to get that sidewalk repaired and replaced. Wow, 100%. 100%, and if you don't meet the financial requirements, you still can get a 50% grant for that program. We also assist with Code Enforcement's Housing Repair Program. So they have a grant that allows, if you have something on your home that might be considered a code violation, shingles, gutters, even sometimes roof, painting, then you can call them. They will come out. They will provide you with a form as well, and then if you're eligible, you may be eligible to receive a 100% grant. We also work with code enforcement if there's a condemnation. So sometimes renters may be in a situation where something happens with their home and it's condemned and then they would send you to us. We would again screen you and then we could provide a short-term hotel stay and then we also would help you with relocation assistance funds. So a thousand dollars to help towards your whatever you might need to relocate. And then Then another program that a lot of people don't know that we have is our case management program. So we have three social workers who do case management short and long term. So some residents just don't have anybody in their life. They may be a vulnerable adult and just need someone to kind of help them navigate through life, whether it's making sure they get it to their medical appointments, making sure they have food services set up, whether it's helping them get groceries, getting their groceries delivered, helping them with medication assistance. they may do that and then we have a rep payee. So if you are on Social Security income and maybe you're having trouble managing your bills, we would manage those bills for you. We would get your Social Security check and then we would allot, make sure all your bills are paid and give you an allowance every week to kind of live day to day. So we do have a lot of programs going on in this building. That's awesome. And then on top of all that, we have a food pantry right here. I didn't even know about this till today. We do. We had a Boy Scout last year who was looking for a project for his Eagle Scout badge and so he did some research on the community and he decided that he wanted to build a free food pantry and so it's kind of like the free libraries that you see in the community. It's the same concept. If you come in and if you need something, you take something. If you have extra, you leave it. And so, like I said, we have a lot of traffic in this building and so you will often see food being utilized. That's wonderful. We have some great resources here right in the Black and Williams Center. And next we're going to go to the Waypoint Center that's located, again, right in this building. I'm here today with Sean Bumpus, the coordinator of the Waypoint Center that's here in the Black & Williams Center. Sean, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for allowing me. What is the Waypoint Center? What can I find here if I come here? The Waypoint Center here at Black & Williams is like a one-stop shop. If anyone needs assistance in getting their rent paid, utilities, if they need help with Medicaid, get the IDs made or getting social security cards or if they have child care needs, if they need to get a notary, anything they can do, they can come here, and we try our best to refer them to someone to get that help. Wow, that's a lot. Thank you. The September 28th meeting of the LFUCG Planning Commission, zoning items. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes. Commissioner Wirth's computer is again not working. Chairman Davis, I'm sorry, we don't have minutes prepared. we didn't send them out to approve so that's so no minutes no minute okay thank you all right okay postponements and withdraws mr chairman members of the planning commission i am fred eastridge with vision engineering on page two item one 214 waller avenue zone map amendment I'd like to ask for a postponement until the October 12th meeting. All righty. Postponement to the October 12th meeting. Is there a motion? Which application was that, sir? Plan MAR23-0009. Chairman Davis, that's not our normal zoning hearing day. It's actually our subdivision item day. So the staff would actually recommend that that be pushed to the October 26th hearing. Is that agreeable by the applicant October 26th? I'd like to have it heard earlier, but if we can't, we can. Okay. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLNMAR 23-0009 to the October 26th meeting as requested by the applicant. Second. Motion by Commissioner Meyer, second by Mr. Owens. Any discussion? If not, we'll take a vote. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of 509 East Main Street. It's on page three of your agenda, item number two. It is MAR23-12. This is the conditional zoning restriction modification for the Crossgate Gallery. I'd like to request a two-week postponement to the October 12th Planning Commission meeting. Unfortunately, I am not available at the October, I guess, the fourth Thursday, the 26th. And so I would like to do it in two weeks' time. The only kind of complication, the Belcourt Neighborhood Association is represented by counsel, Ms. Winters, and she's unfortunately out of the country for the next two weeks. And so we have a bit of a kind of scheduling snafu that we have here. We are more than happy to sit down with the Neighborhood Association while Ms. Winters is out of town. I would not go to that meeting. It would just be applicant planning staff and the HOA. We have submitted a kind of revised list of conditional zoning restrictions that were requested by the neighborhood. And I think we were proposing to prohibit about 30 different uses. And so we are trying to work in good faith. I don't mean to be kind of doing any type of hard sell here on just the two weeks. It's just unfortunately I'm out of state due to a kind of medical procedure. So I don't kind of in a tough spot. I know Ms. Winter's here. I think she probably would want to speak as well. Good afternoon, Commission members. My name is Jessica Winters. I've been engaged to represent the Belcourt Neighborhood Association in this matter. I submitted a letter by email earlier today. I hope you've all received it. We are asking that this be postponed to a date that's already been scheduled for public hearings on zoning matters. And those dates are either October 26th or November 16th. If counsel for the applicant is unavailable on October 26th, we're fine with moving it to November 16th. However, under the commission's bylaws, we think that we're entitled to have the hearing on a regularly scheduled hearing day. And they will not be able to, the Belcourt Neighborhood Association will not be able to have the counsel of their choice if this moves forward on October 12th as requested by the applicant. We've already invested a significant amount of time and money into obtaining and getting this legal counsel up to date, and we believe we're entitled to a regularly scheduled public hearing. Thank you. Thank you so much. Do we have discussion among the commissioners or staff? If I could make one more point. Since this is modifying a conditional zoning restriction, the council is required to have a public hearing. And so this wouldn't be one that could just go on their regular agenda. They actually have to schedule a hearing themselves. And so there will be a second public hearing on this matter. So we have a request for postponement to October 12th. Do we have any discussion? So am I correct understanding that the first date that both councils can be available is November 16th? November 16th is the first date both are present. That is beyond the 90 days for basically these hearings. Our issue with that is that puts us basically at council not until January in this matter due to the kind of the holiday breaks and the kind of regular time it will take to actually schedule the council hearings. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to address that, but you'd like me to. Thank you. The comp plan contemplates that the applicant will speak with the neighborhood before an application is filed, and that didn't happen in this case. The application was filed at the beginning of August, a meeting with the neighborhood did not occur for the first time until mid-September. And after that, there was a significant revision to the proposal. So as stated in my letter, I indicated that the neighborhood has not had sufficient time to consider or discuss the revised proposal with the applicant. And scheduling the hearing for October 12th will not permit sufficient time for that engagement to occur. The November 16th meeting would. Thank you. Thank you. I would be curious as to what Mrs. Jones thinks. Your opinion or thoughts. Well, you are going to go past the 90 days if you schedule it for November 16th. And we traditionally do not do that without the applicant's agreement. So the fact that their attorney's not available on October 26th and they're not willing to go to November 16th creates another problem. But, you know, it would be nice if everyone could work that out, but it doesn't sound like they're going to. So I don't think you can go past the 90 days per the statute unless the staff thinks they've filed something that would move that needle on the 90 days, which I don't think they have. And so I think you're going to have to make a decision. All righty. Well, again. I mean, just my two cents here are that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but is the 26th inside the 90 days? So I guess my opinion is that we have the ability to, since they're not ready to proceed today, we have the ability to schedule to the 26th. If that's not the applicant's liking, they have the ability to request that we move that to the 16th. And so I would motion that we... If I may, from what I heard from Mr. Nicholson, he would prefer October 12th. You know, it sounds like, you know, he doesn't want to wait until November, but in the interest of him being here, maybe he would defer to the November 20, November 16th one as opposed to possible alternatives. Mr. Nichols? Yes, sir. Considering what you just saw a moment ago, you know, postponing Mr. Eastridge until the 26th, I hear your request very well, but would you be willing to postpone until the 26th so that all can be uh i will be in a new york hospital um oh well no i'm sorry until november in the november not we are not agreeing to go to the november date unfortunately no okay thank you I make a motion that we postpone to October 26th. Second. So we have a motion by Commissioner Mickler, second by Commissioner Pohl. Is there any discussion? And this is postponing to October 26th. If not, we can take a vote. The 26th. 26th. All right. All right. We'll take a vote. Yes, ma'am. I just want to be sure that their council will not be here on the 26th. Is that what I'm hearing? And so they would have to go through it without council. Is that what, or does council provide a substitute? I mean, it's a good question, Mr. Nicholson. What would be your plan? Well, I don't believe you're going to let me zoom in from a hospital. And so I will not be able to be here in any capacity. And so I don't know what the alternative in that situation is. All right. Well, before we vote again. Just a quick question for clarification. is Ms. Winder's position that October 12th would not allow the neighborhood enough time to reach a consensus and a strategy? Yes, sir. The neighborhood has only just in the last few days received marketing materials relative to the proposal. The revised proposal, which is significantly different than the original, was not even uploaded to SELA until september 25th so we have not had any time to meet with the applicant fall break is next week and the regularly scheduled public hearing dates for zoning matters are october 26th and november 16th and the neighborhood believes that if it is postponed it should be postponed to a regularly scheduled hearing date and that if that is not convenient for the applicant the applicant may may request that the 90-day period be extended so that he can be present at a November 16th hearing. And the fact that the applicant has not been willing to work with the neighborhood on what amounts to a 20-day extension of time between October 26th and November 16th, I think speaks volumes to the way the conversations have gone in this case. Mr. Nicholson, of course, you have a chance to respond. With all due respect, the revised application was entirely at the request of the neighborhood. The revision in this was basically we gave them the entire B-1 ordinance and said, strike out everything you don't like and we'll put it in as a conditional zoning restriction prohibiting the use. So truly the revision to this application was entirely at the neighborhood's kind of request and their desires on what should be prohibited here. and so I don't know how exactly that changes things when the kind of revised application was just revised at the request of the neighborhood themselves. We're happy to sit down with them. We have talked with them several times. We've talked with several members of the Neighborhoods Association. We've talked with the apartment complexes that are across the way. We will continue to speak with them. We're not trying to be adversarial in any way, shape, or form here. I have a scheduling issue like right here. Normally I would not be up here trying to make this kind of much of a hard sell. I usually just postpone the one month. I'm just in a tough spot. Alrighty. So again we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, we can take a vote. I think it's. So a tie vote. Does the motion fail? The motion fails because it's not a zone change motion. It's just a motion for postponement. All righty. Well, the floor is open for another motion. All right, I'll make a motion to the only other alternative, which is an October 12th hearing, is that correct? It is, is that correct? That's the motion, which hits the 90 days and hopefully the applicant and the neighbors can get together. Hitting 90 days is something I don't think we can do. Question for staff. What is the October 12th meeting? It's our typical subdivision and development plan items hearing. In addition, I think Mr. Duncan also has an item for the commission to consider. Mr. Chair, that's also the date that you all had scheduled to consider the recommendations of the advisory committee of the urban growth management regarding the expansion of the urban service area. Thank you. Mr. Owens? We're also kind of in a tough spot. However, I would hope that everyone could get together in the next little bit and iron out some differences. I would second Mr. Nichols' motion. All righty. So we have a motion made by Mr. Nichols, seconded by Mr. Owens, to postpone to the October 12th meeting. We'll put that to a vote. Unanimous. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we can move to our first item on the agenda. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crone, planning staff. The next item on our agenda is the rezoning request PLN MAR 2313. This is a request by Liberty Park Development LLC. And before you begin, I do want to note that there was a revision to the staff report. There was a typo that within the findings at the end that had grouped the 2018 comprehensive plan policies with the 2045 comprehensive plan goals and objectives. So that has just been clarified. No material change to the request, but just a formatting change at the end of your report. So that's accurate on Granicus as well as in front of you here. But moving into this request, this is a request to rezone 2.668 acres of the properties at 2833 and 2853 Liberty Road from a B4 zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to develop a 56-unit single-family attached townhome development. In the applicant's letter of justification, they touch on a place type and development type of an enhanced neighborhood as well as low-density residential development type. Staff agrees that both the proposed place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. And we'll touch on this item a little bit further on in the presentation. But just to orient ourselves here. Zoom in. Here we go. So the subject properties are shown in white in the center of the screen. So Liberty Road runs down. Subject properties both front on Liberty Road as it extends out towards Manowar Boulevard. To the rear of the subject properties, you have the Brighton Trail. So this is a trail network that connects Liberty Park here with the rest of the surrounding development. But zooming in a little bit closer, you get an idea of the zoning of the surrounding areas. So this section of Liberty Road previously was predominantly single-family residential. So you've got the Cadentown neighborhood located down here with the R1D zoning. There's existing single-family lots directly to the southeast of the subject properties here. The subject properties themselves were previously zoned single-family residential, but there was a rezoning that took place in 2015 for this parcel and 2018 for this parcel in order to rezone to a B4 to accommodate a vet clinic. That use was never established, and so the subject properties have the B4, a restricted B4 zoning, but they've never actually held a B4 use. In the surrounding area, there is also some multifamily development with some R3 and R4 zoning that make up this development to the east. You do have some professional offices in the northern portion here, as well as some light industrial development across Liberty Road. And then that green color there is remnant AU zoning, but that's just the Brighton Trail. So here we have a view of the subject properties. These properties previously contained single-family residences that were demolished when Liberty Road was widened. And so since that time, the land has remained undeveloped since that time. So primarily trees and brush with no real principal use. But you can see adjoining, we've got multifamily development, the single-family residential here, as well as that hatched showing the H1 associated with Caden Town. So here we have a view of the subject properties as it exists today. So once again, undeveloped with existing trees and other vegetation. Here we have the view as you're looking down Liberty Road headed towards Manowar Boulevard. And then the view in the opposite direction. So there is existing pedestrian networks that connect to the Liberty Trail and the Brighton Trail, which is shown here. So the applicant is proposing to develop further on this trail, but we'll actually have units fronting on the trail as well. So here we have a look at the proposed development plan for the property. The northernmost portion of the development here is actually a property that was rezoned approximately a year ago. So this was originally a smaller project, still with the same general concept of having townhomes that fronted on both the Liberty Trail or the Brighton Trail here, as well as Liberty Road itself. The applicant is choosing to rezone the two adjacent properties that would allow them to increase the number of units and create a more cohesive development. So this increases the total unit count to 56 and once again features townhomes, a single family attached that will front on Liberty Road as well as the Brighton Trail. This does allow for additional development within the site that will front on this common access space. But in general, this is a single-family attached development that creates some pedestrian linkages to the Brighton Trail, the Liberty Road pedestrian network, as well as connections directly to the existing multifamily development. So staff, in review of the place builder, the applicant has chosen this as an enhanced neighborhood. So these are areas of existing residential development where additional housing product is being provided and just additional units being added. So they are connecting to the existing multifamily. They are providing the trail connections which link the surrounding neighborhoods. So staff in their review of the place type of an enhanced neighborhood found that it was appropriate. Within an enhanced neighborhood, it recommends the applicant's proposed R3 zone and recommends low-density residential development as well. So the single-family attached is firmly low-density, but they are utilizing this underutilized site in order to provide this additional housing. Staff in the review of the comprehensive plan goals and objectives found that it met several of them as far as redeveloping underutilized parcels on corridors, providing additional housing, and kind of providing additional variety of housing with a single family attached not really being present in this area. The connected aspects of utilizing the trail connections as well as improving the pedestrian access makes this more connected and encourages safe neighborhoods. And providing these connections, it reduces the dependence on single-user vehicles. Furthermore, we found it's in agreement with Comprehensive Plans policies. This does allow for sort of a context-sensitive transition from the apartments to the adjoining single-family residential developments. It creates some pedestrian friendly patterns. and provides housing that the applicant opines is going to be directed towards workforce housing, so helping meeting the housing demand across all income levels. Finally, we found that it was an agreement with the development criteria, with the site design, building form of location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and green space and environmental health. So staff is recommending approval based on those items. As always, that recommendation is made subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan, which Mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily. But otherwise, staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time about our recommendation of approval. Thank you, Daniel. Are there any commissioner questions? Seeing none, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is located on page 6 of your agenda, Major Development Plan 23-46, Rose Brigden and Mark McClure property. I have to be sure I got my control over this technology. There we go. So, again, here we have Liberty Road frontage. We have the proposed access, which was a part of the previously approved plan that Daniel explained right through here. The combination of the approved plan in this area, along with the new zone change area, does give us a total of 56 townhouses with now a connected access easement system, a connected street system to serve the development. All the townhouses will be accessed from the access easements. They are fronting these, as you can see. There's a total of 12 along Liberty Road. You may recall from the previous plan there was a lot of discussion about fronting these units on the Brighton Trail. This plan will extend the frontage from the previous 10 units, there we go, to these additional units at this location. And again, you can see they're extending the same design that you approved earlier with the sidewalk and front yards adjacent to the Brighton Trail. This is a detention area, a large open space detention area. And again, here's the access easements through here. There's a sidewalk system associated with the access easements. And this is an emergency connection that was required to the multifamily development. So that's why you see that connection there. And there's also a pedestrian connection. associated with this development plan is a waiver and an access easement finding request. The waiver is identical to the waiver on the previous plan. It's for the frontage and access of the lots on Brighton Trail that you all approved previously. And then the access easement finding is for all of them to be accessed from an access easement as well as frontage these units that will all front on an access easement. So that's, again, what they're asking you to approve today. You may recall, as we had a very interesting discussion on the sanitary sewer waiver that was on the previously approved plan. Now, the good news is, by combining these properties, they no longer need that waiver. They can now serve this entire development with a gravity sewer. And as you all recall, that's very important because it's just so much simpler and everything functions so much better because, again, I know you all recall we talked about a pump station. And pump stations ultimately result in maintenance issues. That will flow in this direction into a sewer system that exists in the multifamily development. There are only a few conditions. There are sign-off conditions on the plan. One, number 10, is discuss the orientation of lots 31 and 32. We had a good discussion at the subdivision committee on that orientation. Again, we've got orientation of Liberty Road, which is desirable. You get to these two right here, and the issue became that they will lose one of their lots if they orient to Liberty Road. And then they will have a very oddly configured and difficult to access HOA lot. So that's why they're proposing the two to be oriented off the access easement. And again, we had a good discussion about that at the subdivision committee. And so, again, if you all agree with that orientation, you could strike that particular condition should you approve the plan, of course. Again, there's a waiver associated for the frontage in this area, along with a finding for the access easement to provide access and frontage to the interior units. Staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have, staff, concerning the development plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions? Yes, Mr. Martin. On your conditions, which is the one you were saying, discuss orientation of lots 31 and 32, which is item 10. That can be struck. Yes, sir. In staff's estimation, it could be. Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. We welcome the applicant. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing Liberty Park Development LLC, which is the owner of this property. Jeff Morgan is principal involved. Jeff, unfortunately, had to be out of town today, but with me I have Kevin Metzler and Tice McCulloch in the front row over there representing the company, and Matt Carter, our designer from Vision Engineering. We agree with the staff presentations on both the zone change and the development plan. You all saw this property in the original zone change on the northern part of the property late last year and recommended approval. as at that time this property will be townhouses for sale to the public to working families in the community by expanding this project we allow more housing to be available for sale to working families in the community as mr martin mentioned to you about three months ago we had a hearing before you for the northern part of the property asking for a waiver to allow us to use a private pump station on this property because there was really no other practical way to serve the property. You granted us that, but the studying of that prompted some discussions between Mr. Morgan and the owner of the property here. and those discussions about getting an easement to allow use of a gravity line morphed into whether Jeff wanted to purchase the property. So he has purchased the property and as Mr. Martin mentioned to you, the good news from that is we no longer need a private pump station. We can now sewer this by gravity. We've been in contact with Ball Homes about that and there's been some discussion whether that be a private or public sewer and i think they've agreed to make it public sewer but that'll be resolved on the final development plan the uh as i said we agree with the staff's recommendation i know you have a big agenda i have a lot more i could tell you about this development because it's really nice but i would point out i would ask you to take the vote as required on the waiver and on the access easement finding in addition to the zone change And the development plan. So, like I said, I can tell you a lot more about it if you want it, but I'll stop there and be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, we need to take three votes. Is that correct? I'm sorry. Is there any public comment on this application? Seeing none. Thank you. Three votes on this application? One for the zone change, one for the waiver and finding, and then one for the development plan or preliminary subdivision plan. Do we need one for the access easement or is that in the... They're connected, yeah. Okay. All righty. Floor is open. if there is no questions i can try to do three motions that's that's brilliant all right um i'm proposing the motion for approval of uh liberty park development llc zoning map amendment and rose H. Brigden and Mark McClure Property Traction Development Plan, PLNN MAR 23-13. Thank you, Mr. Nickel, do we have a second? Commissioner Meyer, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That motion passes unanimously. All right. When this comes back up, I'm going to go ahead and make an additional motion. It's a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 2346, Rose H. Brigden and Mark McClure property, citing the staff's recommendations for approval and removing item 10, which said discuss orientation lots 31 and 32. Thank you. And we have a second from Commissioner Worth. Any discussion? Seeing none. That passes unanimously as well. Mr. Dickel. All right, one more. We're going to, I'm going to make a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 2346 for the waiver of the land subdivision regulations. Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner Barksdale. any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. And that also passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. There's our camera now. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, members of the Commission. Happy to be here to make a presentation. I know I don't get to do that very often. Our next item is on page 6 of the agenda, and it's towards the bottom. It is PLNZOTA for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 23-2. This is an amendment to Article 17, which is our signage regulations, specifically for the B2B zone. That's our Lexington Center business zone around the Convention Center and Civic Center. And it's for electronic message display signage. So the application today, and Daniel, thank you. He passed out some information. That's just my presentation, as well as what I would call a clean copy of the proposed text from the staff alternative. The application today was filed by the Lexington Center Corporation, and they are proposing additional electronic message display signage for the Civic Center specifically. So that includes Central Bank Center, the Rupp Arena inside, and then the Convention Center. Their desire is for greater digital signage and to be able to use the most up-to-date technology that's available to the industry. In their application, they also mentioned that they desire an independent, dynamic, visual attraction. I think we'll get to that as we go through the presentation today. But they feel that the additional signage will help direct the people who come down to the Civic Center for public events, tourism attractions at the Civic Center to get there and to know what's coming in the future as well. So the regulation will only apply to civic centers, which contain exhibition halls of 85,000 square feet, and an arena with a minimum seating, permanent seating capacity of 15,000 seats. So it is very limited. And I know this is really small for you. But it is in this original staff report. The Lexington Center Corporation proposes to change one section of Article 1711, which deals with our B2B zone, again, our downtown Lexington Center business zone, and to amend what they currently can do. So under the current regulations, they are allowed several signs, but it doesn't allow the sign as big as they are desiring. or for the sign to be able to do the things that they're desiring. So we'll get to that. The existing ordinance allows for electronic message display systems, and that's the definition. Basically, if it's an LED or LCD sign where it displays and can be changed by means of a computer, that qualifies as an electronic message display or a digital sign. The zones where it's currently allowed, B3 for a stadium. and that's where the previous baseball stadium used that in the past. I believe they don't have it currently. In our downtown business zone, the downtown frame business, and as well the Lexington Center business zone. So these are the only zones where this digital signage is permitted currently. Within the B2B zone, this is the current regulation condensed for the Civic Center. They can have up to four signs. Two of those signs can be a maximum of 200 square feet each, and the other two can be 50 square feet each. So they get a total of 500 square feet, in addition to any other type of sign they might have, like a freestanding or a window or all the other types of signs that they're allowed. But the electronic message display system sign has to be mounted to the wall of the Civic Center or any other structure that's connected. So the existing signs that have been up for decades and been used by the Lexington Center are shown here. Obviously, there's a lot more technology available today than when they were placed at these locations. And so the applicants hoping to be able to utilize the new technology. And these signs will likely be replaced as well. So in addition to those signs for the Civic Center, recently we had a text amendment that also allowed for electronic message display signs for marquee signs for theaters downtown. And you'll remember we had a hearing about that as well. So a theater is allowed to have one marquee up to 300 square feet. And during that text amendment process, there were some restrictions added to our ordinance that really clarified some information that maybe wasn't present previously. It was provided clarity about the fact that the sign had to be static and it wasn't moving or scrolling. It could not resemble a traffic signal. It could not be located directly across from a residential zone. There was a hold time for the sign of at least eight seconds. Transitioning from one message to the next had to be direct and immediate. And then there were some lighting restrictions imposed. And then lastly, the marquee sign had to be turned off, basically when the theater or the business wasn't in operation. So those were newer restrictions added to the ordinance. The staff in reviewing this application did find that we thought it was appropriate to review some comparison communities. So we looked at six different communities, and then also the U.S. Sign Council Foundation's model on-premise sign code. And what the staff found was that any use of video signage was recommended within downtown commercial zones only, and also typically only with a special use permit. So in Lexington, that would be qualified as a conditional use permit. So in comparison, we wanted to make sure that first our regulations were consistent or in keeping with the best practices for the whole U.S. So the staff drafted alternative text after reviewing the application at length and found that the dynamic or video board use could or an additional electronic signage for the Civic Center could be appropriate. but under some similar restraints that the applicant had proposed, but also that was adopted for the marquee signage. In consideration of this new type of sign, which would show video and dynamic content, And the staff did look into and identify at least the fact that downtown, there are slower speeds of traffic. And then also a higher intensity or density of pedestrian activity. But with the lower speeds of traffic, the staff concluded that within the downtown, this type of signage would not be an undue distraction for motorists and other pedestrians within the right of way. That was what we were contemplating for probably an extended period of time. And then also how to regulate these signs if we came to that conclusion. So part of the regulation also involves ensuring, so not just the public safety, but also that we have the right definitions and the right limitations available within the ordinance so that when a permit is issued, those apply. So the staff alternative does, again, recognize that this new form of sign could be appropriate within Lexington and specifically within the B2B zone. But the staff's recommendation is that we take a three-step approach. first allowing the permitting of a new sign of 800 square feet for the civic center, but assuming that that continues to have the same restrictions as their other signs. That is, it would be held for eight seconds and then changed. There'd be no scrolling, et cetera. The only way that the dynamic content, and that would be the scrolling, the video, would be available, would be through a board of adjustment action for a conditional use in the B2B zone. And that was, again, consistent with what the U.S. model code recommended and what other communities in the region are doing. And then lastly, if full video display is requested, and I think that goes back to the applicants mention in their request for an independent dynamic visual attraction, if they choose to or want to display a game on the video board or sign, or if they want to display a full-length movie, that at that point they would need a special event permit for any kind of lengthy video display that would represent basically television on the sign. So, again, a three-step approach. The sign, yes, under the current regulations of holding for eight seconds, and then changing dynamic content where the video and scrolling and motion would be used would be a conditional use and then anything beyond that like a full live action movie or game that would require probably closing the street but some sort of special event permit from the mayor's office. So this allows for the board and the mayor's office to determine what special circumstances and limitations might be appropriate for the use of the dynamic content. And then also allows for them to identify the exact location of such a sign and its relationship to the public right-of-way as well as other land uses in the area. And perhaps criteria for when the full video would be used, like closing the street. And I know you can't read this, I'm sorry. So the regulation would change from having four signs allowed for this type of use to now having five. The first two we mentioned already, so two signs of 200 square feet and the two signs of 50. This staff recommendation would be to make sure those are spaced apart from each other, at least 250 feet, so that they can't be combined into one large video sign. And then the fifth sign would be the electronic message display or if dynamic content, a conditional use. And then it provides those parameters that were put in place for the marquee signage just last year for this sign as well, restricting the time of hold and the changing as well as the lighting, ensuring that it's not in conflict with a traffic signal or other government sign, ensuring it's not across from the residential zones, et cetera, and limiting the timing. That was something the applicant proposed, that the sign only be turned on until 11 p.m. during the weekday, so from Sunday night through Thursday night, it would be turned off at 11 p.m. That would eliminate the light pollution that might impact both the right-of-way and any adjoining land uses. On Friday and Saturday, it would be able to be left on until midnight. But in any case, it wouldn't be turned on until 7 a.m. the next day. When there are events that are lasting past those hours, the sign would remain on until the event ended. With the change to the regulation, the staff felt that it was important to provide a few more definitions in our sign ordinance. And the first one was related to the dynamic content. And that would allow the electronic sign to use those new scrolling and special effects. Specifically defining luminescence and knit, which weren't defined when we approved the marquee sign regulations. and then also clarifying what the video display method would be. And again, I think I spoke about this, but it would be real-time, full motion imagery of television quality. And then the last piece of the staff alternative would be to add that as a conditional use in our B2B zone related to the dynamic content. The staff, again, our intent was to remain consistent with the current regulations, to add new language that would provide for the ability to incorporate these new technologies in our downtown zone, but also still work to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. This applicant provided some graphics of where they would like to post or place a sign, so we shared these with the zoning committee, and we just wanted to share it with the rest of the planning commission as well. So this is the current view along Vine Street after Vine and Main split. So you'd be coming towards our Phoenix building on Vine Street, passing the new Central Bank Center on the right. And if I go backwards again, I'm going to point. This wall was constructed to hopefully house a large sign. so it already has some brackets up there and this is the proposal of 800 square feet on the side of that structure so again this is a one-way portion of the road so there's not really a conflict with the other direction of traffic and then just a closer view of what they're hoping to get approved the staff does recommend approval of the staff alternative text for two reasons the proposed sign our text amendment will allow for expansion of electronic signage for the b2b zone the signage does support tours the tourism industry within our downtown will not unduly be distracting will not distract from the overall aesthetics of the community and will support legitimate needs of the civic center which has changing events and activities on a daily basis and not just for the you know local immediate community but for our region as a whole the use of the dynamic content for the electronic message display center which should only be permitted in our downtown zone as a conditional use the board of adjustment in the conduct of their normal duties are able to determine through that public hearing if dynamic content would be appropriate and hopefully would not have an adverse influence or negative impact on the community as a whole. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Are there any Commissioner questions? Mr. Polk. You said that that wall was intended and it's designed to sponsor a large sign. Yes. So was the architect involved with designing the placement and size of the sign? I'm sure the applicant would be able to answer that. Mr. Eilens. One question right now. Tracy, if you would, and forgive me, but since I've been here for now two months again, was this going on prior to my return or is this something, a new presentation? Was this continued from earlier discussion? No. Okay. The zoning committee has been hearing about it for a few months. Okay. But we've not had a full presentation to the full commission. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Anybody? I guess a comment from the Zoning Committee. We've seen this a couple of times, and they've been working hard together to come up with this alternative language. With regard to the full video display, does that include sound? I think that would be up to the Mayor's office if they determined. So they would determine. Yes. So when it's used as a sign, it would not be allowed to have sound at all. But if it's used under the special event permit, I think that would be something that the mayor's office would consider. If there are no further questions, thank you, Ms. Waite, and we'll hear from the applicant. good afternoon chairman davis members of the planning commission my name is evan buckley i'm an attorney on behalf of the lexington center corporation pleased to be here with you this afternoon i'm joined by mr brian seip the general manager of the lexington center which as Mrs. Wade commented, includes Rupp Arena, the exhibition space and convention center, as well as the Opera House. I'm also joined by John Rohrer and Matt McClure in our Dinsmore and Shoal office here in Lexington. I'm pleased to report, as Commissioner Nickel just reminded everybody, that we have been working quite diligently and cooperatively with Mrs. Wade and Mr. Duncan and other members of planning staff to be here for you today. What is before you is a ZODA that has changed shape to some degree since it was first proposed, but we think it's a reasoned step-by-step approach to modernizing the signage at the Central Bank Center. Just as a brief reminder, and I think Mrs. Wade really covered this quite well, and I'll say at the outset, we're in full agreement. We have no hesitations here. This was a product of many months of working together and trying to iron some things out and to recognize some of the concerns and hesitations that perhaps existed. But overall, I just want to briefly kind of cover some things that might not have been apparent in the presentation, and that's really more background about the Lexington Center Corporation. Just as a reminder, it's a nonprofit organization here in town. It's established by ordinance. It's comprised of a board of community leaders. It has ex-officio members that are members of the council here in Lexington. Visit Lex is involved, of course, with the Lexington Center. It's really a unique community asset, and it provides something that is unique to the region, really. And if you haven't been there recently, it's a sight to see. They've just completed a $300 million renovation inside and out. And I think that really brings us to why we're here today, which is to make sure that the exterior signage of the Central Bank Center reflects the quality, the modern, really first class events that are going on inside. And so we want to make sure that this sign allows us to do that. Obviously, I'm eager to answer any questions. I know that there was a question about sound. So the board does not have sound associated with it. It's purely video. You know, if there was some expectation of sound at an event, assuming it was coordinated through the mayor's office, that would be that type of event, then we would rent some kind of sound system, presumably. There was one other question, and now I'm blanking on what it was. Oh, yeah, the design of the actual facade right now. So in designing the building, it was considered by the architect and built to maintain the weight and the size of a certain amount of sign, up to basically, recognizing that we would have to appear and would seek to appear to cooperate and to kind of go about this in a fashion like we've done, which is really to kind of come together and figure out a way to do this so everybody is pleased and excited about it. So it is ready kind of from an architectural standpoint. And it was just, I think, to some degree, cheaper and more kind of sensible to build it in as you built it, rather than wait to attach it to the facade. So at that, I'll be happy to answer any questions, of course. But we're definitely pleased to be here and excited to be here. Thank you so much. Are there any Commissioner questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have anyone from the public who would wish to speak on this particular application? If so, you're welcome to do so. Please approach the podium and state your name and we limit public comment to three minutes per person. To three minutes per person. Thank you. Good afternoon. It's Amy Clark, I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm concerned about the timing of this, as Mr. Owens noted. It's been under development, under review for a good long while. There's nothing in a cell since about July. So I haven't had an opportunity to review either the staff proposed amendments to the proposed ZODA, or their recommendations. I would urge that you, it's too late to postpone because you've begun, but that you continue this to be sure that you have the citizen engagement that's appropriate. This is our city center. This is the face we show to all the visitors to Lexington. It should have the voice of citizens who may be concerned, and they can't really say much. if they don't know the details. I'm looking at the text that's available here in the chamber, with blue being the new, and if this is indeed the text that the staff is recommending, I'm seeing that they're saying, for example, I see. All right. So I don't think dynamic content should constitute or the provision recommended. Is it still there? Dynamic content shall not constitute or be considered flashing or blinking. Is that provision remaining? That doesn't even make sense. Dynamic content is flashing and blinking, moving and scrolling images. So I don't think moving content, essentially TV advertising in large on a public screen is appropriate. I also think that the limitation that it not be adjacent or opposite a residential zone isn't sufficient. There's much residential use that's not a zone. I don't know what size is now appropriate, and I really think just punting it to the BOA as a conditional use isn't really enough. this, what we do with the convention center, what we allow to them, either it's special pleading, one case which is not appropriate for a text amendment to a zone, or it has influence in a wider orbit. And neither is appropriate. Thank you for your attention. I do urge continuance. Is there any other comment on this particular application? If not, is there any discussion amongst the commissioners? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, if I may, let me just clarify. My question was... I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, let me just clarify. My question was simply because my fear was that I'd missed something if this was being continued. Mr. Duncan mentioned that what I'd heard earlier may have been another application across the road. Since this is new, I have no problem standing on board and voting for this. But, you know, that's just, I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions from the Commission? Yes, sir. This is maybe neither here nor there, but the reason I asked about the involvement of the architect was not necessarily for structural purposes, but for aesthetic purposes. I think it could be better. I think the large sign could be better. I think that the way it's positioned in the center of that volume is unfortunate. it it makes the entire volume look like it was intended to be a giant frame around the sign and i think it would be much stronger if it deferred to the architecture rather than being sort of like a giant tv on the street and i suspect that had the architect been involved with the actual design of the sign on the building that we would be looking at a different outcome It's just my opinion. I just wanted to get out there. It's probably not relevant at this point, but there it is. Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, we certainly entertain a motion. Certainly. Graham, are you not requesting a postponement to have a discussion about architect design or not? I don't think it warrants that level. Unless there's another commissioner who sees what I'm seeing and feels strongly about it, then I might go that direction. I have a question, a clarifying question. To Mr. Pol's concerns, what we are doing today is changing the zone, amending it. Would the applicant have an opportunity, I guess what I'm saying is the design of whatever they're going to do is not finalized. Correct. That would be up to the Board of Adjustment to determine the sign, well, at least in terms of dynamic content. The sign itself, we typically as a commission or even as a staff don't really have any weighing in on signage. If it meets the regulations, then the applicant works within those parameters to create something that works for their business or their religious assembly or their neighborhood, whatever that might be. I think the applicant has demonstrated such an ability and willingness to work with staff that even if we approve this amendment, they've heard that architectural design and the importance of the architect being involved in the final product is critical. So I think they would, I would hope they would bring that to the BOA when they have an application. But I don't believe there's any requirement or, again, we are just, we're working on the text of the zoning amendment. Correct. Which is countywide, not one property. I'm sorry, in this zone. In this zone, yes, for this zone. All right. That's why I wanted to put it out there a minute. If there's further discussion of it as they move forward, that would be great. If there isn't, I understand. Thank you. Mr. Nickel, did you wish to make a motion? I will. I'm going to propose a motion for approval of PLN ZODA 23-2, the amendment to Article 7, for additional electronic message display signage, including video in the Lexington Center business, B2B. Thank you so much, and we have a second from Commissioner Owens. So there's no further discussion. Clarify that that was for the staff alternative. Sorry, that is referencing the staff's alternative text that's been provided to us in our documentation. Thank you. Thank you so much. And a second for Mr. Owens. If there's no further discussion, we'll take it to a vote. Passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff. Mr. Duncan, if you would please introduce commission items. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we begin, I want to just punctuate that, particularly for those in the audience, to let everyone know that you all now have access to all of the public input that has been provided about this project. Earlier, you received a link to the email that included all the public input to the advisory committee and to the planning commission through yesterday. And you have at your place earlier today received the public comment, printed public comment, that we received since yesterday. And it will continue to come in. And so as it does, we will make sure that that is posted on the website and available to you all. In addition, Rachel has just handed you all a packet of maps that we will review in just a moment. So I wanted to bring you all up to date on the work that has been happening with the urban growth management. We talked about this some at the Planning Commission work session last week, and now we're providing an opportunity to make a formal presentation to you and to receive public input. So what our intention today is, is to make the presentation to sort of get some table setting taken care of, and then turn it back to the Planning Commission where you all will invite public comment on this project. And then at that point, staff will be available to address any questions you have before we then move on to a later meeting to consider this further. So just as a reminder of what this project is, this is a project that has come to us through the action of the Urban County Council. in june of this year the urban county council in approving the goals and objectives for the 2023 comprehensive plan the same goals and objectives that you all forward as a recommendation to the plan made some additional changes to address the expansion of the urban service area and they did so in theme e of the comprehensive plan and that's the theme where we've talked about the urban service area and maintaining a balance between urban development and rural preservation. Within theme E, the council recast goal three to identify a critical need for land, for housing and jobs. And then with that critical need identified, laid out objectives on how to address that. So at the direction of the urban county council through the goals and objectives, in objective In objective A, the council directed the planning commission to identify no less than 2,700 acres and no more than 5,000 acres to address the needs identified in the goal. In objective B, the urban county council said the land should be capable of meeting the infrastructure requirements of development while ensuring that Lexington remains the horse capital of the world. In objective C, the Urban County Council directed the Planning Commission to create a master plan for the new acreage and to adopt that plan by December 1st, 2024. And then the final objective in that goal, the council said following the master plan, once you've completed that work next year, that then we will create a process to address any future expansions of the urban service area. service area. So to assist the planning commission in those tasks that the council has described, the chair of the planning commission, Chairman Forrester, formed an advisory committee representing the professional interests affected by the council's direction. And this included members of affordable housing development, economic development, building construction, horse farms, agriculture, academics, and four members of the Urban County Council and three members of the Planning Commission. The committee began meeting on August 8th and met every Tuesday through September 19th. It was a remarkable schedule and a remarkable commitment from a group of leaders in this community. And I believe the Planning Commission will see that the work that they did was consequential and will help you all in your decision making. Within these meetings, the committee received inputs from various staff of the urban county government to address the direction of the urban county council. And this included reports from the Division of Water Quality on how sanitary sewer can be provided in the rural areas for these additions, and from the Purchase of Development Rights Division to talk about where preserved farms are, what preserved farms mean, and what the impact of development would be on those. And then considering that with the other inputs, the committee was able to review and make some recommendations. In addition to meeting and receiving these inputs and drafting the maps, once a final draft was created before the public input, the committee took a bus tour that touched all of the lands that were under consideration. And then later that evening, they held a public input meeting to consider what the public had to say about the maps. A week later, addressing the public input, the committee completed their work and made a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and that's what we're presenting to you tonight or this afternoon. So as part of what the committee reviewed, in addition to what the council described, they also looked at sewer ability and preserved farms. So the map on your left represents the sewerability areas that ring the urban service area. Now these were first created in the late 90s. And a study reviewing those and describing how those contribute to sewerability has now been completed twice, with the second one just being completed in time for the work of this committee. There are 14 sewerability areas that ring the urban service area right now, and described by topography primarily. And so those areas were all then, the SewerAbility study was able to tell us which ones were able to provide sanitary sewer service more efficiently, which ones were also able to address existing problems under the consent decree that we're trying to resolve. The PDR map on the right shows clearly where all the preserved lands are in the rural area and their relationship to the urban service area. And we were able to review those in the context of the sewerability areas and how those would fit into the council's direction for expansion. So with the sewerability, with the PDR, and with the council's direction, we were able to look at all 14 of the sewerability areas and rank them as to which ones would address the expansion question in the most efficient manner, from cost, from least impact on preserved land, from meeting the council's expectations for location. And that left sort of the top half of this group of 14 really under consideration of the committee, and that's they started advancing those and building a map. So the first, or they actually went through two maps. The second one they landed on, this is the one that was presented for public input on September 12th. And it includes land on the west side of the urban area and on the east-central and the southeast. The area along Winchester Road, Royster Road, colored in red, was listed by the advisory committee as their priority area. They saw that that was the most promising place to locate the additional land, and said so as part of the public input, but also included the other areas as well in order to hear from the public and to help them make their decisions. At this map location, with this map, there were over 5,000 acres of land identified, So the committee knew they would need to be doing some cutting on this, that this was at the limit of what the council directed. Following the public input, and there was a robust public input in writing and at the lectern here, the committee then took that and revised their recommendation to you. They took it down from over 5,000 acres to just over 3,000 acres. And if you'll recall, they eliminated part of the area on the west, they eliminated part of the area on the east-central, and a little bit of the area on the southeast. Now, members of the public, or I should say the property owners at the public input meeting also came and expressed themselves. And so all areas were represented by property owners who expressed whether they wanted to be included in the urban service area or whether they didn't. And the main reason that the properties along Winchester Road were removed is because two large property owners said, we do not want to be included in the urban service area and we do not have any intention of development. And the committee took that seriously and removed those properties from consideration. But in so doing, that made that area, which you recall had previously been the priority area, no longer sufficient to meet the minimum requirement of the Urban County Council of at least 2,700 acres. So then the committee had to continue looking at the other areas on the west and the east in order to reach the 3,000 acres that they have before you now. On the west side, the area that's offered is just inside Manowar Boulevard, adjacent to the Beaumont neighborhood, across from the airport, bisected by Parker's Mill Road. This area is 393 acres, and property owners on the south side of Parkers Mill Road expressed that they wanted to be included and were prepared for development. Moving to the east side, Interstate 64, Interstate 75, Hume Road on the left side. The large property owners in this area expressed that they did want to be included in the urban service area and were prepared for development. The property on the other side of the line expressly said, no, we do not want to be included. This area is 1,017 acres. In the same vicinity, but on the east end of Winchester Road and on the south side, the property owners of the large parcels here and then the property owner representing some of the smaller parcels here all said that they wanted to be included in the urban service area and were prepared for development at this time. This is a little more orientation. This is the Greenbrier neighborhood, Winchester Road, and then North Cleveland Road, this area abutting North Cleveland and following property lines, for a total of 568 acres. Moving into the southeast, this is sometimes called the Nose. This is Athens-Boonesboro heading south, Interstate 75 heading south. This is the Childsburg neighborhood and the Brenda Cowan Elementary School that is outside the urban service area. At the night of the public input meeting, the property owners here said yes to include us. And then the next day we received word from the property owners here that said yes, we want to be included. So most of the property owners in this area indicated their willingness to be included and their desire to develop. this area is 641 acres and then just on the other side this this is just where we were down here but on the other side of interstate 75 south of todd's road here is polo club boulevard up here in the dark gray coming down into todd's road property owners both property owners express their interest in being included in the urban service area and their willingness to develop at this time This area includes 350 acres. And then finally, an area in the vicinity of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. This area had been shown on an earlier draft while the committee was still putting its work together, but was not presented for public comment. It had been removed by the time of the public input meeting. However, the property owner representing this land came and said yes, we would like to be included. To help get you oriented, the shaded areas are part of the blue sky. Here's the industrial portion and then these are the commercial portions that flank Interstate 75. This is the soccer stadium right here and the soccer fields right out here. This area is not in the blue sky rural activity center but abuts it on these ends of it. of it this is the old Clarion Motel in the Blue Sky area. This area is 43 acres. So what the committee has done is to present you their best recommendation on how to address the Urban County Council's direction to expand the urban service area. But you'll recall that that one of the goals of the urban of the of the one of the objectives of the council was to also create a master plan for this area so to that end the council has provided funding and the staff has already started reaching out to us to to work with consulting staff to work with consultants to create a master plan that will address the needs of the urban County Council will certainly address the progressive needs of the comprehensive plan. And that will be something that the Planning Commission then will be overseeing over the next year with the expectation that that master plan will be completed sometime in the fall of 2024 in time for the Planning Commission then to hold public input and public hearings to consider the master plan as an amendment to the comprehensive plan at which time the land that you've identified for master planning would also be included then into the urban service area. So, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, once again, this is the overall map that the Advisory Committee has recommended to you, totaling just over 3,000 acres. At this time, if you'd like to take public input, then the staff will be happy to come back and address any of your questions. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. I have a list of everyone who has signed up to speak. It is the policy of the Planning Commission that, again, you approach the podium, you state your name for the record, and you have three minutes. At the Planning Commission, we do not yield time. So if you want to speak, please approach, and you have three minutes. The first, and a lot of these folks, I think, have left because their application was postponed. Megan Winfield, Becca Braultz, Lee Dallaire, no, Marcy Deaton, Knox Van Noggle Pfister, and after Ms. Pfister is Pat Stiles. Oh, okay. Then the next would be Gail Hart. Thank you, Chairman Davis and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Knox Van Oglefister, and I'm here on behalf of our family farm, Brookfield. We are located at 2370 North Cleveland Road in eastern Fayette County. Our farm is a large-scale enterprise consisting of over 1,500 acres of prime bluegrass farmland that support nearly 1,000 head of black baldy cattle, sport horses, soybeans, corn, and hay. We are a nationally recognized mom-calf operation, selling our premium stock through select sales at the bluegrass stockyards. For eight generations, our family has actively stewarded this land. Our prime soils are the very foundation of our leading-edge operation and its success. We use regenerative techniques to farm the land, from advancing reforestation efforts to rotating crops and livestock, and adopting no-till practices for plantings. Environmental sustainability is a very big deal to us. Following the goals and values set forth by this government to conserve Fayette County's best soils for the public good, we did our part and donated over 950 acres of land under conservation easement with the Bluegrass Land Conservancy and the PDR program. We are all in on agriculture. Also, our environmentally sensitive areas, stone walls, spring houses, and cemeteries also significantly contribute to the acclaimed Boone Creek National Historic District, which is a cultural landmark that's the largest of its kind in the United States. Despite these attributes, Brookfield is under imminent threat with the potential expansion of the urban services boundary into neighboring Delridge Farm, located at the corner of Cleveland and Winchester roads. Delridge should not be admitted into Lexington's growth boundary. It's a large thoroughbred operation that if developed will jeopardize millions of dollars invested by neighbors along Cleveland Road to improve their land and in turn the beauty and quality of life that make our inner bluegrass world famous as the horse capital of the world. By including Dell Ridge, sprawl development will surely follow into the Cleveland Road corridor, imperiling adhesion conservation easements and farms with cost prohibitively high property taxes, traffic, noise, and light pollution, and all without the prospect of cost-efficient sewer infrastructure, your road capacity, police, fire, and transportation facilities. I'm running out of time, so I'm just going to ask you respectfully to exercise your rights under KRS 100 to determine where and by how much the urban services boundary must be expanded. Cleveland Road does not fit this bill. Thank you all very much for your service. Thank you. Gail Hart, and after Gail is Jessica Winters. He, all righty, Headly Bell. And after Mr. Bell, Alice Little. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Headly Bell and my wife, Nancy, and I live at 1310 Richmond Road. and I thank you for the opportunity to share with you today. Our family owns Mill Ridge Farm, a farm of approximately 750 acres, and we plan on farming it in the future with the sixth generation that managed it today. The portion of the farm labeled A2 scored second best on the expansion area master plan. Even though our farm has great soil and has raised some great horses, this area of the farm has limited use because of the runoff from Beaumont and because so much of it is in the floodplain. Manowar Boulevard is not the magic line that will cause, quote, the domino effect. When you look at A2, our neighbor since 1990 has been Dunbar. Next to Dunbar and built in 1986 is Palomar. And next to them, the Fountains. All of this is on our side of Manowar Boulevard. As you know, our community has a guiding document for the entire rural area, which is our rural land management plan. Within that plan is the PDR program ordinance, which assigns negative points for properties that are adjacent to the urban service area, boundary, sorry, urban service boundary, negative points for properties in close proximity to major arterials, and negative points for parcels likely to be sewered. This was to avoid the, quote, emerald choker and forced development to, quote, leapfrog. And finally, when our Area 2 was not voted on for the consideration for the consultants to master plan, sorry, it was a 7-7 tie and tossed out on technicality. My request and our family's request is you consider Area A2 to be master planned by the consultants. You are the experts in planning and responsible for smart growth and not urban sprawl. You have the opportunity and the responsibility to give it your stamp of approval, and our community is counting on it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Alice Little, and then after Alice, Price Bell. Thank you. Hi there, my name is Alice Little. Healy's my dad and Price is my brother. And I want to give some visualization to some of the things that Healy just shared. So when I listened to the committee meeting last Tuesday, the group was presented a new map in A2, which you see here represented in red. I want to clarify some misunderstandings and share a few maps that help me visualize some of the facts so that these can be reviewed in a little bit more detail. So as a reminder, as my dad stated, the vote was resulting in a 7-7 tie, it was rejected, and the committee was rejecting a new proposal that was reviewed in real time. So our family does own 95% of A2, and many are under the impression that this represents all of Millridge Farm. In reality, as you see in this map here, we currently farm, as Healy stated, less than half of A2 as most of it is unfeasible to run horses on. Millridge is here represented in the blue and in the dark blue. I had friends that reached out saying, why would you support developing the full farm? And I just want to state that this is not true. The blue and the dark blue portions are not in consideration. In fact, this dark blue portion is an area that is already protected. our major borderline with Palomar, and it won't be developed as it's protected by PDR. Also, you can see along Main and War Boulevard, as Headly stated as well, we have development on both sides. So the fact that this is stated that it was a critical line not to cross, that's inaccurate. And I was also curious by the point made that the historic Bowman Mill area was under significant threat with this proposal. And you can see here, this is the detailed map of this historic area in the shaded and hashed line. I've overlaid this to the bird's eye view in yellow. You can see that this barely overlaps with the A2 portion. And when you look at the boundary justification, when the area was admitted as a historic district, the bulk of A2 was explicitly carved out because it was splintered between Dunbar and Manowar Boulevard. This is detailed in some printouts that I'll be handing to you guys shortly. The last map I want to share shows the direction that sewage flows based on the topography of the farm in the green arrows. You can see that it flows down to the south Elkhorn pump station, and it doesn't flow to the Mint Lane pump station. And I've included this because the committee spent a great deal talking about this domino theory, which meant that if A2 was developed, then so the adjacent properties would inevitably also be developed. And that next domino is Mill Ridge Farm. As my dad stated, that's under no intent to be developed. But even beyond that intention, it's important to note that even if it ever was going to be developed, it would be very difficult and almost unfeasible from a cost and time perspective because it ranked last in the sewer ability study on South Elkhorn. So I just implore the committee to please consider the facts as you're evaluating this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Price Bell, and after Mr. Bell is Jenna Greathouse. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis and Commission members. My name is Price Bell and I live at 211 Chenault Road. I'm here to share why we hope you'll consider Area A2 in the scope of work for the consultants. While the land solves a fundamental planning problem, it also creates a great opportunity. We are a city of great neighborhoods. It is our neighborhoods that give each of us our identity as Lexingtonians. Places like Meadowthorpe, Chevy Chase, Southland, Garden Springs, Ashland Park, Kenwick, Northside, Belcourt, the list goes on. Our city is a collection of these great neighborhoods, and each of these I mention are thriving, engaged communities built on less than 250 acres. These neighborhoods were built through patience, vision, and years of robust public engagement, the foundation for smart growth. Area A2 stands out because it already buttresses quality neighborhoods. We are excited about its potential to be a place that enhances the surrounding neighborhoods and becomes something that all of Lexington can be proud of. During the last public comment, a neighbor from Palomar spoke against including our property in the study area. I reached out and asked to meet with him and as many of his neighbors as he could gather. We met later that week because our family is committed to engaging others in meaningful dialogue. I felt we had a productive meeting and no others around the table felt the same. Area A2 should be included now so these types of conversations can continue in a patient, thoughtful planning process. The consultants will create and engage public dialogue between neighbors and property owners, and together we will report back to you a shared vision for the mandated expansion. As we learned from city planning, thought leader Jeff Speck, engagement, dialogue, and public charrette forums are vital in creating successful, thoughtful neighborhoods. We are led by examples like Mr. Speck in doing this the right way, in a patient and inclusive manner. As compared to other areas under consideration, please know that we are one family who is enthusiastic about working with you. We own 95% of Area A2 and are ready to work with consultants, neighbors in our community to make this area something that everyone in our community values. We care very much about the future of Lexington, and we believe we can be an example for thoughtful neighborhood development going forward. Unlike past examples of farms turned into development, we do not want to sell and leave. We want to integrate and celebrate. Imagine a place that can include all types of housing and also be woven into a working farm. We want our neighbors to know and value Lexington's farming community because they will live next door. We have led the horse community in demonstrating the power and importance of inclusiveness through the nonprofit horse country. We have welcomed Palomar as neighbors for 30 years. It is a difficult process finding the balance between smart growth and celebrating and preserving what's unique about Lexington. Our family has celebrated and will continue to celebrate the horse, agriculture, and its importance in our community. We can also be a part of a thoughtful solution to our community's needs. Studying Area A2 will allow the Planning Commission to make the most informed decision of what land to bring into our great city and facilitate the council's mandate. The previous committee had a split vote when considering this area on the fly. We hope that you will pause to consider not only the problems this land solves, but the opportunities it presents. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Jenna Greathouse and then Paul Natoff. Good afternoon. My name is Jenna Greathouse. I'm the Executive Vice President for Commerce Lexington's Economic Development Team. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here. I appreciate getting the opportunity before the Planning Commission. I want to thank you again for the opportunity for your efforts to improve Lexington. We recognize that's not an easy job, but please know that Commerce Lexington appreciates the work you do. The Urban Growth Management Advisory Committee has done great work to identify areas within Fayette County that make the most sense for expansion of the urban services boundary. The committee was represented by diverse groups and segments of the community, and Commerce Lexington was pleased to be engaged on the committee in the process. The workgroup took careful consideration of a lot of data as well as the criteria outlined by the Urban County Council and the approved comprehensive goals and objectives, including land that was near major transportation corridors, had infrastructure sewer capabilities, and little to no impact on the PDR protected areas, and what was best suited to address the critical need for housing and jobs in our community. There has been great dialogue across the community and a lot of public comment, and the committee members came to a very good consensus on the 2,801 acres recommended to the Planning Commission. The fact that so many diverse voices and segments of our community have been at the table during the comp plan process over the past few years will serve our community well for the future. We are at a critical point in Lexington's history as our population has now started to decline over the last few years. This is very significant from a workforce and economic development standpoint. Two-thirds of the city's revenue comes from occupational tax, so without that additional places to put jobs as well as housing to support people who want to live and work here, it's very possible our city may see budget shortfalls in the coming years. Lexington's planning staff has done a great job identifying additional land options, and we appreciate their work. Commerce Lexington applauds the work of the Urban Growth Management Advisory Committee and urges the Planning Commission to approve the recommendation to add the 2,801 areas. Thank you, and we look very forward to working you as the process moves forward. Thank you, Ms. Greathouse. Paul Natoff, and then Evan Buckley, who I think is no longer here. After Evan would be Carla Blanton. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Natoff. I live in the 12th district. Thanks for the opportunity to speak here today. I am here to urge you to consider removing Area 1 from the expansion map, as the inclusion of Area 1 does not meet any goals or objectives of the comprehensive plan. Theme E, Goal 3, directs the Planning Commission to ensure Lexington remains the horse capital of the world. The only way to ensure this objective is met is by preventing horse farms from being included in the expansion. Area 1, it's on the west side of the map, includes around 350 acres of active horse farms. In addition to the community wanting to protect our horses, two of the biggest pro-expansion advocates are also in favor of protecting our horse farms. The board chair of Lexington for Everyone recently wrote that only areas of land that would meet the criteria of not impacting horse farms should be considered. Commerce Lexington's president recently said, let me be clear, no one in the business community wants to destroy what makes Lexington special. Our iconic horse industry is important and we support efforts to protect this land and we always have. Other than the owners of the land, there seems to be no controversy in removing area one from the proposed expansion map. We also know that due to its proximity to the airport and because of the associated noise pollution, There will be no state or federal funding available for affordable housing in Area 1. Regarding infrastructure, that section of Manowar is not able to handle the increased traffic associated with any development of Area 1. And Parkers Mill Road, especially the residential area with a 35 mile per hour speed limit, cannot handle any more traffic. There must be better land options to include in the expansion. I'd suggest looking at parcels of land that are contiguous to areas two through six in the proposed map. This would consolidate the expansion as the mayor has suggested, thereby limiting the amount of tax dollars necessary to fund the services and infrastructure associated with growth. I'd further suggest using net acres as opposed to gross acres when calculating the minimum acreage. The selected acreage already excludes PDR parcels and large parcels of land where we know the owners don't want to develop. If we remove area one from consideration and use net acreage, which would be supported by a majority of the public, only need to find 81 acres in addition to areas two through six. The inclusion of area one in the final expansion map would not satisfy any of the directions directives in the comprehensive plan as they relate to housing, infrastructure, or ensuring Lexington remains the horse capital of the world. Thank you. Thank you. Up next is Carla Blanton and then Joe Palumbo. Good afternoon. My name is Carla Blanton. I'm on the board of Lexington for everyone. The expansion work group has responsibly and thoughtfully recommended land to be included in the urban service area that won't negatively impact horse farms, is convenient to major infrastructure, and is capable of being sewered. The recommended 2,801 net acres is less than 4% above the minimum that was instructed by the council. And although it falls short of the 5,000 maximum outlined overwhelmingly in the council vote, we urge you to act now to adopt the recommendation for two key reasons. One, for housing for all incomes and stages of life. The median home price in Lexington is $322,000, which has risen 100% in 10 years according to Bluegrass Realtors. That puts home buying, which is the best way to build generational wealth, out of reach for a majority of Lexingtonians. More than 67,000 households in Fayette County earn the median income of $61,526 or less, according to the US Census data. For those making that amount, a maximum affordable house price is $240,000. In July, there were fewer than 50 homes listed for sale in the entire county that would be considered affordable for that group. The simple law of supply and demand tells us that more land will ease the skyrocketing increases in costs and the rapid pace of gentrification. And in fact, two members of the work group who represent affordable housing voted in favor of this expansion. Number two, land for jobs. Job growth is paramount to the stability and well-being of families. Because the majority of city services are funded through the payroll tax, it is also crucial for maintaining and improving the quality of life and vital city services that we all love. For the first time in our lifetimes, Fayette County has actually lost population. Any further decline will exacerbate budget deficits that are already looming for the city in the coming years. We must have readily available land in the county to meet Fayette County's need for jobs. Scarcity of resources pits people and groups against each other, and Lexington is facing that today with land. And the results are gentrification, home prices that are out of reach for our essential workers and young professionals, established neighborhoods that feel overwhelmed by density they don't believe their neighborhood can accommodate, and new jobs and expansion of jobs, along with the tax base they bring, being pushed to surrounding counties. The Planning Commission staff has identified land through a rigorous and data-informed analysis. The public has given input. The workgroup, which represents a cross-sectional community, has overwhelmingly agreed to include the land it identified. Now is the time for action. We ask you to approve the land recommended for inclusion. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Palumbo, and after Mr. Palumbo, it's Bush Gass. Joe, can you skip? I'm sorry. Okay, all righty. Okay. Next would be Will Ryan and James McClure. Beverly K. Miller. Kevin Murphy. Richard Murphy. And Mr. Murphy, I know that you emailed Director Duncan earlier stating that you're representing three. So it will be nine minutes. i'm dick murphy here on on behalf of three property owners and i know through it's through the process it was important to the decision makers and you're the ultimate decision maker now that the owners are ready willing and able to develop the property i have three separate property owners that are grouped in the same area one is the and and all of them are ready and and willing able to development property. And the first one is 5085 Athens Boonsboro Road, which is in Area 4 as it's now labeled on your maps. I represent Encore Partners, which is the owner of the property. It's 232 acres. And this is in the nose, right at the intersection of Interstate 75 and Athens Boonsboro Road. Encore Partners, my clients, and the neighboring guest property, which goes up to Brenda Cowan Elementary, all want to come in the urban service area boundary line. The unique thing about this property is there is a sanitary sewer on the property, in the ground, now and operating, which has full capacity to handle these properties. That was discussed through the process through the other agencies that have handled this. The sewer is there and operating. it's the one that took the blue sky plant off the line it's confirmed there's capacity for it the road is there athans boonesborough road is a four or five lane divided highway which exists today the my clients have reached out to a number of people who plan mixed use planned unit development communities around the country and the planners they have talked to are very enthusiastic about this property because of its location and because of the fact that they can do a mixed-use development here all types of housing and that they can design a community that's walkable lasting and fosters a sense of community on it there was a study by fayette alliance that was passed out at the last or the public input meeting at the advisory committee they were comparing the cost of infrastructure for various locations our location and the one i'll discuss in a minute was said to cost about nine million dollars i think it's going to be about zero dollars but the one on the west side was about three times that and the one on winchester road was about 30 times the cost of infrastructure on this property so So the cost of infrastructure in this area is the lowest in the area. We are not adjacent to any PDR farms. The soil was listed as not prime soil on this property. So we are ready, willing, and able to develop, and we will cooperate with our neighbors, the guest property, to make sure that streets are interconnected and these properties are planned together. the second two i'm going to the second and third i'm going to discuss together these are the properties that are constitute all of area five on the map that you have right now that's the todd's road property this is owned by the germann family which is called stony point development germann family is at 4200 todd's road 125 acres and right next to them is the property owned by marion clark 4582 tods road 219 acres both these properties have been in the respective families of germond and clark families for over 100 years but they are ready and willing to develop doug germond was with me at the advisory task force discussion and he pointed out that right next to his property line 50 feet away is a brand new complex of three-story apartment buildings there had been a comment made at the advisory committee about not wanting to bring the urban service area line on this side of i-75 and we we said that not to object to development but we said that whether the apartment complex 50 feet away to show that the urban service line was brought out across interstate 75 25 years ago and we now have an apartment complex right next to us the the clark family is right next to the germann family the sewers were a point of discussion on this one as well sewers again on this property will cost the city nothing because this is one of the locations that as mr charlie martin pointed out to the committee a few times this This is an area where it makes sense to locate the pump station in the most efficient place topographically. The owners of these properties have agreed that they will pay for the new pump station. The new pump station will take at least one upstream pump station offline and possibly two upstream stations offline. But it will be at the cost of the... develop the developers of these properties it will not cost the city anything the again the German family is ready willing and able to develop and the Clark family is owned by Marion Clark who you've had we've been before you many times with the home place subdivision which we call the Clark family Clark property and new market property when it comes through you Marion and her sister have developed about between 1,300 and 1,500 houses, lots for independent builders over the last 20 years. So she is an experienced developer herself. We will not have to wait for costly infrastructure improvements. This property is not adjacent to any PDR farms. and again we are ready and willing and able to proceed with development on the property and we wanted to point out to you that we thank you for the time you give us to have input and we want to make sure that you have the input of property owners on these topics and that the cost of infrastructure on all these properties i discussed will be basically zero sewers are there in area four and the pump station will be constructed at the cost of the owners in area five thank you very much appreciate it thank you mr murphy after mr murphy we have bob crutcher and then todd johnson bub excuse me bob yes my name is bob crutcher i want to say thank you to planning commission and staff members for for all of your months and years of work concerning this growth plan. It really touches my heart deeply to see a piece of property I've worked on for over 25 years be included. And it's area six, I believe, on your map. It's straight across from the Blue Sky Industrial area. I took that piece of property which had no use of any kind. It was a big valley and have worked on it for about 25 years. And it's, you know, within a few hundred feet of the interstate. So it makes good reasons with it being surrounded by commercial uses to be included. And I just want to say thank you so much for looking at that situation. It currently does have a sanitary sewer that crosses the agricultural property that is a pump station that takes care of about six businesses toward the interstate, including both sides of the road. And that thing's 50 years old right now and hasn't had any attention by anyone from the city. I hope with the look and the growth, it'll give a great opportunity to look at redoing that situation. I personally go up there seven days a week to check it. it's on my property, which used to be my property. I did sell the property just recently to Mitch Potter. And it's still in my heart to take care of the environment and the situation with that sewer. So seven days a week I go up there and make sure it's working properly. and I feel sure with a little bit of time here that that situation will be took care of. And I just want to say thank you so much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Crutcher. Todd Johnson and then Hallie Hardy, followed by Gloria Martin. Members of the Commission, thank you for your time today. My name is Todd Johnson. I'm the Executive Vice President for the Building Industry Association of Central Kentucky. I'm here today on behalf of our organization and the building and development community to encourage the adoption of the recommendations that come before you from the committee that Mr. Duncan summarized earlier today at a minimum. I think there's been some compelling arguments that maybe this isn't enough land to see us through, and I know there are other property owners that are wanting to be included, and I would urge you to give full consideration of that as well. The other thing that I wanted to share with you all today is just as a reminder that we are in a housing crisis in our community. In talking to market rate developers and affordable housing developers and affordable housing providers, land is the number one inhibitor to producing more housing in our community across the board. Regardless of the land inventory that is out there that is vacant and identified in the latest planning staff maps a few years ago, there's very, very little land available to the market. Our housing needs are continuing both across affordable ranges, workforce housing, and all levels of housing in our community. Just to kind of give a show of a deficit of where we're at, in 2016, And there was a study that was done that included our organization, Lexington Division of Planning, Fayette County Property Evaluation Administrator, the Downtown Lexington Development Authority, the Bluegrass Association of Realtors, and our organization and the Fayette Alliance that showed at the end of that study that we would need somewhere around 16,000 single family and detached single family housing units to keep up with the demand in our community over the next 10 years, planning into 2025. Since that time, we have built less than half of that number of houses in our community. We are woefully undeveloped. Again, the underlying prohibitive measure in our community and the key ingredient to providing more housing in our community is the availability of land to the market. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Hallie Hardy. Good afternoon and thank you all for the opportunity to speak. My name is Hallie Hardy. I'm the executive director of Horse Country, headquartered here in Lexington, and represent members of our organization across Fayette County as well as the greater Bluegrass region. Now in our eighth year, Horse Country has welcomed over 200,000 guests through gates of working horse farms and equine businesses. From world-renowned stallion operations to equine nurseries, feed mills, veterinary clinics, to thoroughbred retraining farms, and of course, Kingland, guests are traveling from around the world to visit the horse capital of the world. Horse Country's mission is to connect guests to the horse, land, and people of Kentucky's equine industry. At our core, it's the horse that provides the platform to connect with people from all over the globe. The horse is our collective passion, and Lexington is home to the best the equine industry has to offer. Collectively in horse country and with our agricultural partners around the region, we work with the best land, expertise, and resources in pursuit of raising the best horses. Lexington is home to an entire ecosystem and a unique one at that, completely built around the horse, one, as I mentioned, that is unmatched anywhere else. That ecosystem, now including agritourism, is dependent on the land. It's the high-quality soils and rolling bluegrass hills that make Lexington one of the best places in the world to raise young horses. Without the land, we lose the ability to breed and raise the best, and consequently our position as a worldwide industry leader. The land has defined Lexington's unique identity for over a century. Once it's gone, it cannot be replaced. It is a non-renewable resource for our economy now in more ways than one. In 2023, Lexington ranked as one of the 100 most loved destinations in the world, 100 in the world, based on traveler sentiment. That sentiment exceeded $1.5 billion in economic impact in Fayette County just last year. At Horse Country, we're following the successful examples of the Bourbon Trail and California's wine country, working to have a similar positive impact on our local economy. We are also dedicated to connecting Lexingtonians with their signature industry, too. Just last month, we welcomed over 750 residents to Member Farms for free as part of our community event, Meet the Neighbors. and we look forward to growing this annual event. Hopefully you'll join us next year. As the horse capital of the world, the equine industry must ensure the bond between the rural-urban interface remains an important contributor to the quality of life here in Lexington. The challenges facing you all and the urban county council are formidable ones. Economic growth and affordable housing are critical to the city's future, while Lexington's rural area has contributed heavily to the demand for both. We ask you, our leaders, to consider how best to preserve one of Lexington's greatest non-renewable resources, the land, as you plan for our future. Lexington is an incredible place, with many factors that make it so. We must move forward with careful consideration to ensure that none of those factors are neglected in the pursuit of growth alone. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Gloria Martin, and following Mrs. Martin, Nathan Billings, and Margaret Graves. Thank you. I'm Gloria Martin, and I'm the chair of the Rural Land Management Board. I didn't ask for extra time, but I do want to tell you that I am here representing 300 farms. Very important with PDR and with easements, and they are depending on all of us to take care of what they are committed to do. I've come to ask you all to please, in making this decision, look very carefully at those 100 pages of the Rural Land Management Plan. There's been a lot made about the 70, 30%, 70 in the rural percentage in the rural area, and 30 inside. And that is not really a very accurate picture of what does exist. Of that, and I want to quickly run through some things for you all. Of the acreage that's out there, there are 45 subdivisions. That's 5,000 acres already in 10 acre lots. There are 500 parcels in the rural settlements. Half of those are already zoned R1D. You have 500 acres in those historic hamlets and the crossroad communities that I very much want to preserve and take care of. There are 800 acres in small lot residential. Look at that on page 59 of the plan. 514 of those are under two acres. You have 255 acres in quarries, 355 parcels in active, zoned businesses. 96 of those are zoned but unused. You have 82 active church lots. That's camps, athletic fields. They have cemeteries, 17 cell towers, 150 acres in schools, 600 acres in the landfill. Composting just burned last week. 48 acres in the police firing age, 300 acres in the prison, 400 acres in Blackburn. As they've already told you, there's a limited finite resource in this county inside and outside the urban service boundary. We need to take very good, careful care of that. They've already told you, and I'm telling you now, there's a lot going on in the rural service area that is not ag-related. So be careful not to destroy those prime soils that Beth and GIS put on your desk when you came today, the prime soils and your PDR farms, you have that. Because, as I've already told you, they are a main economic development in this county. Everybody that's said to you today agrees with that. So it is your golden goose. It's not only economic development, but it's your tourism trade. And I'm asking you as a fellow planning group to look at that plan carefully. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Billings and then Margaret Graves, followed by Brittany Rothmeier. Mr. Chairman, thank you. My name is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm, and it's my pleasure today to speak on behalf of Delridge Farm at 4092 and 4200 Winchester Road. Together, they comprise just about 400 acres in what is now being labeled Area 3. Area 3 was at the last work session of the committee, labeled Area C, 3B. The reason I say that is because Area C, as you heard Director Duncan discuss earlier, was parceled out into, at the end of the day, four subsets. C1, which is still in the plan. C2, which was removed at the landowner's request. C3A, which is to the north of Winchester Road, which is essentially the rural Hamlet area, and C3B, which is the area to the south of Winchester Road, which the committee has recommended to be included, that has approximately 568 acres. As you know, Winchester Road is the next major expansion in Fayette County to the east, designed and to be implemented by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. This expansion is going to go on. It goes out farther than Cleveland Road towards Clark County, and it is intended to handle not only the existing traffic along Winchester Road, but the future traffic along Winchester Road. The work by different groups prior to the Urban County Council's vote in June to expand the urban service boundary by between 2,700 and 5,000 acres looked at many areas, and this was one of those that has been included in the discussion all along. The owners of Delridge Farm are interested and want to submit their property into the urban service boundary zone that you are considering at this time. Through these discussions, not a single objection has been made in any of the meetings or any of the committee meetings or any of the votes to this inclusion. In fact, members of the Urban County Council, members of this commission, and other groups participated in discussions and indeed in votes that recommended inclusion of Delridge Farm in this expansion area. There are some comments you've heard today that really deal with whether we should expand the urban service boundary or not. That decision was made. It was made more than three months ago. The decision now is where we expand and what is the acreage by which it will expand. We respectfully ask you all to consider exactly what the Urban Growth Management Committee has suggested, which is inclusion of Area 3 in your final determination. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Margaret Graves, Brittany Rothmeier, and then Dawn Robinson. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members, and thank you for your service. My name is Margaret Graves, and I live at 2497 Liberty Road. I'm a long time advocate for farmland conservation. I serve on the Rural Land Management Board and I chair the Bluegrass Conservancy. And I am here to ask you to minimize this expansion to no more than 2,700 total acres. The Growth Advisory Committee got hung up on whether the council intended net or gross acres. The council didn't say, and by their silence, I think you have the discretion to focus on 2,700 total acres. There's nothing in the council's direction or mandate to you that you include 2,700 net acres. I'm concerned specifically about Area 3 and the impact on North Cleveland Road. The Bluegrass Conservancy has a substantial easement of 950 acres in this area, which will be adversely impacted if you include area three. And I would urge Mr. Bell and his family, if they do not intend to develop the rest of Mill Ridge Farm, to in fact put it under conservation easement so that it is clear to the community that they are committed to farming that portion of their farm. And I would ask that you direct that any improvements to Winchester Road be of the same quality and the same type as what was done on Paris Pike. Winchester Road is a scenic byway and it borders the upper reaches of the Boone Creek Rural Historic District. You have an important decision before you and I urge you to be very careful in selecting land to include in the urban service boundary. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Graves. Brittany Rothmeier, Don Robinson, and then Jacob Slaughter. Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Brittany Rothmeier, Executive Director of Fate Alliance. Earlier this year, as I'm sure you can't forget now, you voted unanimously for goals and objectives that included building a data-driven process to evaluate growth decisions around the USB. Instead, you're now being asked to identify an arbitrary number of acres to expand, which you didn't recommend without data and research to support, and frankly, which we believe is actually unlawful. It will literally and figuratively change the landscape of this community. We appreciate the hard work of the Urban Growth Committee. It was apparent at the last public input meeting just two and a half weeks ago, 65% of people that came and spoke spoke for no more than the minimum acreage, if not for blatantly against expansion. Before the size of the 96 expansion of the USB was recommended, a committee was formed to evaluate where, how, and how much land should be included, they considering the following over multiple years. Population projections, housing and employment and economic projections, development trends and locations, land absorption rates, land requirements for housing growth, fiscal impacts of capital facilities and annual revenue and expenses. They looked at costs for arterial roads, schools, park, fire stations, and storm sewers. You've been asked to identify land without any of this, to address an affordable housing problem without the information or tools to require affordable housing, to ignore the cost of community services and environmental impacts. The prime soils that support our ag and equine industries are at risk. Ongoing investment in existing urban areas and neighborhoods, the downtown we've painstakingly revitalized is at risk. According to this 2021 Sustainable Growth Study, we've got just over 6,000 acres of vacant land inside the existing USB. Based on PVA and building permit data, we're only absorbing between 100 to 125 acres a year. By adding even just 2,700 more acres, we're looking at nearly a century of development. For context, the Winchester Road corridor alone inside the current USB already has nearly 1,200 acres of undeveloped land. As you make these almost impossible decisions, we hope you'll limit acreage to no more than the minimum total acres, minimize impacts to prime soils, existing ag and equine operations, excluding this land from expansion or recommending robust 500-foot buffers, avoid active ag and equine operations, minimize future expenses and costs of services, and fix water quality issues efficiently but without mandating expansion of larger areas than necessary to do so. There are too many unanswered questions. We urge you to take the time that you need to make these important decisions, plan reasonably and responsibly, and support policies which make the best use of the land that we have and what we'll actually need for the future. Thank you. Thank you. Don Robinson. Good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. My name is Don Robinson. I'm an ag business owner at 4153 Military Pike, and I'm here to speak on behalf of a number of fellow ag businesses. I may go maybe a slight bit over three minutes. I hope not. I will list the businesses. Coleman Crest Farm, Denali Stud, Equine Land Conservation Resource, Godolphin at Johnabelle Farm, Golden Age Farm, Hallway Feeds, Horse Country, who you heard before, Justice Real Estate, Keen Ridge Farm, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association, Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Maya Comet Farm, Middlebrook Farm, Mount Brilliant Farm, Penbrook Farm, sylvestri real estate springview farm spy coast farm tailor-made farm and sales three diamonds farm winchester farm and my own winter quarter farm we are business owners employers and passionate members of the ag community those supporting the expansion of the USB claim that their goal is not to negatively impact equine or ag industries. I am here to tell you that some of those areas proposed for potential expansion do just that. The inner bluegrass region, including Fayette County, was placed on the World Monument Funds list of 100 most endangered cultural landscapes in the world because of the alarming loss of farmland to sprawl development. From 2001 to 2016, Kentucky lost 265,000 acres of farmland to development. This loss cannot be reversed. Last week, the 2023 Keeneland September sale, the largest yearling sale in the world, from people over from people were there from over 50 countries and many, many states. The sales, there were $400 million worth of sales. The studies show the economic impact from Keeneland's race meets in sales is nearly $600 million per year. Ag industries contribute $2.3 billion to the Lexington economy annually, and they support one out of every 12 jobs. This, the land is our factory floor. The equine industry is a $3.4 billion impact on the state of Kentucky. And 80,000 jobs are in the mix. The Bluegrass Stockyards is the largest cattle auction in the state. We are the number two county in ag receipts in the entire state. 90% of our rural service area is nationally recognized prime soil. Please consider excluding prime farmland and recognize scenic byways from any proposed expansion area and minimize the impact on our ag industries by imposing robust buffers and protections for existing and future operations. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. Jacob Slaughter followed by Bruce Simpson and Amy Clark. Mr. Simpson. Sorry, I thought I was on deck. That's all right. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of two property owners. You heard from Mr. Crutcher. Mr. Crutcher, as he indicated, sold this property to the folks that I represent. O.K. Gentry is the name of the company. Mitch Potter is the principal. I also represent Local 369 of the Electrical Workers Union that owns property at 5916 Athens Boonesboro Road. 41 acres of this property has been recommended for inclusion in the urban services boundary. We're asking for a slight adjustment of an additional 50 acres south of Boonesboro Road for these reasons. This is not prime agricultural farmland. It is not suitable for housing. It is too close to the interstate, right across from Blue Sky Industrial Park. And its prime location is for light industrial type uses, job creation. You've heard a lot of presentations relative to adding land, subtracting land. We're talking about job creation by two property owners, as I stand here today, that are ready to provide these jobs. You can ask, Jenna, Great House with the chamber, any industrial commercial broker in this town, is there a need for light industrial land? And the answer is unequivocally yes. These are for jobs for people that generally don't go to college, don't want to go to college, or aren't college material, or simply want to work in industrial type uses. These are high paying jobs. The local electrical workers union is prepared today to create a job training site on their 18 acres that will pay these people to go to school and upon graduation be placed in jobs starting at $75,000 to $125,000 a year. These are excellent, high-paying jobs, and they're ready to start construction today if they were inside the urban services boundary. Likewise, the acreage we're talking about, the rest of Mr. Potter's land, formerly the Crutcher property, is perfectly suited for light industrial uses. In all the zone changes that you will hear from here on out and you've heard before, trying to locate industrial uses with heavy trucks mixing with residential traffic is a major problem. This is right next to the interstate. This is where the traffic will enter and exit. It is a perfect location for these type jobs. I urge you, as a matter of a minor adjustment, to add these 50 acres and to provide job opportunities for a section in our community that is too often overlooked. And I thank you for your attention and your service. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. After Amy Clark, that's the last name I have on my list. I don't know if has anybody else signed in or would like to speak after Ms. Clark. Thank you, Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. In following the work of the committee whose expansion area study boundary recommendation you are considering today, I was amazed and dismayed by one fact. The committee asked early to hear a report from our county's property valuation administrator, David O'Neill, regarding the value of the lands under consideration. What could be more needful from the outset, as the committee recognized, than the sound information on the market value of the land proposed for development? Yet the PVA was silent. These economic conditions are in the dark. By contrast, the values and contributions of the land designated rural are well documented in the Rural Land Management Plan. I would call this a reckoning of use value, not what the land can bring at sale, at transfer, but how its manifold uses serve our community's dearer purposes for homes and work and faith and fellowship, for heritage and glory, from our Bluegrass World Heritage Site to every cult and racing meet, for grace and beauty and a unique identity that belongs to us all. I ask that you designate the minimum, if even that, 2,700 acres as gross acres for the consultants to perform their study. And that the consultants be directed as is usual in small area plans and the like to include recommendations for not only roads but schools, clinics, park land and other public facilities needful for any significant development. As well as to designate environmentally sensitive areas and even significant farm soils deserving of special treatment. Please think of the role of a planner to safeguard the public good is in your hands. You heard the committee as its final meeting heard the public comment, and it was described in work session that the task got a lot easier when landowners stood up and said, We want in, we are willing to develop, and others stood up and said, we want out, we never intend to develop. It's not really for the individual landowners to simply wave their flag and then you add it together. We're thinking of the good of the community and our identity. Thank you. Thank you, and the last name I have written down is Lynn Roach Phillips to speak. Hi, Commission. My name is Lynn Roach Phillips. I used to sit up here. I was a commissioner for nine and a half years. I'm a faculty member in the geography department at the University of Kentucky, teaching a class called Intro to Planning. I have quite a few of my students here today. And we come to a Planning Commission meeting because I like to teach them that Planning Commission, what happens at Planning Commission is democracy in action. This is what democracy looks like. You all are making the decisions that reflect what our Constitution is based on. And the decision to expand the urban services boundary was made just, what, three months ago? Three months and a week ago? The advisory committee met and made decisions over the course of five weeks, five very busy weeks when people were putting their kids in school. The university was beginning. No one really had their eye on the ball. what was happening in terms of urban land and an expansion of our urban services boundary. That is not a democratic process in my view. Put the brakes on this, take your time, and think very, very, very thoughtfully about what it is that you're going to be doing here. Affordable housing, I had an article in the Herald-Leader that spoke to the farce of building affordable housing by providing additional land. We know we don't have to be land economists to know that developers and builders will hit the top price point. And the issue of affordable housing is not unique to Lexington. This is happening in every community across the country. So please don't fall for that lame excuse. I love hearing people talking about the value of their land, not in terms of the exchange value, the cost of the land per acre, but what that land actually contributes to our community, to the fact that it can grow beautiful horses, strong horses, because of the calcium, the phosphorus, the nitrogen that exists within our soils, that those soils can grow big, beautiful, 400-year-old burrow trees that are lost to a windstorm over the course of time. That is a very different perspective on the use of land than we find in other parts of the world. I did a comparative study between Lexington and Ocala, Florida, another horse capital, and the folks in Ocala believe that land is there for individuals to make money, for sale, and the intrinsic value of land is ignored in that space. We have something very unique here. You need to listen to people and what they're telling you about the value of their land. I have 18 seconds. I want to talk about the Blue Sky Industrial Complex. Why is the soccer stadium that was approved not incorporated in that expansion area? Why is Blue Sky Industrial Park also not included? To me, those would add acreages that you so desperately need in order to meet that minimum threshold. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak? Seeing none, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we did check the mezzanine and we believe all the people who want to speak have had the opportunity to do so. We are now at your disposal if you have questions. The long range planning team led by Chris Taylor is here. The Division of Water Quality and PDR are both here. We would be happy to address any of your questions at this time. Mr. Nickel. All right, I do have a question. My understanding is that the document that was provided by the UGM Advisory Committee was the maps that you've presented, correct? Yes. This was the document that was presented? That's correct. Okay, so the document that we've been presented has more than the minimum, 2,801 acres that we've been called to act upon by including in the urban service area. My question would be this, we're looking at 14 properties that met the overall objectives of the council and there was a scoring process I'm looking at here that you provided in your presentation. I am of the six properties that we're looking at on the maps delivered by the UGM Advisory committee can you tell me or do you have an idea or is it true that during that process that voting for these six parcels was nearly unanimous unanimous to the point of only one vote on one one vote by one person is that correct yes mr nickel as the first of all the ranking helped to bring order to it and the the committee recognized the the value of the ranking and and did not dispute those rankings and so when they started looking at the prop at the sewer ability areas that ranked in the top half it it they were able to focus then on those areas as they pulled those out for further consideration they didn't include all of them there was one small area that was just a 10 acre subdivision so they did not include that because that wasn't going to add anything to the urban service area other than already developed lots that would not be redeveloped but they did generally look at all the other areas and say yes these are areas because of their ranking and because of their they do meet the criteria addressed by council that these are the areas that we're going to focus on so that was where they started okay and so that is confirmed it was nearly unanimous vote on the properties that have been included. Yes. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Yes, sir. We'll have just first a concept question, which is when this process was started, certain criteria were chosen to be focused on. The sewer ability, I suppose the amount of PDR farms in the area. What were the reasons that other goals and objectives such as connectivity or walkability were not included in the criteria that we were looking at? Mr. Mickler, the committee tried very hard to stay within the direction of the council. And I believe they understood if they started straying from that, then it would become much more subjective than the council gave them. So the council provided specific criteria about location, adjacency to the urban service area, or adjacency to a corridor, or common ownership therein. And then they further went on to say, address that issues such as infrastructure and rural land preservation should be addressed as well. And so without specific guidance on how to do that, we looked as carefully as we could at what would be the most objective way to do that. And that was through a sewer ability study that the council had just months earlier approved for update. So we believe that they were certainly interested in that, and we know that's always been a foundational consideration for development in the rural area. And then, of course, without question, the PDR farms, the government, the taxpayers of Fayette County, have made investments in those properties. And so it's incumbent on the government to ensure that those PDR properties are recognized and that that investment is maintained. So that's another reason that the PDR was pulled up to see how those intersect with the sewability areas and then apply the council criteria for adjacency or transportation. The other issues related to connectivity, of course, will be addressed in the master planning process. process. But as it exists now, it's very difficult to connect just about any of the rural land into the urban area, particularly pedestrian and bike, because of the way the 1996 expansionary master plan was done and the way other developments on the edge have been built out. So we're going to have to find creative ways to do that, but certainly within the new land that will be master planned, that will be a priority. And then also related to connectivity, but in this case not pedestrian and bike, we did have one speaker who mentioned, we've got connectivity to the urban service area with everything but this parcel numbers or this area number six. But that does meet the council criteria of being on a corridor. Okay. And the council did not say and, they said or. It meets the council criteria. Those are my questions for you. Mr. Poe. I'm grateful for all the work that the committee's been doing and the staff. I recognize the struggle of getting a reasonable response to the council's dictate in the time frame given. But I would point out that this group voted unanimously to proceed with a measured and careful analysis of all issues and to only move on expansion after that analysis was completed in a responsible fashion. I'm in complete agreement with people who have stood up and pointed out that this is not a democratic process. We were being forced into movements and decision-making by the council without their proper consideration of fact. I personally am offended that the council's decision made primarily for political reasons is now forcing us with a volunteer group of citizens who are asked to be responsible to the community as planners. Well, we're not planners, but we're trying to be planners. I'm offended that we're looking at this juggernaut of decisions being made in a way that we know is not the best possible way to do this. And I'm extremely concerned that we're not really thinking about climate science when we're doing this. Once we have developed land, we're losing the potential for that land to participate in the water cycle, which is inherently necessary for the cooling of the planet. We're focused on emissions at the expense of thinking about the water cycle. We're preparing to do things that cannot be undone. so my question is what is what are our options as a group should we decide that we do not want to comply with the council's dictate and we want to tell them that we are refusing to go along with approving something that we know is not the right thing to do Mr. Poe, let me back into starting with a positive. First of all, once the Planning Commission makes the decision about the land as recommended by the Advisory Committee, you are then in full control of the master plan. And you will have perhaps not adequate, but at least more time to work on that and ensure that all of those things you mentioned, at least in the micro evaluation of those areas, is addressed to the point that perhaps that will be a sufficient expansion for a long time. So I understand what you're saying. I absolutely hear what you're saying, but I also want you to know that you are about to take control of this process. Perhaps you don't feel that you have been to this point, but you're about to take control through the master plan. That will be entirely yours. And I saw the word sustainable and equitable development on the plan. And you and I know that those are lovely words, but getting there is probably impossible. Well, take a look at that ZODA that you're working on right now. That's going to be a big leap forward for this community. We're looking at equity and sustainability in ways that have never been looked at before in the zoning ordinance. I agree, and I know that the work that we've been doing to improve the scenario for development inside the urban services boundary has been consistent and pushing hard to move to a more open and encouraging development prospect for that. However, we really haven't gotten far enough along yet, and it's another argument for taking this very, very carefully. Mr. Paul, I'd like to confront head-on your other question, though. What if the Planning Commission balks and does not proceed with the direction of Council? I think we've already seen what happens when the council doesn't get accomplished what they direct through the comprehensive plan. And in 2018, when the council asked for a process to address expansion that identified where land would be preserved and where future land could be developed, and they didn't get that, they took the next step. And that was to direct that there be an expansion of the urban service area. But they put that, even though they put a limit on that, or they put numbers on that, they still put that decision to the Planning Commission. It is my opinion, just my professional opinion, after watching the 2018 comprehensive plan not meet the council's expectations and how they responded in the 2023 plan, that the council will take over zoning and development outside the urban service area. That is what will happen next, and the Planning Commission will lose complete control of their ability to provide sustainable and plan for sustainable development outside the urban service area. That's what I'm concerned about. The Planning Commission needs to remain in control of this and follow this through as the council directed. That's a very frightening prospect. Yeah, it is. It is. But that's the next step, Mr. Pohl. That's the next step. This leads into my concerns about this, is that we're looking at multiple areas. And I don't know what happened in 1996. I suspect it, I haven't seen the map of what was brought in, but I think it was a larger chunk of land. You know, I don't know if there were multiple sites. My concern is that we are given a year to come up with multiple plants. And I am concerned about what kind of document we're going to get out of that. and it keeps me awake at night. And Ms. Meyer, that is all the more reason we need to bring the consultant in as quickly as possible to give them the full measure of time. And they will be making frequent updates to the Planning Commission, including starting things off. So I do hope that we can get the consultants in front of the Planning Commission as soon as possible and talk about your concerns and your hopes and your desires for this master plan so that they can know the direction they need to be headed. Just out of curiosity, how long did it take to develop the master plan that came out of the 1996 expansion? The total process to identify the land, to go through the process, the zoning, and all of that took about three years. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. With regard to the individuals that came up and were offering up their land, what happens to those requests? Do we act on that? Well, of course, the advisory committee heard that at their public input meeting two weeks ago, and the individuals were responding largely to the maps that were before him. So the members of the community were affirming that their land, as indicated on the map, was that they were interested in being included and prepared for development. There was one other person that spoke at the advisory committee public input meeting that said they wanted to be included, but the committee had never reviewed that land, and they chose not to include that. Now what you're hearing is primarily, with the exception of another presentation today, is from other people whose land had earlier on and earlier drafts been listed as included, and the committee decided not to proceed with that. That is certainly information that we're happy to talk you all through, and you can revisit that if you'd like to. Or if you end up not doing so, that's your prerogative as well. I was just curious as to what do we do with that information. Right. Yeah. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim, thank you. I've got a lot of stuff here. I'm going to keep it at a higher level, more global level, I think, though. First of all, I mean, you all did send us information. yesterday. I counted like 327 pages to review. That's a lot of information that's coming through the community to us. And, you know, I mean, it's all well thought of. And it's well intended. We can appreciate that. We've got a lot of stuff that came to us today that's still, again, new information that we've got to listen and digest and so forth. I appreciate that. I appreciate what mr paul had to say i can appreciate where he's coming from but by the same token i can appreciate your response uh what i see right now we've got a challenge that's been given to us and that's what we've got to focus on um i've got one one thing to ask i think i know the answer but it's something that i think we should work on if if we can't do it now we should work on it in the future i've got a couple of things that i think we can discuss later for the most part i may touch on them but i think we can push them to later The big thing for me is I've asked you in the past as to land absorption information. What have we been doing? Anything, I think, anybody that looks to the future, it's prudent for them to recognize what has been going on. I mean, right now, I'm working on a budget for the farm that I manage. and by george i want to know what i did this past year on it so i mean it's just prudent to look to that uh i've heard stories where there was a something funded during the sustainability committee or something that you know was supposed to measure that i don't know what happened to it uh and you know like i said if if we can't come up with this information for the past year or whatever now, it's something that I really think that we should work on to be able to track in the future. I'll put that. Other information, I think at the work session we asked Charlie Martin to be here. I think he's been patiently waiting in the back. Primarily simply because one area I don't think was included, the serability study. question for you that could be asked answer now or we can discuss later it was brought up today me personally curious about the cane break area it was talked about it's out now I've really haven't heard why and then also there's There's been some questions brought up as to specifically area in the Blue Sky Parkway area that, you know, we're developing right up to it. So why not include those areas? But there's a lot of individual properties that we may have to discuss later. Did you want any of that addressed now, Mr. Owens, particularly with water quality? Particularly water quality and sewer, yes, sir. I'll just start and then I guess you'll probably come back and give me a specific question because there was a lot there. The sewer ability study that was completed this year, the basis of that was the one that we did in 2006. That was the starting point. So if some folks wonder where that all came from, it came from one that was done before the consent decree started. Its origins go back to the Rural Land Management Plan, I think, of 1999, 1998, something like that. We modified those areas a little bit to better reflect what we know now as far as regarding the consent decree, where we had maybe specific projects that were right alongside the urban service boundary, that expansion could potentially solve what is a problem that we have right now that doesn't have a readily apparent solution. And then also the area six, we've changed numbers and letters so many times I have to think about that a little bit. The one in Blue Sky, one of the speakers mentioned earlier, there is a privately owned pump station sitting in the middle of that lot that serves our existing customers right now. That wasn't apparent to us when we took over Blue Sky several years ago as part of the consent decree settlement. And so, you know, we added that one. It was not in the 2006 study because we felt like that it was a necessity to at least consider it because it would solve what is potentially an environmental problem that would happen if Mr. Crutcher decided not to take care of the pump station anymore. So I wanted to give you that background as far as why particular areas were or weren't in there. It started from the study that was done before. When we presented our information, everything that we do is based on the topography. It's not based on property lines or roads. It's about what drains to a common point because we tried to present information that would demonstrate efficiency of which how you might sewer an area if it were to be added to the urban service boundary. We're not trying to suggest in water quality. We're not trying to suggest what should be added or not. We feel like our job is to tell you how to do it or how it can be done in the most efficient way as far as the benefit for the whole community and our customers in particular. And so through the course of the committee's work, they basically, we went back to property lines and they started adjusting things based on the other criteria at which you make decisions about whether or not something gets added to the urban service boundary. And so we're at a point now to where, okay, well, those are the areas that you want to further the discussion on, which brought us to today. My job is then to try to tell you how to be able to sewer those as efficiently as possible. So with that, if you have a specific question about an area, I can do that. Other people may have it, but to start, the area four, I believe, wasn't included. Yes, that was in the original study. Okay. It was five. I'm sorry. Okay. Five. Five was not in the original study. Part of four actually drains to five, the part that is up close to the urban service boundary and I-75 kind of landlocked by everything else. We missed that. We flat out missed that when we were preparing this study. I mean, we were trying to do it so quickly that it just got missed. and during the course of the initial conversations with the committee, it was apparent that we were considering something that was draining in the other direction. Along the way, five expressed interest in being included. As one of the speakers mentioned before, it involves two parcels that feel like they're in a position to develop. So that's how four and five really kind of came about, or five in particular, is it would accept part of four by natural drainage under the interstate. And so five made a lot of sense, at least to me. Along with that is that one of the speakers mentioned that there are two existing properties out there outside I-75 that are on Todd's Road. Both of them have privately owned pump stations. I hate privately owned pump stations. I'll just be literal about it. Because when they fail, there's not always somebody around to fix them. Usually they're calling us. And so that also presented the opportunity to potentially avoid a future problem. One other question. It was mentioned here today that the area, oh goodness, which is four, I think because of you all taking on Blue Sky, there was a trunk line for lack of, I don't know if that's the proper terminology or not, that you brought in on 8th and Spoonsboro Road years ago. it was rumored at that time it wasn't sized or big enough for additional development is that true or can it handle it is size such as that there is the potential for additional development and capacity but i will say this capacity is not indefinite you know that it's a function of the density of which the property gets developed or any property gets developed whether it's inside the urban service boundary or not I feel like there is sufficient capacity to be able to do things in Area 4 that would connect directly to that pressurized force main that pumps back into the urban service boundary. I can't tell you exactly what that capacity is right now, but I think it's considerable. It's just not indefinite. Is anything indefinite? Pardon? Is anything indefinite? No, not really, especially sewer capacity. You know, we spent a lot of time in the early part of the committee talking about it. I mean, we've got two treatment plants, and we have eight drainage areas, and they all drain away from us. And so any time we talk about expansion, sewering is difficult. And the more that we expand, the more difficult it is. But it can be done. Okay. Thank you, sir. While you're on that, you mentioned cane break area. area would you repeat to planning commissioners what you told us about trying to sewer the sewer the area in cane break and why it's not included on this map water quality did not advocate for the the cane break segment because it involved multiple small drainage areas and when you have small drainage areas that are independent from one another it proliferates the number of pumping stations that you have to have. And obviously that's not our goal because it has a long-term operational cost for us. So we weren't really supportive of the cane break part of it for that reason. I actually have a question. Mr. Martin, I reread the sewer abilities, the full Stantec report this morning. And I was trying to look at the areas that we're looking at very specifically. And if you could explain to me the sewer ability or the process and the possible potential cost of sewering Area 3. Area 3, because of the way things came out through the committee, is a little bit more difficult than it would be otherwise. Basically it's going to require a pump station of some form or another. Where that pump station would pump towards how it would get back in the system, there's multiple options. Some are more expensive than others. Just to the left of Area 3, as you look at that map, we have an existing pump station there called Greenbrier No. 2. It is listed in the consent decree as an overflowing pump station that we're going to have to address. Ideally, Area 3 and Greenbrier would be solved in conjunction with one another in a partnership type of situation because I think that would be most advantageous for us in the event that 3 is added. three is is a little bit more difficult than than others it's very reliant on how it gets there if for some reason it's not part of the solution for the greenbriar situation then it's all on the development we don't have any role in that whatsoever the same thing applies for for four you know is it any sewer infrastructure that goes out there in the area four and area five that we don't really have any impact to it is they've got to demonstrate that wherever they're connecting to has sufficient capacity. But like I said, three can be done. It just, by the exclusion of the properties across the street who are very clear that they did not want to be part of an expansion right now, it became a little bit harder. So the Stantec report, which I think was published in July, and again, it had a larger area for that section, but the bottom line, it seemed extraordinary as far as the cost went. And I just didn't know if removing those properties across Winchester Road, how that would have affected that cost. Like you said, does it make it more difficult and therefore potentially more expensive, or does it lower it because you're not worried about that land on the other side? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I would say that it probably does make it more difficult, which then increases expense. Yes. You know, the easy thing to do with Greenbrier was to move it across the street on the farm that doesn't want to be part of the urban service boundary. And I'm not going to advocate that if they don't want to be part of the boundary. I understand that. So then that means that we have to move someplace else. And that probably means that the pipe needs to be deeper. The pump station needs to be deeper because whenever you're defying the topography and what we call bucking grade, that there's always cost because it's rock removal. It's those things that go along with it. Again, like I said, it can be done. It can be done. I've got another question as well. My understanding is that there is a need for a fourth pump station. Is that what we were talking about? Sorry, repeat that. Is there the need for an additional pump station in our pump system, I guess what we're discussing right now, in our community? Yes. There's a need for one more, correct? The need for pump stations in our community, there's two pump stations that we have. Well, actually, there's four pump stations that still are listed in the consent decree that have to be addressed. And being addressed means that they're being replaced and increasing in capacity. And in one of those cases, it actually requires a pump station and a storage tank that goes along with it. Those things are independent of anything that you're doing here right now. Greenbrier, if you don't add a blade of grass out there in an expansion on Winchester Road, Greenbrier still needs to be done. It's an existing problem. Excuse me. So what we tried to do in the sewer ability study is looking at topography and all that, is are there opportunities to leverage money or expenses that my division was going to already have to use, along with development dollars, to where it became a win-win situation? Area 2 is ripe for that because right now Area 2 is in the area of what we call North Elkhorn. With the exception of the grandfathered parcels, the ones that already had development plans before the Capacity Assurance Program came about, you take those out of there, North Elkhorn has a negative capacity availability to it. So we have a proposed storage tank that's going to go out there someplace in some time in the next five years. Now if two becomes an area that we're going to look at, we're going to be looking at moving that storage tank and the pump stations further downstream up against I-64. there's an opportunity there to leverage an existing public expense and obligation due to the consent decree along with potential expansion. And that's what we were trying to present when it came to costs. I think that's extremely important to be able to leverage those dollars to help you all do what you need to do. So if we can solve a couple of problems at once, and as you say, create a win-win situation, it's always a good thing. Thank you, Mr. Martin, unless anybody has any more questions. One question that I had, this is probably for Mr. Duncan, I was just trying to really understand the scoring system that was used by the urban growth management team. and we talk about sewer so much, and when I read that report this morning, I mean, it's obviously very significant. I would have thought it would have been a criteria within this chart, whether it be ease of sewer ability or potential cost of sewer ability for whichever region it may be. I also would have thought, because contiguous to the urban service area was a factor, why was proximity to either schools or police or fire or critical services like that, why was that not a factor in this along with the sewer ability? So the sewerability very much is a factor. It comes in LFUCG participation, I realize that that's not intuitive on this chart. But that's the biggest factor is what is the role of the government already has to play in providing sanitary sewer to these areas. So therefore, just as Mr. Martin just said, we're going to have to address the Greenbuyer pump station anyway. So the participation means we've got to do something in those areas already anyway. The government's going to be making investment there. So how can that, if we're going to need to be doing something, then that area then rises as a means of, rises in an area that could be part of the development since it would need to be addressed anyway. The other that fits into this is we looked at some things that were also factored into the sewerability study, and that is the parcel size. Here, parcels less than 10 acres and parcels greater than 40 acres. Part of that was part of the consideration of the sewerability. So they were looking at sort of minimum parcel sizes before they moved in. Now, we were able to get sort of dual points out of that because we know that the larger parcels, certainly for economic development purposes, as Commerce Lexington has stated on the record, are more important than the smaller parcels, although we do know that smaller parcels can be redeveloped for a variety of purposes. So you see that, like, for the smaller parcels, only one area actually lost points, and nothing else didn't really lose any points because of that. So sewability is a part of that. The other criteria, road frontage, contiguity, PDR, all of that was driven directly from the council directives. And that is why, Mr. Davis, that such things as cost of community services and proximity to those services was not. But there's another good reason for that, too. because if we're if we're looking at hundreds and a collection of hundreds of acres and thousands of acres it stands to reason that there's going to need to be new facilities to support those particularly schools and parks and that kind of thing so that will absolutely be part of what the master plan will be recommending is where do we need those kinds of community facilities to be located within these new areas. Thank you. And like Mr. Owens, I find myself searching for a tool. Yes, and Mr. Martin reminded me, and there was an open discussion about this in the committee relative to the PDR properties, is that they are essentially off limits for public infrastructure. So we can't run sanitary sewer services underground through PDR. We can't widen the roads into PDR properties because that's the way they're funded. That's the way the easements are drawn. So PDR becomes a very important consideration in where the actual land goes. Yes, thank you. Like Mr. Owens, I've been thinking about all of this looking at the map, but I find myself looking for a tool that I couldn't put a name to it. But you and I spoke earlier about absorption. And I would very much appreciate if we could, if the staff could look at the last 10 years or whatever it may be, and just give us an average of what the community has absorbed every year. I think that's an important bit of data for us to have. Well, there's one more thing. but that is we can certainly look at what we can help provide on that mr. Davis but I also want to say that I believe absorption certainly comes into play when you're thinking about the totality of a process and so an appropriate process that would identify when you should expand the urban service area and for what purpose would absolutely look at how the land that had been available for whatever land use is now becoming deficient how has that been used and is Is it being used up at a rate that it would indicate we need to add more? And so certainly months from now when we get to work on the, when planning actually gets to work on the process, then I believe something like that will be an important consideration. Thank you. I'd like to suggest that it's also important now from the standpoint that there are people who've encouraged us to go up to the maximum. them and I think it would be helpful in terms of looking at absorption to have some projection of how long 2700 acres would take to use up. An additional comment to that, I've heard different numbers on the demographic changes of our community. So if we're satisfied with a negative growth that's going to affect our understanding of the data that shows the absorption rate. So what I'm trying to say is we as a community need to get a better understanding. Are we willing to grow as a community or do we want to continue to shed citizens that can't afford to live here? So that needs to be taken into consideration as well when you're thinking about absorption rate. And anecdotally, we've all been sitting here where we've looked at a piece of property on underneath the overpass on Versailles Road and Citation to put 12 affordable housing units under a bridge. And we approved it because that's all the land that was available to do something like that. total example of what hopefully an increase in supply can do to increase demand, or increase supply and reduce demand. So that's the hope, that this land that's inside the urban service now, that it's vacant and underutilized, can now be available for developers to do something with. Because with so much activity and such a limited resource of land, there's a lot of players in those areas and the competition is steep which leads to higher prices and less affordable housing units. So I think it's important for us to understand do we want to increase our population or do we want to decrease our population? So I'd be interested to take that into consideration as we move forward. I think that could be a public input meeting unto itself and I believe we'd be surprised at some of the answers we would get on that. I have a question about the urban growth management task force process. When these parcels were being considered, presumably their configurations were looked at in all kinds of different ways. for example looking at parcel three was it considered to exclude 4200 winchester road so that the development would not go to the corner of cleveland and winchester no it was not mr pole and and the the advisory committee had as we noted earlier had prioritized the entirety of that area as their focus. And so they were prepared to go from Hume Road to North Cleveland Road, essentially, and include all of that land in the expansion. And then when the property owners on the north side of Winchester Road came and said, no, we do not want to be included, then that upset that. And so, of course, the committee responding to no, don't include me, they did not. And in so doing, that then puts more need on the remaining parcels to be contributing to that 2,700 minimum acres. It's troubling to me that decisions like this are being made based on what the landowners want. Because clearly it's all about self-interest. It's not about the interest of the community. Well, the concern about going against a property owner that says do not include me is that you're essentially setting property up to never be developed, and they wouldn't be a part of this. We'd be spending public resources to master plan land that has no intention of developing, and I don't believe that's a responsible use of our resources, And it certainly is undermining the intent of the council goal of the land. I agree with that. I was really referring to the inclusion of an entire parcel based on the landowner's willingness, not based on an examination of the potential. And, yes, Mr. Fuller, I should have answered that better. I don't believe that's the reason that decision was made. I don't believe any of these parcels where the landowner said, yes, I want to include. That was more of an affirmation. No new decisions, with the exception of the little property around Athens, were added because property owners said they wanted to be included. It was just affirmation of the work that the committee had already done. One last question. Was there consideration of including the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center? There were early drafts that included the commercial portions, the part just around the interchange, not the industrial portions of Blue Sky. And the committee moved away from that when they started looking at other lands, particularly the Todd's Road parcels, since those were lands that were undeveloped and could be turned into something else, knowing that including the Blue Sky properties, although there's certainly good redevelopment opportunities, and we hope that will still happen, that can happen whether those properties are in the urban service area, because they're already in the rural activity center, they have sanitary sewer, they have urban zoning, So the expectation is that some of the other new development that's happening around there will put pressure on those to up their game anyway. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments for Mr. Duncan? Anything else for us? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what we have, and we will get notes to you all about the public input that you've heard, and we'll continue to share with you any written comments that we receive and make sure you have that. We do have this slated for the October 12th agenda to further consider, and perhaps if the Planning Commission at that point is ready, we would offer this as the Planning Commission would be accepting either the committee's recommendations recommendation or your modification of that for purposes of master planning. And just perhaps it's overstating, but whatever you do with this map or with the land over the next few weeks only permits the consultant to know where to focus their efforts. It does not change the urban service area. It does not make that land available for development. does not change that it does not allow it to be sewered nothing changes until you adopt the master plan more than a year from now thank you mr duncan and if we have nothing else mr owens of course all right you you may be planning to do this but recognizing the fact that we do have a couple of commission members that's not present uh that did serve on the this urban growth committee i think it should be recognized maybe they took off because they needed a vacation i'm not sure but uh... uh... simply put uh... the work that has been done whether it's on a expedited basis or not i think the work has been done by everybody's been very good thank you commissioner worth and commissioner forester and step Mr. Wilson, of course. Thank you all, and if there's nothing else, we're adjourned.