Commission, say 4,800 to 5,000 acres, that's likely going to be all gross, and anything net would just be part of that. So no more than 5,000 acres gross, no less than 2,700 acres net, and we'll try not to add any more confusion to that. Some of you were talking about zone changes last week. That is certainly something that we deal with every month in the Division of Planning. In addition to long-range planning, we are also responsible for all the zone changes and all the development plans and all the subdivisions and all the sort of day-to-day work that people think of in planning. Let me tell you unequivocally that every zone change in Fayette County is hard. It is contentious. It doesn't matter where it is. And, of course, so far for the past couple of decades, we've only been working on zoning within the urban service area for the most part. And I will tell you, whether it's an apartment complex in the expansion area on Manowar, whether it's an infill site for market rate apartments on Wellington, whether it's new construction of single-family houses near Dogwood, no matter whether it's luxury condos on Tate's Creek Road, they are all contentious. And nearly all of those zone changes ended up at the council with another zone change hearing. So, we don't like it either. It just pits neighbors against each other. It creates fights. Sometimes it creates better development, but sometimes it creates compromise. It takes us away from what the community has adopted for the plans. So, but whether they're easy or hard, the staff is ready for them, and we are capable of dealing with those, and we will work with those. We will work with applicants. We will encourage the work with the neighborhoods to bring them along. So I tell you all that to don't fear the zone change process because it's fearsome anyway. It already is. And no matter where we go, no matter where you choose on this, there's going to be somebody's ox getting gored, and they're not going to like it, and we're going to have to deal with that. And that's just the nature of zoning in Fayette County. And then finally, some of you all have expressed some questions about the schedule of all of this. So I want to speak to why we have a schedule that we're working on. And it is entirely the making of the Urban County Council. The council said the Planning Commission shall identify no less than 2,700 acres and no more than 5,000. Shall. There's no equivocation in that. We have to do it. The Urban County Council said, by December 1, 2024, adopt a new expansionary master plan to ensure the above acreage is reasonably developed while balancing the integrity of agriculture and the clear need to ensure coordinate for additional acreage to address Lactington's housing and economic development needs. December 1, 2024. That's 15 months from now. And this is the kicker. This is the last sentence in Objective C that the Urban County Council adopted. Completion of this master plan shall be the priority of the work of the Division of Planning to ensure timely adoption and implementation of critical needs identified, with those critical needs being housing and economic development. The Urban County Council has compelled us to do this. And I can tell you in 31 years of local government professional planning, 20 of them here at Lexington, I know what it takes to do a master plan. I know how complicated they are, and I know in this particular case there's going to be the need for public engagement that's going to add pressures to the process. And we don't have the time to extend this. December 1st, 2024 is 15 months from now, and we need to be able to give the consultants, which we will bring on board as soon as we have this map ready to go, the fullness of the time to work on that. So, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to remind everyone to answer some of those questions that have been raised and remind you all why it is so important that we press on with this work as directed by the Urban County Council. Mr. Duncan, just for clarification, when we talked initially about what was growth and what was net, we took out the floodplain. We also took out rural settlements. We also took out parks. Are you saying that that is not now a part of that consideration? I believe all along, Mr. Wilson, that we've been talking about publicly owned land, so that would include parks. We acknowledged that the rural settlement existed, but it's all private land, and there was some discussion about whether that should be set aside and not encroached upon for development, and that discussion can still be on the table. But for gross and net purposes, the staff has only talked about floodplain and publicly owned land. I think we should consider those rural hamlets. I know I talked with some of them before, but we can do that collectively, I would think. I agree with you. Nothing with you, Mr. Duncan, just between us? Absolutely. That's part of the discussion of the maps. Yes, indeed. Okay. All right. Is there any questions for Mr. Duncan before he carries on? Press on here. Okay. At the end of the meeting last Tuesday, you all asked us, you received the first version of the maps, version one, as Chris Dorge is labeling, version one. You asked us to work up two properties south of Todd's Road that were not part of a sewer ability area. Mr. Martin acknowledged that those could be considered because of the lay of the land there and the connections, so staff has worked those up. So let's go around and just show where we are with this right now. And by the way, when we sent these to you all on Friday, we noted specifically that now we are 87 acres over the 5,000 limit. So without question, we have to come up with 87 acres to remove from this map if you really love these maps the way they are. So here we are. It looks generally the same as it did last week, but we'll get to some specifics, particularly in the Athens-Boonesboro area to show how it's different. So Area 2, Sewer-Billy Area 2, here we are, Manowar Boulevard, Dunbar High School, Parker's Mill Road, Bowman Mill. It is unchanged from what was presented to you last week. Area 3, to the north, across Manowar Boulevard, one change. We notched out the corner of Wellesley Heights. we had told you all that we would need to make a decision either to include all of Wellesley or to remove it. So staff removed that de minimis amount of land, changing the acreage for Area 3 to 393, the only change. Area 6 and 7, here we are, the big one. Interstate 64 heading east. Interstate 75 heading south Winchester Road heading east Worcester Road down the middle You did not ask for any nor did staff make any changes to areas 6 and 7 3,041 acres Areas 10 and 12 we have some change here This is the area heading south on Athens Boonesboro south on I-75, this is the Childsburg neighborhood, and the Brenda Cowan Elementary School in pink right here. In the previous depiction, we had included, the staff had included Blue Sky Rural Activity Center on the west side of Interstate 75. In this depiction, we have removed that. So we follow the boundary of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center here in this triangle piece, still keeping most of Area 12, most of Area 12, I'm sorry, most of Area 10, most of Area 12 north of Athens-Boonesboro, and then what we call the Pond property, which was not part of a sewer ability area, but that flows in the northeaster direction. All the property south of Athens-Boonesboro Road, which had been included, which was the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, where the soccer stadium is being developed, we have removed that. So now Area 10, the total acreage is 641, Area 10 and 12. And then finally, you ask us to work up this property on Todd's Road. So here we are, kind of underneath the legend of the map here, or the title of the map is Polo Club Boulevard coming down to Todd's Road. This is a church at the corner of Todd's and I-75 and Todd's Road heading east. two large parcels here. Those total 344 acres together, 125 for the smaller parcel on the west and 219 on the east. Approximately, Chris George can certainly fine-tune that if we need to. Those are my calculations. So these two parcels added south of Todd's Road following property lines until we intersect with the Cane Brake development. So let's back into that. So Cane Brake coming in from Athens Boonesboro Road. Here's Cane Brake Drive kind of curving along. And it ends right here at a loop street. And then parcels coming off of that to the north. So in the depiction, including the Two Tides Roads property, we saw an opportunity for the future to create a north-south collector system through here that would certainly serve the developments of these two areas and provide another means for the folks of Deerhaven and the southern part of Blackford further on up to come south to I-75. Now, Cane Break is not an improved road. It's a rural cross-section. But there is a good amount of right-of-way that already exists so that in the future, if these properties are included, and once they are developed, then the master plan would likely show a way of connecting a collector road system through this area using the existing right-of-way of Cane Break. The properties between I-75 and Cane Break are all included, most of which are in the Sewer Ability 13 area. So we have these two parcels that are not, and then the two parcels you ask us to include. In this depiction, we also removed the commercial portion of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So now the boundary follows the northern boundary of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. We also removed the southern portion of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, plus the existing 30 or so acres that wrap around Blue Sky south of Athens-Boonesboro Road. Staff did that both on the east and the west sides of I-75 because we were 191 acres over the limit at that point with the addition of the two Todd's Road parcels. So we took a stab at bringing that number down, noting again that nothing changes for the status of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center if it's included in the urban service area. It already has sanitary sewer, it already has urban zoning, and it's already been subject to rezoning. So to all intents and purposes, it is an urban area. But in order to meet the 5,000 acre minimum, we took out as much as we could, still leaving 87 acres for you all to consider. Mr. Chair, that is a breathy overview of what you all asked us to do and how staff responded. We'll be happy to address any questions. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And by the way, Mr. Chair, we also have Chris Dorge, his nimble fingers if we need to do any cutting and additions kind of on the fly right now. Okay. Mr. Duncan, I had just a question for starters. If I may, on areas 6 and 7, we were talking about the rural hamlets. Do we have an idea how much acreage that makes up? Udingertown and Columbus, is that what the area you're talking about, Mr. Chair? Yes, that's correct. So it would be right in here, this area in this case that's colored in what looks like a dark green or a black. Yes, I think it's black. Chris, George, do you know what those acreages are roughly? Thank you. Chair, I'm working on a project with the hamlets. I don't know that specific acreage on Udingertown in Columbus. I can find it out. But I know cumulatively for 14 out of the 24 is 505. And I can go back and track. Some are not as identified in some city work that was done back in the 1990s, but I can find out. But to give you, I think a ballpark is around 1,000 to 1,200. Okay, and that's for all 14? That's 24. 24. Projection. Excuse me, 24. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. Mr. Chair, about 23 acres gross. All right. Thank you. That's good to know. I'm just looking at cutting it down. Yes. Okay. All right. Any questions? I know we have some. Yes, Councilmember Brown. I'm just going to speak for myself. Right now, I'm thinking that we should include the Hamlets in the calculation. I don't know if this committee is authorized to charge anybody with designating or thinking about a way to designate the hamlets if they get brought into the urban service boundary, but I think not including them if this area gets brought in, I think further limits their opportunity to grow and develop in a way that would be beneficial to the folks that live there. So I think we should include them if we're going to include the area surrounding them. with the caveat that we are requesting that a designation for that area be explored to give them opportunity but also protect them. So that's my suggestion. Thank you, Council Member Brown. That's helpful. Mr. Shell, let me give you an update. Chris is working feverishly over there. He says it's 79 acres. I think he had calculated just one of the settlements, but together the two, Udinger Town and Columbus, about 79 acres. Chair, I would also add that I understand where Council Member Brown is coming from. There is a great chance of gentrification in some of those Hamlet areas, and I think that needs to be put on the table as well. Some of those folks, families have leaped in those areas, Columbus, Unger Lane, for a long time. Thank you, Ms. Plumman. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Plumman, do you know with these hamlets, are there any specific protection designations for them right now? The Rural Land Management Plan refers to them and that they should be preserved. Now, the preservation is not detailed, and that could be part of what comes down the road. But they say it shall be preserved. Okay. But as of today, could they be redeveloped? Like, you know what I mean? Like, is it an ordinance or any, like, legal protection for those hamlets right now? The only reference that I am aware of is in the Rural Land Management Plan. Okay. And that is specified. Okay. But it's not necessarily by ordinance. So in theory, they still could be developed. I'm pretty sure, but I'll double-check on that. Yes, they can. And, Vice Mayor, if I may, in this case, of course, there's no sanitary sewer, so that would limit the development potential. But also, in this case, Southingertown and Columbus are zoned R1, so they already have an urban zone. But certainly sanitary sewer would be the limiting factor for much redevelopment there. Mr. Wilson. Yeah, I have one quick question. And what does it take to protect the Hamlets? I mean, is that an ordinance coming from the council, or how does that work? Council Member Plumman, I'll be glad to start. Please feel free to. I can tell you, Mr. Wilson, that about 12 years ago or so ago, University of Kentucky was contracted by the government to study all the rules, identify them, map their historic boundaries, and that was all incorporated into the comprehensive plan. So as Council Member Plowman says, that's all been sort of we've got a starting point now for the historic size and location and purpose of the rural settlements. And then at that time, it was suggested that there could be other measures taken to provide more protection for them. So they've got some protection by being in the rural area because they're limited to how much they can redevelop. But it depends on what they're trying to preserve, if it's the lotting pattern, if it's the land use, some of those things cannot really be changed in the rural area anyway. As they're coming into the urban service area, then if you want to protect them, then you would have to think about some other sort of urban protection, such as a historic designation or neighborhood design. And following up on what Council Member Brown said, though, once you do that, that locks down the potential for the property owners to do anything, to do much else with that property. So it's certainly worth the discussion to say how much protection do they need and how much do they want and how much should they be provided. Thank you. Certainly, if Udingertown and Columbus were included in the expansion acreage, they would be acknowledged in the master plan, and the master plan may make additional recommendations. I don't believe the master plan would make specific statements about what should be done, but could make recommendations about what could be done for those. CHAIRMAN BRYANT Thank you, Chair. To follow up on Ms. Johnson's point, that's definitely something that I've thought a lot about is, like, what is the charge of this committee? And I think it's we're kind of limited, but we're also it's so complicated that even though we're not charged with these specific elements, I think the land that we identify kind of puts a framework around that. And I don't know if this is a question you can answer, Director, that if we identify X number of acres for the consultant to do the master plan, can they adjust those acres? Can they bring it up or bring it down? The Planning Commission will make that final decision. So I believe the consultants will work within the boundaries that they are given by the Planning Commission, which is going to make a tentative recommendation based on the input from the Advisory Committee. I do not believe that. They may make in a separate report that if you did this, you could do this kind of thing, but they're going to plan the area that the Planning Commission gives them. Okay. Okay. So while you are correct that so much of this more nuanced, detailed work is going to be the consultant, the lines we draw dictate what they even get to look at. And so I think it is important to kind of take these into consideration, even if they're not like official criteria by which we score things, we do have to think about the ramifications of it. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Phillips. Yeah, I think it's also very important because we may be setting a precedent here on how we treat not just these two but others as well. And so I think it is a very valuable consideration as to how we treat it for its presidential value. I would also, not familiar with these particular hamlets, I'd be very interested in getting a response when we do have the public feedback period to know what these people would prefer, whether they would prefer in or out. I know that's maybe not one of our considerations of who wants to be in and out, but these hamlets are unique and have historic value and cultural value, And I think in this instance, that's also an additional consideration that I would like to take into account. Thank you. Kathy, do you have any notions about, you mentioned what the public, the people who live there may want, any notion based on your work to this point? In our experiences with the different hamlets and conversations, that we go out to them and have like a meeting to talk about that. we could access that. I just know that they, one, obviously they're very historical. They're very family-based. They are very well respected with those folks that live around and they're proud of them. That's generation after generation after generation grew up there. And they all have a church for the most part. They had schools. A few Rosenwald schools were out there. So there is a great deal of pride. And I think the outreach to them about their thoughts would be something that we've won we've done some but it's not really been about future usage it's about honoring the past and celebrating the past thank you appreciate that because I also appreciate you you're raised the issue about potential gentrification and in those areas because if you talk off record a lot of those people knows there's they've always felt that they weren't given prioritization in terms of what was important to them. I go way back to when I graduated from college and we were in this hamlet. A lot of us taught adult education to those people in the small churches. and those people were very, very serious about retaining their communities. We actually have a community meeting with the Etenborough folks on the 19 out on site at the church so that we could weave that in there. Yeah. Okay, Mrs. I'd like to make a suggestion here. I understand that the mayor wants to ride us around town and look at some of these properties. Is it possible that we could put a Hamlet into this tour? Mr. Wilson, the tour that we have mapped out has us going right by Udgar Town in Columbus. Oh, great. Thank you. I was just going to ask if there was an entity that represented those areas, like a homeowners association or anything like that, that we could get some feedback from on them. So I'm with the rest of you all for the most part on whatever their pleasure is and how they want that protected. But I also see Council Member Brown's point earlier about including them and maybe protecting them through the expansion area master plan to give them options in the future without tying up their property rights or at least knowing what they feel about their property rights and what they want to do, what would work for them. So I don't know if there's anything like an HOA. I doubt if there's official HOA, but if there's a group that represents them from the community. Council Member Plumman, that's her constituents. And I can tell you which ones I can find out. We have a few of them. I would lean toward expediting our work here. I don't really care. Making a decision on whether we include them or exclude them for the purpose of our map building. and then if they want in, we let them in, or if they don't want in, we find a way to exclude them from the acreage count just to expedite our work here. Yep. That's all good points. So from the MAP standpoint, Mr. Duncan, can we look at, just as a group, how does everybody want to consider areas 10 and 12 and 13 for right now just to get things started? whether we are okay with that acreage, want to remove anything in that acreage, that seems to be the less controversial. Mr. Brown? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I just got a quick question. So around the blue sky area, the way I'm looking at it, and it's the map that's showing 10 and 12, so the beige-colored area is the blue sky, and then the gray area, I mean, it's the rural activity center, but the gray area is kind of inside that. They're designated rural, and they're not part of the Rural Activity Center? You've got two different grays on the map, Council Member Brown. The gray area inside the sort of tan, it represents buildings. And then it's the gray in the parcels surrounding the area that Chris has showed as part of the rural service area. Okay, so the gray inside the tan, that's buildings. Yes, those are buildings. There were gas stations and fast food restaurants and that kind of thing. Okay. And the change that was made to the map, that was purely just an exercise to try to reduce some of the acreage. It was to reduce the acreage, yes, because whether they're in the urban service area or not does not change their status. They already have sanitary sewer and they have urban zoning. So that being in the urban service area does not change their status. Okay. All right. Thank you. If the chair is looking for a motion, I would move to include areas 10, 12, and 13 for consideration into the map. Okay. Second. We've got a motion and a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? The motion is merely to discuss it. Mr. Tune. I think you move into discussion after the motion is. I was moving to discussion after. I thought you were going to have a discussion. But my motion was to bring, for consideration of this committee, to bring in areas 10, 12, and 13 into the map for the expansion acreage we're considering. Okay. And then the second it was by Mr. Wilson. And now I was going to ask for any discussion to that motion. Mr. Phillips? I just wanted clarification on what the motion was actually. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, so we can start our vote now. Hold on. You got a discussion? Okay. Yes, please. So overall, our map, everything that we're considering right now is a little bit over 5,000 acres. I feel like it would be prudent to talk about 6 and 7 before we do anything else because we're not going to get to the acreage without 6 and 7. if we start off with the small pieces, you know, and then we hit a snag with the larger piece, I think it's going to make things a little more difficult. So in my mind, we start with the larger piece and see how we do, and then we discuss the smaller pieces to potentially add on. So thank you. You're welcome. I would like to go kind of where we're going, and then we can go to six and seven next if this is possible. because that seems to be the less controversial one, in my opinion, based on the heads and nodding and things. So I would rather move forward with 10, 12, 13 right now than we can hit six and seven immediately afterwards since we're this far down the pike on 10, 12, and 13. Just for purposes of further discussion, I think there's a big difference between 10 and 12 and then 13. And I would suggest perhaps we can do it any way you want with the motion, but 13 to me is controversial and I think will be controversial. 10 and 12 will not be, although I totally concur with Dan Wu that what we're doing is putting the small pieces first and then the real substantive pieces second, and I think that's kind of backwards, my opinion. I appreciate it. I'd like to add we haven't discussed 13 at all. That got slipped in at the end of the last meeting and then emailed out to us. And to make a decision about this today without a full-blown conversation about whether 13 should be included or not, is not something I feel comfortable with. I would also, I'm sorry, Chair. Go ahead. I would also add just personally, I'd prefer us to look at the total picture where we end up at versus in just taking sections. I think once you look at the total picture, we can be able to tell if it really makes more sense than to kind of fragment and just keep adding on or skipping it. I don't know. I'm just not comfortable taking a vote on what the total thing looks like when it's all said and done. I hope I explained that right. Thank you, Chair. No, you're welcome. I need to hear it all. Yes, Ms. Johnson. I was just going to add, I think based on the work that the planning staff has done to give us an extensive amount of data and criteria and scoring, that there appears to be consensus in the group to move forward with 10 and 12. And I think there's a sense of urgency for us to at least start this process. And I think once we look at 13, you know, based on the data points that we've been given, it's also going to be one that rises to the top. So I would support moving forward with 10, 12, and 13. Thank you. So what we can do is an option. We can have an amendment to that vote, if you so choose, Ms. Wirth. Well, if we're going to move forward with this. If that's what, eventually we're going to have to vote on something. I don't want to get bogged down and wheezed on it. Yes, sir. Okay, so what's going to happen, I think, if we start with these smaller areas like 10, 12, 13, 2, and 3, we're basically headed towards the maximum acreage. So for me, I'm going to make my push for what I think this committee should do. I don't think we can absorb 5,000 acres in any reasonable amount of time, given that there's still 2,700 left over undeveloped from 1996. This process does not close the door on future expansion at all. In fact, the thing that I lobbied for in goals and objectives in goal four was to create a process that we can move forward with future expansions based on need and based on requests. So the door is not at all closed. In fact, towards the end of 2026, we will have a process built in place to help us tackle potential expansions. So I don't see personally a rush to get to 5,000 acres, given the speed at which we absorb new land and developable land. I don't want us to end up like we did in 1996. six. I don't want future councils, future constituents, future planning folks to say, what did they do in 2023? Why did they add an additional 5,000 acres? And two decades down the road, we've only developed half of that. And we're going to be in the same boat again, because we never built a cohesive, reasonable process. So if we head down this road of kind of adding these small pieces, we're going to have to add six and seven to get to our minimum at all. And then if we add six and seven last, we not only have a minimum, we get to our maximum. And so I'm very, very cautious about moving in that direction. A couple other things, specific to 13, I agree that we have not had any real discussion about 13. I'm also very leery about crossing the interstate. I think that's going to have a lot of complications and costs. Chair, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor. I'm going to call point of order just because we have a motion on the floor, and unless there's an amendment to that motion, I think we'll just get bogged down. So I'm just going to call point of order. Thank you. So question about the amendment. Can I amend, can I move that we discuss the larger portion first? And that would be six and seven. Six and seven? Mm-hmm. Okay. So you're making an amendment to discuss six and seven? It would be prior to any discussion of 10, 12, and 13, whatever those numbers are. Chair, just a point of order. The motion was specific for two parcels, not including six and seven at this time. So either I would suggest either amendment be put forward to include or exclude one or both of those or move forward or a new motion come forward for six and seven. I don't know what the proper parliamentary procedure on that. No, I was going to mention that to Ms. Wirth. I'm going to ask Mr. Parliamentarian over there. Yes. I just happen to be walking along the street. But Mr. Johnson is correct on that. This is a brand new motion. You still got a motion on the floor. You got a second. The question is, are you going to amend that motion, or are you going to vote it out? One of the two. If it's voted out, then, Ms. Worth, your motion comes back as a new motion to deal with it. So you need to deal with the motion that you have on the table. Do you wish to amend it or not? That's the question. Thank you. Council Member Brown? Thank you, Chair. It sounds like I think the reason that the motion was made on this on 10 and 12 is because they seem less controversial. So 13 is new and just been presented. So if we want to discuss 13 separately, then I would make a motion to amend to remove 13 from the motion, from this motion, and just consider 10 and 12 to get us started at building a map and creating acreage. Okay. So move. All right. So we got amended motion to include 10 and 12. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Worsham. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Now what you do is you go to the amendment first. First, yes. We're voting on the amendment first. That's correct. So the votes are here on your screen. Please vote yes or no. How many we got? I've got 10 votes and there's 12 of us. Is everybody? It's 11. Missing one. Okay. 9, yes, 2, 3, no for the amendment vote. Now we come back to the original motion to include 10, 12, and 13. No, no, no. 10 and 12. Sorry, 10 and 12. 10 and 12. So let me stop that one. So I believe the amended motion would be to consider bringing in area 10 and 12 to the map. Yes. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Wilson. Okay. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Now we'll vote electronically here. Okay. That's 12. So seven yes, five no. Okay, Mr. Duncan, you have that? Yes, thank you. Okay. So going back to Vice Mayor Wu's statement and Ms. Wirth's statement about maps six and seven, we want to tackle that now. Chair, is this more discussion or do we need a motion format to have the discussion? There will be more discussion for, and if we want to take a motion to have further discussion for six and seven, as Ms. Worth has mentioned. Yes. Mr. Chair, before someone calls a technicality on you, this is the privilege of the chair. You can just have a discussion before the motion or you don't have to. Many times the chair does that in order to clarify the motion in a much better, much reasonable fashion. Normally speaking, in the parliamentary procedure, you don't have any discussion of any kind until that motion is made. But in this case, the chair has a privilege. I'm leaving after this. Thank you. Unless you all go. No. Listen, I'll do it my best. That's why I talk to you. So I appreciate that. I'm glad you're my right-hand man. Mr. Chair, I'd like to have the discussion before we get into the motion, if we can do that. Yes, I would be very open for that. Yes. And Ms. Worth, this is 6 and 7, right? Areas 6 and 7 that you're referring to? Yes. Okay. And I'm looking at 6 and 7 is 6, whatever we do with the Hamlet and 7. We've got the version I'm looking at is the August 29th map with a wing of seven and the, I don't know what we call it, it's not a wing, down at the bottom of seven. Is that what we're talking about here? Ms. Worth, do you not have the September 5th version? Probably not. It is the same, but just make sure you're looking at September 5th version two. Oh. Well, I printed them out, so I have notes on it. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I have too many papers floating around here. So we're looking at the September 5th version. I would like to consider reducing the size of that portion and move that we, because of what's there that we draw a line. I don't know what road it is, but it's a property line where it's 3301 Winchester. There's a property line above that, and that we cut off six at that point. Are you about right here? Yes. Yes, I am. So you'd like for us to see if we could calculate what this would be if it was removed from consideration? Yes. Yes. Mr. Duncan, is that everything west of North Cleveland Road there, if I'm coming up North Cleveland? And as long as we're slicing and dicing, could we go ahead and add the section of 7 that's over on the left-hand side of the map? That gives you 1933, gross, 1720. This is 1933. Okay. Yeah. It's not included as 6. So we're going to look at the two together. And if I could help make some clarification on that. But whatever draft maps you all land on today that we present for public comment, we will relabel them simply A, B, C, D, E. There won't be 6 and 7 and 3 and 4 and all of that sort of thing, or 2 and 3 and that sort of thing. So for purposes of this calculation, Ms. Worth, areas 6 and 7, both on the east and the south, or west and the south, have been included together along with 6. Okay. So, right, following all of this red is all one calculation. That's the 3,041 acres. If you cut the line right here, that brings this area down to 1,900 acres, approximately 1,900 acres. We'll get that precise number for you. but including this portion of Area 7 and all of these parcels up to this property line, this area in here, around 1,900 acres. Okay. Thank you. And I'm not doing that arbitrarily. I'm looking at what's there, and that makes sense to me. Ms. Worth, was that a motion or are we still in discussion? That's discussion. Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you. I think while they're working on that, I just wanted to ask Charlie, how does that impact any models or sewerability downstream? What direction is the water flowing from the creeks that we see on the map? It's flowing from Winchester Road towards I-64, so from the bottom to the top. So it's flowing north? Yes. So regardless of where we may cut in the line, the flow is still going in the right direction in the areas that are being considered. My only concern with the proposed amendment is it basically blocks out Greenbrier pump station, which is one of our consent decree problems, which is right where the cursor is right now. If you didn't include it in the boundary, at least providing us a means to be able to extend sewer up there to eliminate that pump station would be in the city's best interest. In eliminating the pump station, you would need to put infrastructure in the areas that we're considering. Right. You would need to tie into a gravity sewer that's just inside the amended boundary and flowing north towards I-64 to whatever infrastructure gets put in there as part of the development. Okay. Oh, yeah, sorry. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Martin, is there a different way to tackle the issue that you have with that Greenbrier pump station outside of bringing it into the expansion area? I know we have made allowances for projects or things like this outside the USA in the past, right? I think that would have to be the case. It had to be a special provision of some form or another that allowed infrastructure to be outside the urban service boundary, but prohibited connection to that infrastructure. And that's something the council could authorize? I believe so, but I'd have to look at the law department for advice on that as well. I mean, we've done it in the past, as you pointed out. Every piece of infrastructure that we have that's outside the urban service boundary right now is linked to some type of master agreement that was approved by the council. Okay. So in my estimation, Mr. Martin's, Director Martin's issue with the pump can be solved another way, and however we cut this in terms of inclusion shouldn't negatively impact it. We have other remedies. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. This is the 12th District, so I know this area pretty well and drive up and down Oyster often. A couple of thoughts. I didn't know where we ended up on the Greenbrier, Charlie. I know that that's always been a problem. Did you say that we definitely had to have it in or not in the pump station? The existing pump station is located in the entrance to Greenbrier. It's basically in the traffic island. There's no place else to build it. Ideally, getting rid of it and turning it into a gravity solution is preferable to us. The other alternative would be to build a new pump station, but that would have to be located across Winchester Road outside the urban service boundary. Okay. Back to the whole picture again, and I know we want to keep going, but I think of that road and the expense of having to widen that road. Right now we don't even have paving. That comes from the, I'm trying to think where I said it before. But it's just on the accessible road. I just keep thinking about that. The other thing I would bring up, and Director Duncan, maybe you can ask me, what was the thought of not including the 10-acre lots that are out there? And most of these have homes, kind of big mansion homes, but these are individuals that someday might want to sell those homes, just like other folks would want to sell their homes. So I didn't know why they were not included. If you could answer that for me, please. Well, Council Member Plum, a lot are included. In fact, most of the property surrounding Utter County and Columbus are those smaller 10 to 20-acre lots. I'm thinking about Cleveland. I'm sorry, which road? Cleveland. Off of Winchester. Well, that's a rural subdivision, looks like there. Subdivisions don't get redevelopment opportunities. It's the piano key lots that front the road that have the redevelopment opportunities. So certainly the remaining piano keys between where we've drawn the boundary at Royster Road and North Cleveland could be included, yes. That was not the direction that the committee asked, but they could be included and could be considered for future redevelopment. Yeah, I was just trying to find out. But what we have, you see in there, in Area 7 and the areas around Columbus, there's a lot of those piano key lots that are included. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Pullman. Ms. Johnson? Thank you. I just a point of clarification can we have a bit more discussion on why there would be this desire to remove this area because in just looking at six and seven as they stand today and the criteria that we've been given by the council and all the data that we've looked at that the Planning Commission has provided the staff excuse me the planning staff has provided it appears to be sewerable it's next to the urban service area it's near major transportation corridors and And given where future development is occurring inside the current urban service area, it appears to be reasonable and responsible areas to consider for inclusion to send to the Planning Commission. So I'd just like to know what the concerns are and why the recommendation is to exclude the areas that have been mentioned. Partly because there's a significant amount of agriculture. a significant amount of agricultural land in that area, and it goes up into areas that are PDR-related. If you go up north of that, if we get on the bus and drive out there, I think you'll see what I'm talking about. I would just reiterate what I was going to say, what Andy said. And to the point that the land that's being excluded is further away from PDR doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The other thing that I was going to point out is that we know in these areas there's a major highway transportation improvement plan for Winchester Road. I mean, we know the growth has been going there. Again, it seems logical that we would go here. The other thing that I would point out to Mr. Phillips' point a while ago about there is a number of acres that isn't developed from the last plan. The largest portion of that is from a property owner who's not willing to develop his property yet and hasn't since 96. In this area, in particular on Area 7, there's a property owner there that is a developer who has expressed interest in developing that property that they own. And again, it makes sense that we would take that into consideration so we don't get into a place where we're looking at land in 20 years that's still in developed. To me, this area makes sense from a lot of perspectives, transportation-wise, willing sellers, sewer ability, and that is where the growth has been going. Our largest two economic development projects that we've seen is coming out of the ground and getting ready to come out of the ground. It's the largest projects in investment and economic development we've seen in several years here in our community. It only makes sense that we provide areas for workforce housing, for other commercial support, for those things that are growing in that area already. Thank you. Mr. Phillips. Yeah, well, you yourself said that it's going to be eight to ten years before that is even developed, so I don't understand what the rush is. I know it's agricultural now. I know Royster Road is a small two-lane road. I know we do have PDR and several farms out there. This is not an endgame for 50 years. This is an endgame for the next five years. And this is why I wanted to, I think why we wanted to talk about 6 and 7 first, because it will make a difference how we decide on this on 2 and 3, 10 and 12. I just don't understand why there is a rush. when you yourself say it's going to take 10 to 12 years when there are other properties possibly that are closer in town that actually might have more facilitation to immediate development, which is the question we're facing, really, as a community. Not to mention the cost of six in the long term, which was one of the most expensive sewerable areas that we looked at according to the recent sewerability study. And as Dan said, I also believe that there are other ways on some of these issues that we can accommodate sewer issues. But anyway, that's where we are. I mean, that's why I would like to just trim it down because there are, you mentioned transportation, which, of course, is one of our criterias. But we're not looking at a lot of criterias that are also very germane. And we don't have time to. I respect Mr. Duncan's position on that. But sewer ability is not the only one that's going to be out there for our citizens. We can't consider it because we don't have time. But, therefore, I'm prone to being very conservative about the expansion that we're going to make. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I want to kind of piggyback on that a little bit. I think as we judge each priority area on its own merits, which is obviously important, we can't lose sight of the forest for the trees, which is, to me, total acreage, as well as where this acreage is going to be. I just don't think you can kind of look at them as these discrete individuals without looking at the total impact that it's going to have on our city in terms of cost. in terms of how fast we're going to absorb this land. You know, people have made really good points about how a big chunk of the undeveloped land from 1996 is from one owner that doesn't want to sell or develop. We don't know that about all the other areas that we're considering. This was not part of our study. We didn't take a survey and ask every single property owner, are you willing to sell? If so, in the next couple of years, how much are you trying to sell for? It'd be amazing if we had that data and we could see exactly what the places would be ripe for development. We're not looking at that at all. So we're kind of looking at this from other criteria. So the same exact thing could happen again. You know, I understand and believe that there are property owners who want to sell and develop their land, and that's great. And obviously that's what we're going for here. none of us in this room want us to expand and then have it just sit for the next 5, 10, 20 years. I think we can agree on that at least. So if we don't have that piece of exact data, to me, again, I would argue that we keep the expansion closer to 2,700 to 3,000 acres because we will have time down the road to continue expanding it. We are not closing this door. In fact, we're opening it right now, and we're going to keep it open once we have a process going that's going to be need-driven so that every potential expansion that comes before us literally will be from somebody who's saying, I would like to be included in the urban service area, and I would like to develop, and here's what I would like to do. there is a guarantee that those will be developed as opposed to us making these determinations of how we want to expand and then, fingers crossed, hope that things get developed. I think it's kind of a backwards way of approaching it. So it is what it is in my mind. We are in this process, and we have this mandate from council to do this work, but I am not a proponent of getting all the way to 5,000 because we're going to be in this exact same spot years down the road. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Duncan, when does that expansion on Winchester Road begin? Do you know? The road improvements? Yes. That is underway now as far as design goes and any right-of-way acquisition. So that is a project that will, within the next two years, I believe will be in construction. Now, the actual, what's the details? Is it going to a four-lane? Five-lane. Five-lane? Center-Turne Lane, yes. It'll go out from the I-75 area out to Haley. Okay. Haley off of Winchester Road. Okay. I was just curious because there's Mr. Phillips' comments. I'm just curious about the timeline. Yes, and there'll be some intersection improvements as well as sidewalk and trail facilities. Mr. Duncan, I ask Mr. Taylor, a week or so ago about historic data about absorption rates. He explained that it's hard to get, hard to compute, given the way we look at this. Can you give us a good estimate of what our rate has been? And you know that rascal ran out of town as soon as you asked for that information. Unless Hal and Valerie and Boyd can pull a rabbit out of their head, I don't believe I've got that information for you. However, I can tell you what Mr. Taylor, I believe the conversation he had with you, in that what we look at and what we've got with our consultants out of the Sustainable Growth Project is a recurring inventory of vacant land. And that number changes because property that we had previously called vacant or a property that we had not considered vacant becomes available, almost like found land, like the peninsula or the Spring Valley Golf Course. Those were never counted for vacancy purposes. So to try to put that into an absorption calculation is challenging, but what we do show is the land that was vacant at a point in time and then what is vacant now and then what that difference is. And I believe that we can have that updated information for you. I'd be glad to send that out to you all. Mr. Chair, is it appropriate now to make a motion to consider six and seven as they've been presented to us today by the planning staff? If there are not further discussions on that, I mean, there were several good key points. if yes mr. Washington So I do feel a good urgency because it is going to take so long to fill in these areas. We've got a crisis now, and we can't fix the crisis overnight. So I think it's important that we consider bringing as much land as possible so that we have more tools to meet the crisis. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Phillips. I was just going to ask. I mean, I lead a lot of housing demand studies across the country. Do we have a number of how many multifamily units, how many single-family units, how many townhomes we need, and where we expect those units to best be in demand? I can tell you that the last housing demand study we did, 2017, did provide that information. So it did tell us, and I can't tell you off the top of my head what it said, but it did call out what we needed in the form of multifamily, single-family. I believe it even addressed low-cost housing for low-income households. Did it include the counties around Fayette County, or was it just the demand for inside those county lines? It was just Fayette County, yes. Mr. Phillips. Yeah, I respect your opinion. I mean, there's no doubt this is not if we expand. We are expanding. And the question is how much are we expanding and where? So this isn't really that debate about expanding or not expanding, and we recognize that. I think that's very important to recognize. But I also recognize that we have one other commandment, if you will, from the city council, and that was relative to the horse capital of the world. It doesn't necessarily mean horse capital, what it really, I think the spirit of that is an agricultural connection of any kind. And that is so unique to this community that I think it is our identity and our legacy. And I think we need to be cautious about that because if you put 5,000 acres there, I mean, it's throwing a stone into a pond. The ripples just keep expanding. And we know we're going to be here again. So I caution you that we need to remember the second part of our charge here, and that is to keep us the horse capital of the world, to keep us connected with our agricultural heritage. And so for that reason, I think we need to be very, very careful on the rapidity with which we expand. We have our charge. We will find that 2,700 acres. But I am not supportive of just going out and saying, okay, we've got 5,000 acres. I mean, because 5,000 acres is a lot of land. When we talked about 5,000 acres, I think it was about 18% of the available land that we have in this county. That's a huge amount. So I respectfully disagree. Mr. Phillips, thank you. since the study and if you look back past that our historical housing production up until the recession was about 12 to 1300 houses per year if you look at 1996 whenever we brought in 5,000 acres at that time we had almost 12,000 acres of available land during that time between 1996 and when the first house was built on expanded land in 2002 we averaged about 1700 houses per year at that time because we had the land to do it. The reason we're not meeting those numbers today is because there is not the land available to the market to develop for housing of any type. So I actually know the study and know all the numbers, so that was more of a rhetorical question. My question really is, why are we considering the boundaries of the county as the only place where we can have residential housing for our workforce? I'd like to know the rate of housing, new housing in Jessamine County, Woodford County, Scott County, Franklin County, all those counties, because I am sure they are absorbing some of that demand. So I don't want to have this very high inflated demand for housing when I know we have some available land right now, but I know that the counties around us are considering this their challenge to say, we want to be the bedroom community for some of these places. We know there's demand. We know that we're not going to meet at any time in the near future, but the housing is being built. It may not be built inside the county lines. I understand that may be a factor when we're thinking about tax base, but we do have some housing. And I understand there's a housing crisis. It is national. But I don't want to say that this is very unique to this particular location. Mr. Martin, to add to Ms. Davis, do you know anything about Scott County? I know that I've Red and having some issues with their growth, too, due to sewer issues? Not to the level that she's asking about now. I was just curious because I was just trying to help address her question. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify, we don't have a motion on the table right now. Right. We're still in discussion. You had asked a question about making the motion, but was there an actual motion? It wasn't an actual motion yet. Okay. Ms. Johnson, I don't want to speak for you. I'm prepared to do that if that's not out of order. Okay. So I'll say this. I know I would be comfortable with bringing in six and seven in its entirety if we stop there. Because, again, I'm looking at total acreage and I'm looking at total impact of what we're doing. Now that we've already brought 10 and 12 in, I would be comfortable with that. And alternatively, if we're going to consider 2 and 3, if there's a big push for that area, I would lobby that or I would make an amendment that we cut 6 and 7 in the way that I think Ms. Worth described. So those are sort of my two alternatives and kind of the way I'm thinking about things. Vice Mayor, go ahead. I was just going to say, I want to put this in context because I think when we get into this area, we all start thinking about single-family homes. And the push in front of the Planning Commission right now is for greater density. And I would point out, for example, looking at these piano key lots down here, we recently approved a development that was on a little over eight acres that we cut back from 170 residences to 139. And on that eight acres, we had a community center, a swimming pool, a restaurant, and another facility, as well as apartments. Will you refrain from talking about that? That's not resolved yet. Thank you. Okay, sorry about that. Without saying specifics, erase those specifics, it is possible for us to produce a significant amount of housing on a very small amount of acreage. That's what I would say about that. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Mr. Wilson, just a question. I'm trying to add up all this acreage as we're going along here with my little calculator. What if we just took number six and did not take number seven? Would anyone... Because right now we're sitting at 4,326, and that doesn't include just what we voted a few minutes ago. Yes. I would entertain that if you made it as a motion. My only concern is it looks like where development may take place, is in seven because it's contiguous to existing neighborhoods and that sort of thing. But I think that may be a good place for us to have a conversation about as we think about the acreage that we're absorbing. So I'd entertain that motion. Director, could you just point out where that break would be if we were to do that? I don't see the lower break as well. Okay. So you want to excise seven from this? Is that all right? I was suggesting taking seven off the board for the time being, just to see if we can deal with six. So the sewer ability area for six, starting here at the southern split, to Royster Road, around Columbus-Uttinger, Royster Road coming in to Winchester Road, following Winchester Road in front of Greenbrier, back around our pump station, Hume Road, And then, of course, this little teardrop over here is Area 7, so Area 6 actually stops here on this side of Hume Road. So this is Area 6 from here, here, here, here. Mr. Chairman? Okay, I'm a little bit confused because we talked in the last meeting of having a sort of a modified six and seven, if you will, with the two wings, for lack of a better description. In seven in the northeast, the little wing of seven, and the little wing, the bigger wing of seven in what would be the southeast, northwest, I'm sorry, the top northwest of seven and the bottom northeast of seven, as including as sort of a modified six, as opposed to going into past Royce Road on seven, which I think has got PDR all over the place there. And so the bulk of 7 north of Royster Road is not what we're talking about, I think. Is that correct? I think your memory is correct. The area that's 7 on the left side of that map was actually a mistake. That line shouldn't have crossed that stream. And if you don't include that part of it, you've almost created a little island of its own because it's bounded by the interstate, by the exit ramps, and by whatever boundary would follow along Hume Road. So I would say not only from a practical standpoint, but also from a sewer standpoint, that left-hand number seven needs to be in. In a discussion for six, excuse me. Okay. Mr. Phillips? Clarification, what about the bottom wing of seven, if you will? Correct. that area there because the the proposal you had actually in the revised number six actually had that bottom section of seven in included as well from from a sewer perspective it can stand alone on its own or it can it can be included either one you know from a sewer standpoint our obviously interest is major and all the way to Richmond Road because of our concern about the Greenbrier pump station. I'm sorry. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking for more land that would be available in closer proximity. Thank you. You're welcome. Chris, the map guy, I mean a map guy, can he, can you help us give us a little better visual? So, Chris, I think what we're looking at is the entire Area 6 plus the little portion of Area 7 adjacent to the southern split. Did you want to? And it wasn't on the southern 7 too, right? Well, all of that is already included. So everything, this is included in the 3,041 calculation, this part. That's what you wanted out, right? Well, yes. I hadn't thought about that when we were talking about it, but I think he's absolutely correct. I mean, I was thinking about that 7 on top, you know, over to the far right, and I was only including 6, but what he says makes sense to me, and that is if you're going to do 6, you need to include that piece of 7 over there and then the possible 7 down here. And just for clarification, the staff has never depicted anything on the east side of Royster Road. The depiction has always been on the west side, southwest side of Royster Road. Mr. Martin is saying that this portion of Area 7 should have actually been molded into 6 to begin with. So that leaves this portion south of Winchester Road, next to Cleveland Road, as a portion of Area 7 that is included in these calculations. So just to clarify our acreage that we're talking about there, what you just described, Mr. Duncan, would give us 3,041 gross acres, 2798 net acres. Is that correct? That's this portion of seven, this little square of seven, and all of six. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, in thinking in terms of what we were trying to accomplish here and what Vice Mayor indicated, that would take care of it, right? That would meet the minimum requirements of the council. That would meet the minimum requirements. Yes. We wouldn't have to do anything else at that unless we just wanted to, right? That would meet the minimum requirements. All right. Thank you. I would like to make a motion that we vote on including six and both of the wings and seven as presented on this map. I'd second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion, Mr. Miss? One other discussion. If that's the case, are you still interested in still keeping in, what was it we just voted on? 10 and 12. In other words, does that take that off the board? I mean, that goes in an addition to 10 and 12 right now. And what I'm thinking is, if we've got the maximum already established, then why don't we just do a motion of reconsideration and kill off the other part? That's not the maximum. I don't mean to use it literally. Well, I was just trying to figure out, if that motion goes through, what we would have had, we would have accomplished coming up with the 2,700 gross acres, net acres, or whatever case we need. Then the question becomes, then, do we need 10 or whatever it is, 10 and 11, 11 and 12? And what I'm suggesting is maybe it could be a two-part motion or it could be two motions in one. I mean, it could be the motion to accept if we did that, we'd accept this, then we'd go back for a motion of reconsideration and take the other one off the table. I mean, but the question is, is that the sentiment of the group? I mean, if that's what you think it might be in the best. Do we want to get in going back on motions we've already made and passed? You can do that, especially in a motion of reconsideration. By the way, that's a motion of American invention. By the way, if I had known you were going to call on me to be a part of it, I would have brought my book because I want you to know that I'm not making this stuff up. You gave me a book. Point of order. Point of order. Point of order. Okay. Oh, you forgot. You shared the book with me. I still have it, so you don't have it. You're right. I will tell you, I sat through his class on parliamentary procedures two Saturdays ago. You don't want to argue with him. I don't know. You do want to argue. That's the whole point. I don't want to read what we've put together. But now you've got a possible motion over here on that particular six. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. If you're straw polling the room, I'd be in support of your suggestion. Okay, that would be good. Does everyone see? Okay, then in that case, Mr. Johnson doesn't like it. Councilman Brown, he doesn't like it like it either. Well, let's do two of us go outside and talk. So, yeah, I don't like it either. I think we just keep moving along and making motions, and if somebody wants to make a motion to reconsider, you can. And my concern is, you know, there's still an element of this process that we need, and it's public input. And I personally, I like to give the public as many options to give input to as possible. Not saying we shoot up the acreage, but, you know, there's certain sides of town that we may hear from some folks about we either want it or we don't want it. So if we box ourselves into one area or two areas, we're only going to hear from a certain section of our community. So I just think we need to be mindful of that. But I think as long as we stay in the range of acreage, then I think we're fine. But I'll entertain any motion that comes up. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Mr. Wilson, I'm just pausing in case you need to say anything else. No, I'm through. Okay. I think Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson. I wanted to do something. If she wanted it to have, whether it was. The floor is open for you, motion. she made it I want to can you repeat it yes I made the motion that we consider six and seven as it's presented to us on this map for inclusion in addition to the vote we've already taken on 10 and 12 okay we have a second to that motion we had a second by mr. Johnson we had the discussions so we can vote I guess on that. Did you vote, Mr. Wilson? Yes. I'm still thinking about it. Okay. All right. That motion passes. 11, yes, 1, no. All right. Mr. Chair? Yes. As long as we're on the subject, I would like to make a motion of reconsideration to remove 10 and 12 from the territory, from the areas that we're accepting. Okay. Because we have a minimum acreage already right here. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Plowman. Any further discussion to that motion? I would like to say, and I think Councilman Brown has a really good point that I like and that it's not removing options, but just if we did vote this way, it's still not removed that option. If we present the matters as we can, as Mr. Duncan has done, and everything would be on the table, and the people out there could make a decision or a discussion point about what we should consider or reconsider as such. So I don't think this actually boxes us in, but I think your point's well taken. Thank you. Larry? Yes, sir, Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to reiterate the same thing. You know, we go through a public input period. we're going to get a lot of input, whatever we recommend, on places we should or should not be doing or we have considered or should not be considering. We're going to get that anyway. And this is not a final vote. This is not to say this is what we're going to do because at the end of the day, after public input, which I'm really interested to hear, we're going to come back here and rethink this whole process again. so this is merely a recommendation nothing that boxes is in and i i promise you that the public is going to have their opinions and we're going to hear it so um that that's my my spin on it i just went you know i i don't live in fayette county and so i am not as familiar so i do want to make sure are we for sure doing this bus trip i mean because i would like to understand the lay or I will make sure I go out before the final, final vote and see everything. Yes, as we said, we have the bus trip scheduled for this same time slot next Tuesday. 10 o'clock, we'll be leaving from the transit center, and we'll be riding a Lex Tran bus just for us, and we have tentatively mapped out a route that would allow us to drive through or by all of the areas that have been depicted. Mr. Chairman? Yes, Mr. Wilson. I like the idea of going before the public with a minimum as opposed to a maximum. And the reason why is because in the people that I talk with, most of the people are more interested in infield development than they are interested in urban expansion. We can always come back, but this would help us politically in a lot of ways. But simply saying that we know we've got 2,500 acres that we didn't use the last time, If the question is answered immediately, then we just did a minimum in order to do and satisfy council requirements. That's my thought. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to reiterate Mr. Wilson's point as well. I think the more acreage that we put out there, the more resources that's going to take. and as the chair of the infill and redevelopment steering committee, that's a big priority of mine to make sure that we do better infill. I think we have a lot of issues with infill that need to be improved in that process, and this moves us much larger steps towards housing affordability, affordable housing, and thinking about gentrification. But I agree with the other sentiment in the room, is that no matter what number we put out there for the public next week, people will have opinions, people will want to go higher, lower, not at all. So regardless, I think, whatever number we put out there, as long as folks know that this is a preliminary vote, essentially a draft map, and then we're going to make our final decision in the following weeks. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to support what Bill said and what Vice Mayor said. make sure that we are focusing on infill redevelopment and avoiding gentrification. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Yeah, let me just add to that. I think the more we sprawl, the further we get away from infill and redevelopment. So I think the idea of keeping us focused will make us think more seriously about how we do infill and redevelopment. So Ms. Work, just somebody else. I was just going to say, you know, I think based on the comprehensive plan, this is not an either or. I mean, infill and redevelopment is absolutely a priority of this council to do that appropriately. The expansion piece is a secondary element. It's both options. And so just to bring us back, our task as this advisory committee is to look at what is responsible and a reasonable land for consideration of growth. and the council made it clear through the goals and objectives that we're to look at the transportation corridors, the areas that are near the urban service area, the current urban service boundary. There's an elementary school in 10. We all know that this area affectionately called the Nose really does make the most sense for our community. It is not near PDR farms. I mean, it is a responsible zone. If we're trying to paint a picture for this community about where growth should occur. It is a prime location for jobs and for housing that does not do anything to destroy our iconic horse farms or equine beauty that we all want to protect and preserve. So I think it's responsible for us as a committee to put forward 10 and 12 for public consideration as well as the zones in 6 and 7 because those are the areas that we've honestly been talking about for 30 years as a community we all know where growth is going where it likely needs to go so I think we need to be clear to the community that these are the areas that seem to make the most sense and get that kind of feedback on both of these areas Thank You mr. Johnson mr. Johnson into maybe respectfully counter mr. Wilson's point just a little bit that I would think that the more we bring to the public for their input for consideration the better off we are not the less I mean we already talked about we put ourselves in a box our box is going to be smaller you're not going to have as many options to do things that the community might want to do in all of these areas that we're looking at I'm not rebutting that and I agree but then and that's the case if I followed your logic then I put the whole thing before them instead of just one ten and twelve I put I put all of them if that's a motion I would second it. Council member Brown. Thank you, chair. And I appreciate everybody's points and perspectives. My concern about just having one area for us to consider and just meeting that minimum is right now one of the challenges we have with growing and infield and redevelopment is the urban core is taking the brunt of all of that. So just having one area on a map that's going to handle the city's growth in regards to expansion, I see as problematic. So I think, you know, if we, I would have been fine with, I would be okay with putting the whole map out to the community as areas that were suggested, just to get that feedback. Because I think it makes more sense to cut areas out of multiple areas, as opposed to have one big area that's going to handle the city's growth in regards to expansion. So, yeah, I think the more options, the better. Thank you. Larry? I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman? You know, I would agree with you. I think it is a mistake to grow all in one direction. However, I would rather keep it to the minimum than expanding all over the place and doing 5,000 acres. And by virtue of not accepting the idea of scalpling six, then we're left with almost no choice to me. Because I agree. I think 12 and 10 are logical areas. Two and three may be also logical. but I want to stick to the overarching philosophy of minimizing the expansion. And that's why I agree with our vice mayor that six and seven, at least in terms of getting public input, is advisable because it sends a statement, look, we're looking for the minimum. We're not trying to go beyond the minimum. Now, if you want to start, if you want to agree to a minimum that will stick to the minimum developable, then I think, okay, the whole table's open again and we can talk about 10 and 12, we can talk about 2 and 3. But as long as we're pushing past that minimum, I think it's frankly just ill-advised. I think it's ill-advised. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. Mr. Wilson? I have a compromise I'd like to put on the tape, and that is the council could go on board. We could go out to the public saying that we have looked at these things carefully and we would recommend 6 and 7 or 6 or whatever the case may be. However, in the process of our deliberations, this is what the whole map looks like. Give us your thoughts about it. In other words, we're willing to go back and revamp and revise, But we do have a recommendation for you to take a look at. I find that people respond better from a reaction perspective than trying to concoct something because they have not had the privilege of all these deliberations. That's just a thought. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Chair. I think we need to be really careful about what maps we present to the public. I think we have seen this before. Perception becomes reality. whatever map we show people whether or not we tell them this is a preliminary map we're going to make decisions in two weeks we want to hear from you that's what they're going to see as what we're doing so if we showed them you know for example our original map had way way more than 5,000 acres and it's because those were the areas we were scoring and then we eventually narrow them down and narrow them down to all the best places, right? I would never in a million years show the public this map because what this says is, oh, you're going to develop 15,000 acres or whatever it is, right? So I'm very cautious about what we bring forth to the public if it is not exactly the recommendation of this committee, whatever we give them in terms of numbers, I think. I don't agree with this. statement so now we still have the motion yeah and i wanted to question yes ma'am excuse me were you on the prevailing side for reconsideration was on the prevailing side yes in other words only someone from the prevailing side can make a motion of reconsideration so did i vote were you did i vote for the previous yeah the seven to five i voted for you voted for okay in that case you're in good shape so miss worth do you mind restating your motion because we had a lot mr. Wilson talk motion of reconsideration is that we put forth area six and seven on the latest version of map I'm reluctant to say that but because I'm not sure what how many versions we're talking about here and withdraw the approval of 10 and 12 okay that stated it yes that's right I second about Ms. Blum. Okay. No more discussion. Oh, we have another. So for clarity's sake, you said the prevailing side of approving 10 and 12, right? In other words, when I said prevailing, it meant according to the vote. When we voted, I think the vote was 7 to 5. Then you're going to have to check my record because I think I may have voted against it. Have you got the voting record there? I know. So that's what I, yeah, that's the reason I question, because you voted in favor for six and seven, but I think, I don't know, who voted against 10 or 12. Somebody's got the vote. Mr. Duncan. No, we don't know who. We just know the number. That's what this voting system just provides a number. It doesn't provide a whom. Okay. But we paid a lot of money for this tax. That's why I wanted to know. Unless someone is definitive. In terms of your point of order, I think I voted against 10 and 12. So I can't bring that motion, right? What you can do... Hold on, Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry. Hold on. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I make the motion. I was on the prevailing side. We remove 10 and 11. 10 and 12. 10 and 12. 10 and 12 for consideration and go with the 6 and 7 as identified by the staff as being recommended for going to the public with it. Okay, so we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Second by Ms. Plowman. I'm scared to ask for further discussion. But is there any further discussion? No, honestly, is there any? Okay, so we can make your vote here. All right, so we're missing one. All right, so it's seven yes, five no. So that's not where we go now, Mr. Wilson. So that motion comes off the table from six and seven. So going forward, right now we will be presenting currently to the public as areas of 6 and 7 as presented by staff, and we're staffed behind the orange tab in our sheet here. Mr. Chairman, may I say something? Yes. You know, I still, what Mr. Brown says and some others have indicated, I think it was important to let the people know, and this is a more of a presentational issue, and that is to let the people know that we have considered a lot of things as a part of our setup, but this is the recommendation of the urban county, whatever you would call this little commission advisory group. In other words, I'd like for the public to know that this was not just our first choice, our last choice. It needs to be set up properly on that. So I hope that Mr. Duncan, I don't know who's going to be making the pitch to the public, but it's something. It's on. Let's see something. Mr. Duncan, I think Council Member Brown had a statement. Thank you, Chair. So my concern is this as what we present to the public as an option for expansion is, in my opinion, going to be disappointing. say we present this information to the public as this is where expansion may go give us feedback and they give us feedback on these two areas and say for instance it's overwhelmingly against expansion in these areas then we have to come back in this room to this table and make a decision on some of the other areas that we're considering but since we didn't present this to them then they didn't get a chance to weigh in on the other areas that we're talking about, but we have a mandate to expand. And I hope it doesn't come off as like I'm bitter or upset because of losing the argument because I think that's fine. But I think the reality of it is there's other areas that we've been talking about, but they won't have an opportunity. And I think they can weigh in if they want to, but if they haven't been informed and they get presented with this map, that's what they're going to speak to. They're not going to speak to any of the other areas that we're talking about. So in a way, I think we're doing ourselves a disservice by just presenting this as a consideration to the public. And I think I'm stating that correctly on how the information is going to be presented. So I would like for us to reconsider what we put out to the public. And we can give them the purview that this committee has. we can tell them that there's a minimum, there's a maximum, that we're considering some of these factors. Some of these factors are going to be considered at a later time in the process, but they're going to be considered. Because I actually really want to hear what people think about how we grow and where. And I think presenting just six and seven to the public doesn't get us that. And then if we do come back and say it is against and we come up with a different map, they'll be furious. But we haven't given them an opportunity to tell us what they think. So that's my thought. Thank you, Chair. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. In principle, I agree with Council Member Brown. I think a variety of locations around Lexington would be good options to show people. Ultimately, it comes down to a math problem. I'm a little bit more agnostic about where we develop, and I'm a little bit more firm about total acreage. So the math problem is that 6 and 7 by itself gets us to our minimum charge requirement. if 6 and 7 were actually smaller, then we would obviously bring in parts of 2 and 3, 10 and 12, whatever else we need to get to our number. The slippery slope of that, of course, is if we are using the maps as they stand right now and we add in all the areas that we're considering, we're right up to the max. In fact, right now we're slightly over the max. So for me, I'm comfortable with the position that we're in now, But to Council Member Brown's point, my compromise position would be to split up 6 and 7 in a way almost like a trade for, say, 2 and 3 or 10 and 12, perhaps. But for me, I don't want to head towards that maximum number, and that's kind of where I am on it. But I'm happy to entertain other ideas about how we can do it. So if it's a smaller 6 and 7, potentially plus 2 and 3 and or 10 and 12, we can make it work and still stay, you know, fairly low on the total acreage. Thank you. Can I? Yes, Ms. Davis. Yeah, I think, you know, I lead a lot of comp plan practices in kind of more rural places, but those places that are facing significant development pressure. And so this is not an uncommon situation for me to be in. And I will stick with Councilman Brown in terms of, I think, showing the big picture, because I want to be transparent. I think there are folks here who can answer questions about why the preliminary decision was made. I do think to get feedback from everyone, because it would be terrible to just get six and seven residents, or obviously not residents, but people around there to come in and say, I hate this idea, us then either not respond and say we'll still do six and seven or to pick the other areas and those folks not have a chance to have you know to have their say so as someone who really believes strongly in engagement and and really sticking to and one of the one of my concerns with this process all along is that we're making a decision prior to hearing the perspective of the folks that it would most impact and so i think we need to be genuine to the folks in terms of the process we had the understanding that you know the folks who voted for were really sticking with a minimum with additional time probably some slicing and dicing might have diversified sort of the pockets of development but i i would feel a lot more comfortable with sort of giving the more kind of here's how we got there here's where we start not necessarily with that giant map because everything could be considered but i think showing some folks you know because it really does hit all the different areas of town i would really like as many folks to show up on next tuesday as possible Ms. Johnson. So I'm getting a little bit confused between what we're showing to the public, which that's Tuesday, right? So there's a sense of urgency to agreement on what will be presented to the public for input and then the work of actually deciding the recommendation to the Planning Commission. So as it stands today, I agree with Council Member Brown that if we're going to be responsible about public input and transparency, that the map that we have presented here is something that we should present to them because the planning staff has provided extensive data to support these areas and the reasoning behind why they're showing up on the map. And we as a committee, the majority of us have agreed that if we had to whittle these down, These are the areas that rise to the top. So for public input, I think this is responsible to show to the public, and then we can continue the work of trying to agree on the recommendation to the Planning Commission. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Chair. I don't know, Chair, if this is more kind of in the procedure of how you want to run the public input. So, A, would you be, because this is not, we're not talking about exactly what acreage we're bringing in. We're talking about how to present this information now, to Ms. Johnson's point, and I think it's a really good point. are you inclined to show the public this map as sort of the most areas of consideration and then overlay here's what we chose and here's how the votes came down and whatever the considerations were. Is that what you would be willing to do? And then my other question, too, I'm not sure how you run input meetings, is the assumption that people come and sign up and speak like the way we have council input, but we are not to answer any questions, whether either the staff or this committee. I'm going to resort to staff on that one because we run a little different, too, in planning commission, so I don't want to tell you something that we may not be able to do. So I would like to get Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chair, thank you, Vice Mayor. We have talked about this tentatively. What the expectation is on Tuesday, of course, is whatever you come up with today, we would get finalized and posted as quickly as possible on the website so that the citizens could have time to review that before Tuesday. And then on Tuesday at 6 o'clock in the council chamber, staff will make a brief presentation talking about why we're doing this, the inputs that were used to make these recommendations, and then what comes next. And then certainly it was our belief that we would be presenting sort of in the same way that we did to you, not in great detail, but going around the clock and showing the areas that this committee was focused on, and just for orientation purposes, really, just so people would know where they are, and then talking about what the expected outcome would be. And then once we kind of get all that organized and presented, then you all, and we hope as many of you all be there as possible, sitting in the council seats in the council chambers. The chair would then invite members to come to the lectern, and if we want to do a time limit, we can, or to make their pitch. And then, Vice Mayor, just as you said, it would be our recommendation that the committee internalize that. not necessarily try to answer any questions or respond at that moment. Take all the comments in, and then, as Ms. Johnson said, we have two more meetings after that to respond openly to what you heard at the public input and make your final recommendation to the Planning Commission. Can I follow up on that, Chair? Yes. I think Director Duncan is right, and I think because, and most of our input sessions are not back and forths between the public and us, because of that I think this will be very important that the presentations themselves be very clear about how we came to this, how we came to that, what the committee decided and kind of spell that out for folks so that, you know, if I just threw this map on somebody's desk with no explanation, people would have a lot of questions, a lot of concerns, right? So I think the more detail that we can give in that presentation, hopefully we can get really good input on that. Thank you. Thank you. So when we come on Tuesday, we will present the map that's shown, and then we will have a recommendation from the committee, which right now that recommendation is six and seven. Is that it? Mr. Chair, if I could be indulged just for a moment. Yes, sir. Please. In the planning process, and this is sort of the, we're still in kind of the discovery phase here with seeking public input, we would ordinarily want to put out plan alternatives for the public to respond to and then take that information back to the decision makers to make a final decision. I believe I'm saying probably not as eloquently but the same thing that Dr. Davis was saying is that you put out information that people can respond to and then take that back and then make your final decision based on that. Will there be like a transcription? I mean I hope most of us will be there but will there be someone taking notes of comments or how and how? I'm imagining just based on the city there might be a couple people that show up. So how will we, and we have to very quickly analyze those data. So how quickly or how will we get those notes? Well, the meeting will be broadcast. So first of all, the video will be available, and that may be the best way to make sure that you're getting the full spirit of what someone is saying and not an interpretation. I don't know that we'll be able to quickly turn around a good set of minutes or transcript, but the video will be available for review. Can I answer Ms. Davis' question? Excuse me. Having sat through a lot of public input, especially on contentious issues, I always, for myself, for my own edification, I'll have a little graph and chart. And for this issue, I don't think it's as easy as yes or no. So it might be a little more of a nuanced chart, but I usually try to kind of keep a score when I can. First of all, I like what I hear. And it's not what you say. It's how you say it to the public. And in the spirit of Councilman Brown and Ms. Johnson and what have you, I agree that the public should be given an idea. And if you present it properly, and the most crucial thing, I think, that would come at the end to say we have not made a decision, we have some inclinations or trends or something of that nature based on what we've just talked about here. And just let the public mess around with it. because the bottom line is if we go in so the decision is made, then the question is why are we here? So I think that that would be fair. And I think, Mr. Duncan, you are primed to do that, and I will certainly support your ambassadorship to China after this. Please. And, Mr. Wilson, just to say that, if you all were to advance this map as it exists right now, clearly it does not meet the council requirement. It's 87 acres over. So you've got to at least cut 87 acres. So you're signaling to the public that, yes, this is still a work in progress, and the committee is going to come back, and they may cut 87 acres or they may cut 2,000 acres, but that work will still happen in the subsequent two weeks. all right mr duncanson where we go from here now because we've had two votes now we're down well it is 12 o'clock i will tell you yes mr chair i will tell you it is wherever we are on these these votes, it would be the staff's recommendation that we present all five maps, not leaning on one or the other. Present them and how we got there with the inputs from the committee, with the inputs from the staff, with the inputs from the council, how we got there, and just say we are seeking your input public on these maps. What do you think? And that's what we would like to do rather than saying the committee is leaning towards one, I'd rather just put them all out there. Well, your ambassadorship is gone. No, sir. I don't, because I think you can do exactly, let's just say that you wanted to end up with this map. You could absolutely do that after the public input meeting. Absolutely. In that context, Director Duncan, presenting these five maps I think it is important for the record to let them know that the preliminary map decided on by this committee is 6 and 7, though, right? That will be stated. If that's where the meeting ends, we will absolutely present it that way. It is the committee's priority. I do get a little concerned because that camera back there, I think, will be on the news at some point, right, what the committee voted. So I would like to at least be transparent that we have made some initial recommendation. but are really eager to hear input. If that's where it stands, the staff will present six and seven as the priority of the committee, the other areas as being considered by the committee leading up to that priority decision. Yeah, so it's just not finalized. By no means. By no means is it finalized. That's fine. Yes, sir. I just want to emphasize that I have to other people. People can also submit written comment through the website, and anyone who can't attend the public input session should certainly submit written comment, either through the website, drop off a letter, however they want to make comment, and those will be compiled for the advisory committee. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. And, Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabor, but we will be sending you all more information about the tour for next Tuesday. But please remember that we'll be trying to leave her out here about 10 o'clock, so you may want to get here a little early. We'll reserve 14 seats, and then any members of the public that want to join can get on as well. No, no, no, at the transit center, but we'll give you specific direction of where to be, but it will be outside in the transit center. That's where the bus will be. So it's not our. I thought it was going to just be us. No, it's an open meeting. It's an open meeting. No, no big deal. But the committee, of course, has priority, so you all get the best seats on the bus. You got a seat. That's fine. With that being said, then this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. The End There's a river and harder to find Nobody gets too much heaven and love It's much harder to come back I'm waiting in line Nobody gets too much love in your heart It's as high as a mountain And harder to climb Nobody gets too much heaven It's too much harder to climb I'm waiting in line Oh, my God. Love on the rocks, ain't no surprise Just pour me a drink and I'll tell you some lies Got nothing to lose so you just sing the blues all the time I gave you my heart, I gave you my soul. You left me alone here with nothing to hold. Yesterday's gone. Now all I want is a smile. First they say they want you. If they really need you. Suddenly you find you're out there walking in a storm. And when they know they have you, then they really have you. Nothing you can do or say. You got to leave, just get away. We all know the song. You need what you need. You can say what you want. Not much you can do when the feeling is gone. Maybe blue skies above. But it's cool when your love's on the rocks. First they say they want you. Hey, how they really need you. Suddenly you find you're out there Walking in a storm And when they know they have you Then they really have you Nothing you can do or say You got to leave, just get away We all know the song Love on the rocks, ain't no big surprise. Just pour me a drink and I'll tell you my lies. Yesterday's gone and now all I want is a smile. I'm sorry. Upside down Boy you turn me Inside out And round and round Upside down Boy you turn me Inside out And round and round Instinctively you give to me The love that I need I cherish the moments with you Respectfully I say to thee I'm aware that you're cheating When no one makes me feel like you do Upside down Boy you turn me inside out And round and round Upside down Boy you turn me inside out And round and round I know you got charm and appeal, you always play the feel I'm crazy to think you're all mine As long as the sun continues to shine There's a place in my heart for you that's the bottom line Upside down, boy you turn me inside out And round and round Upside down Boy you turn me Inside out And round and round Instinctively you give to me The love that I need I cherish the moment with you Respectfully I say to thee I'm aware that you're cheating But no one makes me feel like you do Upside down Boy, you turned me inside out And round and round, upside down Boy, you turned me inside out And round and round, upside down Boy, you turned me inside out And round and round, upside down Boy, you turn me inside and round, round Upside down, you turn me You're giving love instinctively Round and around, you turn me I say to be respectfully Upside down, you turn me You're giving love instinctively Round and around, you turn me I say to be respectfully I said upside down, you turn me You're giving love instinctively Around and around you'll turn me I say to thee, respectfully Upside down you'll turn me You're giving love instinctively Round and around you'll turn me I say to thee, respectfully Upside down you'll turn me We'll be right back. No, I'll stand my ground Won't be turned around And I'll keep this world from dragging me down Gonna stand my ground And I won't back down Hey, baby There ain't no easy way out Hey, I will stand my ground And I won't back down Well, I know what's right I got just one lie In a world that keeps on pushing me around But I'll stand my ground And I won't back down Hey, baby There ain't no easy way out Hey, I will stand my ground And I won't back down I want that Hey, baby There ain't no easy way I want that Hey, yeah I won't back down. Hey, baby, there ain't no easy way out. Hey, I will stand my grip. And I won't back down. I won't back down. You ask me if there'll come a time When I grow tired of you Never my love Never my love You wonder if this heart of mine Will lose its desire for you Never my love Never my love What makes you think love will end When you know that my whole life depends On you Never my love, never my love You said you fear I'll change my mind I won't require you Never my love, never my love Your mind on the clock How can you think love will end When I've asked you to spend your whole life With me Thank you. Never mind, never mind, love I guess I thought you'd be here forever Another illusion I chose to create Don't know what you got until it's gone And I found out a little too late I was acting as if you were lucky to have me You were doing the favor of my heart, me do you But then you were gone, and you were a song Had no idea how much I cared Now being without you Takes a lot of getting used to You should learn to live within But I don't want to Being without you Is out of big mistake Instead of getting easier It's the hardest thing to take I'm addicted to you, babe You're a heart having to break. You found someone else. You had every reason. No, I can blame you for running to you. Two people together, but leave it alone. I will spread it my love to fear. What does the word comprehensive mean to you? To urban planners, comprehensive describes the interrelated nature of our physical environment and the collective vision of the community, all of which is woven into what we call the Comprehensive Plan. In Lexington, our 2018 Comprehensive Plan is called Imagine Lexington, and now, just a few years later, the city is again asking the community to imagine a future that serves us all. This plan represents a shared vision for community values, goals, and experiences by providing a flexible yet focused framework to ensure equitable development of our community's resources and infrastructure, all with the goal of enhancing our quality of life and fostering regional planning and economic development. Most importantly, the comprehensive plan and the process we undergo to create it gives you, the community, a chance to listen and speak on things that help us determine where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. Imagine Lexington is the most recent addition to a long line of plans that came before it, adding its name to the rich planning tradition of this community, and recognizing the knowledge, experiences, and voices that have shaped that tradition, while at the same time striving to amplify the values and experiences of those historically excluded from the process. The current plan breaks our future vision into five themes that reflect how the community operates and interacts. These themes are neighborhoods, environment, jobs and prosperity, community, and urban and rural balance. So where do we stand now that another comprehensive plan update is upon us, and how do we set priorities for these themes moving forward. First, let's look at our neighborhood, the building blocks of our community. Lexington's neighborhoods and more importantly the neighbors themselves make up the foundation of our city. Any neighborhood the heart has to be the people who live in it and you have the vested interest in this neighborhood therefore a vested interest in your city. So, what, when paired with great neighbors, makes a successful neighborhood? I think diversity, just every walk of life, being able to be in that neighborhood together. We also need diversity within our housing types, housing affordability, land uses, and transportation options. Being able to walk around, walk to a business, walk back to your home, I think is really important. The demand for connected walkable neighborhoods is on the rise, which makes our investment in creating these spaces and making them accessible and affordable a top priority. Of all of the things that probably are deepest in everybody's mind these days is the availability of housing. Is it affordable? Do we have enough of it? The largest opportunity for development and growth in Lexington, I believe, is affordable housing and anytime you got more residents and more housing, that's better for the city. Just as we depend on our neighborhoods to house and support our growing community, Lexington also depends on its natural environment. The natural areas both within and outside of our urban area significantly contribute to our community's social, economic, and ecological well-being. Lexington is a beautiful city and I love the natural world that we have that surrounds us. nature, providing more spaces for people to go out and enjoy nature is very important. The sustainability of the landscape and its natural resources is closely linked to the community's values and needs. Therefore, we have to appropriately address the impacts of development on the environment. There's more that we could do to provide an ecological component to development that might include more trees or might include more native plants that help with flooding and habitat. We're seeing kind of a collapse of our ecosystem based on our land use practices over the past 100 years. Our natural environment is a very complex system and it's all interconnected and it takes many different types of people with many different perspectives and different expertise to be able to make plans that make sense and that affect all of us. Thriving communities achieve prosperous economies by using a multi-faceted approach, creating opportunities for both new and existing businesses, while also maintaining the community's overall vision. It's not just about attracting the company to Lexington, it's about what are the right types of companies that fit into our community, our goals, and what we have for our plans in the future for our city. By being a city with a diverse economy, Lexington is an attractive option for both businesses and talent, but it goes beyond that. People are getting more concerned about what does my after work life look like as opposed to my nine to five life. While it is important to have things to do and places to go, for an increasing number of prospective Lexingtonians, it's also about how we get around. You know, amenities like multimodal transportation, where at one point separated you from other cities, now are kind of table stakes. If we want to have a vibrant young workforce, if we want to retain a vibrant middle-aged workforce and then have people who want to retire and stick around, it's the stuff you have to do. There's many reasons why it's important to have walkability and have everything in close proximity to your urban core. You're going to see a lot more connectivity, and that's going to drive a lot more job recruitment and a lot more people wanting to live around it. With housing, transportation, entertainment, and other quality of life factors at the forefront, Lexington continues to be a desirable place for both employers and those seeking opportunity and growth in life and career. The question is never, why come to Lexington? The question is always, why not come to Lexington? We have it all here in our city. Support services and accessible, well-maintained infrastructure creates a base for desirable communities to thrive. Most importantly, these things increase the quality of life for the people who choose to live and grow here. Lexington is such an amazing place for people to grow up and grow old. To have a vibrant community, we need to ensure that we have activities and availability and housing and transportation and public spaces. spaces, all that's open, available, generally free for people of all ages. You think of our city parks, places like that where anyone can go and enjoy it in the same sorts of ways. The idea of access is important that they're open to anyone. Adequate and equitable access to community spaces is dictated in large part by the connectivity of our transportation network and ensuring that it serves all types of users. I think it's essential to plan for people of all ages and abilities when we think about the infrastructure, whether it's bicycling, pedestrian infrastructure, partly because it is people on both the young and old end of the spectrum who often maybe don't have access to vehicles and so they're the ones who are going to rely on it the most. When it comes to our discussion about urban and rural balance, smart growth and rural preservation go hand in hand. It is undeniable that Lexington has both urban and rural assets that are worth celebrating and enhancing in our city's future. I think we have a very vibrant downtown and it's ever evolving and I think it's only going to get better. I think that's pretty special, that kind of mix of urban and rural that makes it an interesting place to live. You can be in a city and get all the feel of a city, but then you can also go five minutes down the road and it's green pastures everywhere you go. That's probably my favorite part about it. These voices represent just a few of the many within our community and cover just a fraction of what's in the plan. But every voice is important. So you may be wondering, why should I get involved? It's important to hear your voice in the planning process because a comprehensive plan just isn't comprehensive if it's not representative of all the people in the community. We are a community. We all live and work together. and the growth and the beauty of this community is going to be when we all have our input into how we want our city to look and to grow moving forward. It's up to us to decide what the community looks like. What is it that we need? What do we want in order to again create a vibrant, livable community? Getting involved will allow for growth for Lexington and it takes its residents to do that. People's old experiences and new experiences are all important and to find a balance is never easy but when you get there it's great for the city so everyone's voice needs to be heard when it comes to this issue. So if you want to be a community, be a part of a community, you gotta step up to it. As we reinitiate this process and look forward to Lexington's next 20 plus years let's continue to imagine. Thank you for participating in this process and we We look forward to hearing how you imagine Lexington. I'm sorry. Right before my very eyes I thought that you were only making it And right before my heart was taking it Baby, what a big surprise Right before my very eyes Yesterday it seemed to be My life was looking more than wasted time But here today is something changed my mind Baby, what a big surprise Right before my very eyes Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh Just to be alone There's a little more than I could take Then you can't just stay Ooh Hold me in the morning Let me in the afternoon Help me find my way Yeah, yeah Now and then just like before I think about the love I've thrown away But now it doesn't matter anyway Baby, what a big surprise Right before my very eyes Baby, what a big surprise Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you for the peace of mind. They have a lot of fun Putting trouble on the run Man, you find the old and young Twisting the night away They're twisting, twisting Everybody's feeling great They're twisting, twisting They're twisting the night away Hear the man in evening clothes How he got here, I don't know But man, you wanna see him go Twisting the night away He's dancing with the chicken slacks She's moving up and back Oh man, there ain't nothing like Twisting the night away They're twisting, twisting Everybody's feeling great They're twisting, twisting They're twisting the night Let's twist the line Lean up, lean back, lean up, lean back, my music, now fly, now flip. There, twistin' the night away Here's a fella in blue jeans Dancin' with the older queen Who's dolled up in a diamond ring And twistin' the night away Man, you ought to see her grow Twistin' to the rock and roll Here you find the young and old Twistin' the night away They're twisting, twisting, man Everybody's feeling great They're twisting, twisting They're twisting the night One more time We up We back We up We back One I used to wake up in the morning with a naked head. I couldn't remember anything I'd said. My friends told me I was getting out of line If it wasn't for you, baby, I'd be doing time Since I met you, baby It made a new man of me Since I met you, baby I'm happy as a man could be Yes, I am I used to think that I was better than the rest Ain't no doubt about it, I was no second best Didn't seem to matter what was right or what was wrong I did some crazy things before you came along Since I met you, baby You made a new man of me Since I met you, baby I'm happy as a man could be Yes, I am Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby I'm happy as a man could be One more time guitar solo Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Since I met you, baby Well, since I met you, baby I'm happy as a man could be Yes, I am Happy as a man can be You tell him, Gary Ha ha ha. Yeah! job for nine to five Working nine to five What a way to make a living Heavy getting by It's all taking and no giving They just use your mind And they never give you credit It's enough to find you Crazy if you're living Nine to five For service and devotion You would think that I Would deserve a bad promotion, want to move ahead But the boss won't seem to let me in I swear sometimes that man is out to get me They let you dream just to watch him shatter You're just a step on the boss man's ladder But you've got dreams he'll never take away On the same boat with a lot of your friends Waiting for the day your ship will come in And the tide's gonna turn And it's all gonna roll your way Working nine to five What a way to make a living Barely getting by It's all taking and no giving They must use your mind And you never get ready It's enough to drive you Crazy if you let it Nine to five They got you where they want you There's a better life, and you think about it, don't you? It's a rich man's game, no matter what they call it. And you spend your mind putting money in his wallet. Nine to five, what a way to make a living. Barely getting by, it's all taking and no giving. They just use your mind, and they never give you credit. It's enough to try you Crazy if you let it 9 to 5 Yeah, they got you better, won't you? There's a better life And you dream about it, don't you? It's a rich man's game No matter what they call it And you spend your life Put money in your home, baby 9 to 5 Working and to fight the dragon 9 to 5 Thank you. Fly away with me tonight Take me on a one-way flight In your loving arms And everything's gonna be all right You're the one who took my hand No one else could understand You're the one who moves me Like nobody else can Take me down Where I want to be Turn around This man who lives inside of me Take me down and love me all night long Hold me close and make me strong. Take me down. Take me down tonight. In your eyes, I see a light. It's your emotions glowing bright. So keep the fires burning Let it warm me through the night You can be a part of me Cause you're what love was meant to be You and me, baby Will set this flame inside us free You don't have to stay forever Let's just put our hearts together Share another night in ecstasy We know that it's feeling better Every time we get together Maybe love was meant for you and me Take me down Where I wanna be Turn around This man who lives inside of me Take me down and love me all night long Hold me close and make me strong Take me down Take me down tonight Take me down tonight Take me down tonight Are you gonna take me, shake me Take me down tonight I was raised off through Route 3 Out past where the black top ends We'd walk to church on Sunday morning Race barefoot back to Johnson's Fence That's where I first saw Mary On that roadside picking blackberries That summer I turned a corner in my soul Down that red dirt road It's where I drank my first beer. It's where I found Jesus. Where I wrecked my first car. I tore it all to pieces. I learned the path to heaven is full of sinners and believers. Learn that happiness on earth ain't just for high achievers I've come to know there's life at both ends That red dirt road Her daddy didn't like me much If I shackled up GTO I'd sneak out in the middle of the night Throw rocks at her bed moon windows We'd turn out the headlights Drive by the moonlight Talk about what the future might hold Down that red dirt road It's where I drank my first beer It's where I found Jesus When I wrecked my first car I tore it all to pieces I learned the path to heaven Is full of sinners and believers Learned that happiness on earth Ain't just for high achievers I've learned, I've come to know There's life at the end Of that red dirt road I went out into the world I came back in I lost Mary Oh, I got her back again And driving home tonight Feels like I found a long lost friend It's where I drank my first beer It's where I found Jesus Where I wrecked my first car I tore it all to pieces I learned the path to heaven It's full of sinners and believers Learned that happiness on earth Ain't just for high achievers I've learned, I've come to know There's life at both ends Of that red dirt road Yes, I've learned, I've come to know There's life before you That red dirt road I Want You A M R A Tell the world I'm yours by hand Let them know I love you so And let them know if I'm a ring or you'll name it Well, they say that God said he is not the proper thing They say that we're too young to know the meaning of a ring I only know what love will love you and that he loved me too Oh, darling, this is what I ask of you Won't you have my ring around your mind To tell the world how you're by hand Let them see your love for me And let them see by the rain you'll be Well, they say that going steady is not the rubbery thing They said, you're the one who knows me, darling. I only know I love, love you, and that you love me too. But darling, this is what I beg of you. Won't you have my ring around you? You tell the world, I'm yours by hand. Let them know I love you so. And let them know Father Ring, you're in the air And let them know Father Ring, you're in the air And let them know Father Ring, you're in the air Oh yeah Oh yeah The Little Things You Say And Do It's a crazy feeling and I know it's got me real and when you say I love you, Rayvon. Well, Rayvon, it's a crazy feeling and I know it's got me real and I'm so glad that you're revealing your love for me. Rave on, rave on and tell me, tell me Not to be lonely, tell me You love me only, rave on Rave on, it's a crazy feeling And I know it's gotten me real And I'm so glad that you're revealing your love for me Rave on, rave on and tell me, tell me not to be lonely Tell me you love me only, rave on to me 7A What number is this, Chip? 7A Okay, don't get excited, man. It's because I'm short, I know. Oh, I could have Meet the wings Of the bluebird As she sings The six o'clock I walk along with never end But it rings and I rise Wipe the sleep out of my eyes My shaven razor's cold and it stings Cheer up sleepy G Oh, what can it mean to a daydream believer and a homecoming queen? You once thought of me as a white knight on his steed Now you know how happy I can be Oh, and our good time starts and ends Without our love want to spend But how much, baby, do we really need? Cheer up, sleepy Jean Oh, what can it mean to a daydream believer And a homecoming queen Cheer up sleepy Jean Oh what can it mean To a daydream believer And a homecoming queen Cheer up, sleepy Jean Oh, what can it mean To a daydream believer And a homecoming queen Cheer up, sleepy Jean Oh, what can it mean To a daydream believer And a homecoming queen When I was young I never needed anyone And making love was just fun Those days have come Living alone I think of all the friends I've known But when I die they tell the phone Nobody's home All by myself Don't wanna be all by myself anymore Hard to be sure Sometimes I feel so insecure A love so distant and obscure Remains the cure All by my hand I wanna be all by my hand Hello, I'm Dave Savigny. I'm the council person from District 10, and today we're here talking about 8-1-1, and I'm with the director of 8-1-1 in Kentucky, Tim Vaughn. Tim, it's great to see you today. Yeah, it's great to be here. This is kind of a holiday almost for us. It is. It is. So today we're filming on 8-10, but I guess tomorrow's the big day, huh? It is. August the 11th, we kind of steal the 8 and 11 and use that for the tug.