# General Government and Planning Committee - February 13, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 13, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6041 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6041?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-02-13 - **Last revised**: February 13, 2024 - **Length**: 17,453 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government & Planning Committee met on February 13, 2024, at 1:00 PM with P. Worley presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, with one formal vote taken and no public comments received. The meeting included approval of the January 16, 2024 GGP Committee Summary, along with three informational presentations covering significant planning and development topics. The committee received updates on a Shelter Feasibility RFP, a Master Plan Presentation, and an Urban Growth Ordinance ZOTA, providing members with important information on ongoing municipal planning initiatives. ## Attendance All members were present for the meeting on February 13, 2024. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. **Present:** • P. Worley • K. Plomin • D. Wu • J. Brown • C. Ellinger • S. Lynch • H. LeGris • L. Sheehan • W. Baxter • J. Reynolds **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The committee took one formal vote during the February 13, 2024 meeting. **Approval of Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 00:30] K. Plomin motioned to approve the January 16, 2024, GGP Committee Summary, with W. Baxter providing the second. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed one significant financial appropriation during the session. The council considered a $200,000 appropriation for a feasibility study examining homeless shelter needs in Lexington. This appropriation represents a substantial investment in assessing the community's capacity and requirements for addressing homelessness through shelter services. The feasibility study funding was presented as a standalone appropriation without specification of the vendor or recipient organization that would conduct the study. No resolution number was provided in the available meeting materials for this financial action. This appropriation reflects the council's commitment to taking a data-driven approach to addressing homelessness in the community by first conducting a comprehensive assessment of current needs and potential solutions before making larger infrastructure investments. ## Contested Items The meeting featured significant community opposition regarding proposed zoning regulation changes affecting drive-throughs and gas stations, particularly within B-1 zoning districts. **Drive-through and Gas Station Zoning Changes** The primary contested item involved proposed modifications to zoning regulations that would impact how drive-through facilities and gas stations operate within B-1 zones. Community members expressed substantial concerns about these regulatory changes during the public comment period. The opposition centered on the potential effects these zoning modifications could have on local businesses and neighborhood character. Residents and stakeholders voiced apprehensions about how the proposed changes might alter the operational parameters for existing drive-through establishments and gas stations in B-1 commercial zones. The specific nature of the community's objections included concerns about the practical implications of the regulatory adjustments and their potential impact on established businesses operating under current zoning provisions. Public participants questioned whether the proposed changes would create undue hardships for existing establishments or alter the commercial landscape in ways that might not align with community preferences. The outcome of this contested item was not definitively resolved during this meeting, with the matter requiring further consideration by the governing body. The significant level of public engagement and opposition indicated that additional review and potentially revised proposals would be necessary before any final decisions could be made regarding the drive-through and gas station zoning modifications. The controversy highlighted the importance of community input in zoning decisions and demonstrated the need for careful consideration of how regulatory changes might affect both existing businesses and neighborhood dynamics within B-1 commercial districts. ## January 16, 2024 GGP Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:30] The committee reviewed the summary of their January 16, 2024 meeting during this agenda item. P. Worley served as the key speaker for this discussion. The committee examined the previously prepared summary document from their January 16, 2024 GGP Committee meeting. This review process allows committee members to verify the accuracy of the recorded proceedings and ensure that all important discussions and decisions from the prior meeting were properly documented. Following their review of the January 16, 2024 meeting summary, the committee approved the document without noted concerns or required modifications. This approval formally establishes the summary as the official record of the January 16, 2024 GGP Committee proceedings. The approval of meeting summaries is a standard procedural item that ensures proper documentation and transparency of committee activities for public record and future reference. ## Shelter Feasibility RFP [timestamp: 01:00] The council received a presentation on a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a feasibility study examining homeless shelter needs in the community. The discussion centered on the allocation of $200,000 in funding for this comprehensive study. P. Worley presented details about the proposed feasibility study, which would assess current shelter capacity, identify gaps in services, and evaluate potential locations and operational models for expanded shelter facilities. The study aims to provide data-driven recommendations for addressing homelessness in the area. Councilmember Fogle participated in the discussion, though specific details of their comments were not captured in the available materials. The conversation appeared to focus on the scope and methodology of the proposed study, as well as the rationale for the $200,000 budget allocation. The RFP process would allow qualified consultants and research organizations to submit proposals for conducting the feasibility study. The selected contractor would be responsible for analyzing current shelter utilization, conducting community needs assessments, and providing recommendations for future shelter development or expansion. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, allowing council members to review the proposed RFP parameters and funding allocation before any formal action is taken. The feasibility study represents a preliminary step in the city's broader efforts to address homelessness through evidence-based planning and resource allocation. The discussion highlighted the council's commitment to taking a systematic approach to shelter planning, ensuring that any future investments in homeless services are based on thorough research and community needs assessment. ## Master Plan Presentation [timestamp: 02:00] The meeting featured an informational presentation on the Urban Growth Master Plan, delivered by key speakers P. Worley and Taylor. The presentation provided an update on the current status of the master planning process, with particular emphasis on community engagement efforts and the project timeline. The speakers outlined the progress made on the Urban Growth Master Plan, which appears to be a comprehensive planning initiative for the jurisdiction. The presentation covered ongoing community engagement activities designed to gather public input on the master plan development process. Taylor and P. Worley discussed the project timeline, providing attendees with information about upcoming milestones and expected completion dates for various phases of the master plan. The presentation served as an informational update rather than a decision-making item, allowing officials and the public to stay informed about the planning process. The agenda item was structured as a presentation format, indicating that the primary purpose was to share information and updates with meeting participants rather than to seek approval or make policy decisions. This type of regular reporting helps ensure transparency in the master planning process and keeps stakeholders informed about the development of long-term growth strategies for the community. No specific concerns or debates were noted during this informational presentation, and the outcome was purely educational, providing attendees with current information about the Urban Growth Master Plan's progress and next steps. ## Urban Growth Ordinance ZOTA [timestamp: 03:00] Hal Bailey presented information on the Urban Growth Management Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) during this agenda item. The presentation focused on proposed zoning changes designed to support equitable and sustainable development within the jurisdiction's urban growth boundaries. The discussion centered on modifications to existing zoning ordinances that would affect how development occurs in designated urban growth areas. Bailey outlined the key components of the proposed text amendment, which aims to balance development needs with community sustainability goals and equitable housing opportunities. The presentation was informational in nature, providing council members and the public with details about the proposed zoning changes and their potential impacts on future development patterns. The Urban Growth Management ZOTA represents part of the municipality's broader planning efforts to manage growth in a coordinated and strategic manner. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it served as an informational presentation to familiarize attendees with the proposed ordinance changes. The discussion provided a foundation for future deliberations on the zoning text amendment as it moves through the review and approval process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the January 16, 2024, GGP Committee Summary --- ## Full transcript I Somebody's gonna hurt someone Before the night is through Somebody's gonna come undone There's nothing we can do Everybody Everybody wants to touch somebody If it takes all night Everybody wants to take a little chance Make it come out right It's gonna be a heartache tonight A heartache tonight, I know It's gonna be a heartache tonight A heartache tonight, I know Let's go We can beat around the bush And we can get down to the bone We can leave it in the parking lot But either way there's gonna be a party tonight A party tonight, I know Oh, I know There'll be a party tonight A party tonight, I know Woo-hoo Break my heart. Look at me I'm as helpless as a kid in love dreaming I'm walking on a cloud I can't understand, Lord, I'm a mistake holding your hand. I walked my way, and a thousand violins began to play. Oh, it might be the sound of your hello, that music I hear. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Oh, my God. All right, good afternoon. This is the General Government and Planning Committee meeting of February 13, 2024. I'll call us to order. The first item on our agenda will be approval of the committee summary from our January 16th meeting. I'll entertain a motion. Motion approved. Second. Any comment or discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That will pass. Are you ready? Okay. The next item on our agenda is the shelter feasibility request for proposal. While this item has my name on it because I made the motion in fund balance to place this in committee, this actually was brought forward to us by Council Member Fogle. So I'm going to ask Councilmember Fogel if she has any comment or presentation she would like to make to lead into this matter. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here. And my mom told me that a picture is worth a thousand words, And so I am so interested in this moving forward with the RFP that I have just a short video to show you as to the reason why we need this to go forward. We didn't have enough money to pay for the rent. And so they kicked us out on Christmas night. My name is Darrell Kwan, and I go to school at Leastown Middle School in eighth grade. I've been homeless for two months now, and we live in a hotel. I became homeless in July of 2011. I was taken to the Salvation Army, dropped off by my son's father, and was told that I had too many medical problems for him. And that's how I became homeless. It's not easy for women to be homeless on the street at all. We don't ask to be homeless just because we are. We're not criminals. You know, we want that roof over our head and that security place to go to the bathroom, you know, a place to lay our heads safely. I was staying in my car for probably close to two, maybe three weeks. A little bit in Richmond and then here in Lexington. Lexington. Just moving out of my car, day by day. I had made this little makeshift bed for myself because, well, even though you're laying the seats down, it's still hard. So I had this foam rollout thing, and then I had a couple blankets that I got from, one I got from Goodwill, and it's only $5, and another one I got from the hospital. They gave me another blanket. I used my laundry bag as a pillow, the one with clean clothes in it, not the dirty clothes. I would want to smell that all night. I'd sit in there and I was still in school, too. At the time, I was still in college doing my online courses. Yeah. Now, if they pass this bill, all they're going to be focused on is locking us up, giving us $250 fine. Now, we homeless. We ain't got no job. But we can't even feed ourselves. Now, where are we going to get $250 at to pay a fine? And the next step is, what, going to jail? They ain't got enough room in jail for all of us. we don't want to go to jail why put us in jail because we're sleeping in the park we got feelings we hurt, we cry all of us is not bad we just need a chance thank you if Mr. Charlie come up for the presentation thank you committee I get speechless right now so let me, Charlie if you'll go ahead Thank you Council Member Fogle for bringing that forward and for highlighting an issue that I know you care so much about and that we all want to help with Mr. Lander please So that was a great lead into this presentation which is to basically go through the process piece of the request for proposals that you all have funded for a study on feasibility of homeless shelters. So what we were charged with was taking the $200,000 that was allocated in the fund balance to finance a study that will look at what type of shelter is needed in Lexington, where it should be, how much is it going to cost us to operate it annually, what innovative solutions or types of shelter options are available to us that we're not already using in Lexington. And very importantly, and your video is a good example of that, what options can we come up with for people who are not currently served by the existing shelter population because we have many people who fall through that gap, whether it's people who can't get in due to having a pet or people who are in a family. There's various scenarios in which our current shelter system is not able to serve our population. So the process that we've followed so far, we do have a prepared draft that's ready to go for this RFP. we can release it this week and it is going to ask for proposals for a study we will get an actual written plan back from the vendors our HPI office is ready to provide them with all the data and analysis of our current system because obviously in order to know what we need they have to look at what we have so they'll spend some time analyzing our existing processes our existing shelters and programs as well as our numbers and we also are going to give them data from other sources our temporary winter shelter the Hope Village as well as Fayette County Public Schools because we know those are where the gaps are and those are the numbers they're going to need to see in terms of looking at who are we not already serving our review team for this is in front of you now we try to put together a diverse group that includes our Fayette County Schools rep a couple of our providers David Chad there at the bottom is the gentleman who operates the Winter Village, the Hope Village, and we've got representatives from my office as well. Up there is just the example of the scoring criteria, looking at how we will score the proposals. I'll answer any questions about that, but otherwise that's pretty standard. I think most importantly is our timeline. We hope to get this out as soon as, like I said, as soon as this week. If you assume about a one-month turnaround, for us to receive proposals and other months to review them, award the contract at a council meeting. They will spend summer and fall of this year doing the work, and by spring of 25, we will get the findings. I'm hopeful to get it sooner, but I'm realistic that when you look at, particularly as we ask them to look at locations, that is going to be a very complicated, a very difficult task, so I tried to build in a little extra time for that piece. but other than that I think it'll take basically about a year that's it I try to be short and sweet this project's actually ready to go we're excited about it and I'm happy to answer any questions councilmember if you have questions please log in councilmember James Brown thank you chair thank you Charlie for the presentation and councilmember Fogle for bringing this issue to our attention. Commissioner, so in addition to identifying what type of shelter may be needed and where and what it looks like, is this study also going to help us determine whether there's a way that we can build capacity further down the road in regards to permanent supportive housing or I'll just say like the Hope Center, the facility that's on site at the Hope Center that's not the emergency shelter. I don't know if it's categorized as transitional housing, but the next step that people can phase into as they stabilize themselves. Will the study help determine if we need more capacity there as opposed to entry-level housing? That is not the intent of this study. However, we do have, we over call the affordable housing study that's ongoing currently with EHI. That study is looking at permanent supportive housing, and we actually expected to come back with some recommendations on permanent supportive housing solutions. The way this is written, this is strictly focused on emergency shelter because that's been a neglected need within our system. If you look back, we really haven't added any shelter capacity that wasn't temporary capacity since the 1990s. Okay. So, okay, so, but it is, so we do have something in the works that will help give us more information and clarity on what we need to do further in the system. And we will hopefully receive those reports relatively close together so that those considerations can be taken together. Okay. And then I'm also looking at the timeline. I think just recently you did the annual count that you do to assess that. And according to this timeline, it seems like that time frame will pass again. Do you just see your office or Jeff's office, whoever coordinates that annual count, to be able to provide the information to whoever is doing this study and them not having a role in or having some part in that study or having some component to better gather information? Yeah, the thing about the count is the data is lagged. So even though we hold the count in January, we don't finalize the data typically until April. So really what we'll be doing is as soon as they get this contract, it'll be about the same time we get all the final data from this year's count. That'll be handed to them on day one. They will have the most recent completed count. My hope is they're getting close to finish by the time we do the count in 25, and while it may inform some last-minute changes, hopefully we'll already be further and far enough along that the next year's counts not as relevant okay yeah and I just think that information is probably you know is important to have and in fact into what we what we're what we're trying to do and is there also so in is there also going to be and I if this might be a given and not need to be stated but does it also look at the coordination between existing emergency shelters and identifying the gaps because there may be I'm just thinking there may be a way to better coordinate efforts between different agencies to make sure that we're that we're catching folks that might fall through the cracks of service yeah I think that'll be a critical piece of this study and they'll almost certainly if not will be insisting that they interview the existing providers as well as is they're looking at models that's what they're looking at is what are the gaps who's fallen through and in order to do that they really need to talk to the current shelter operators about who are you not serving who can't you take in and why and it could be that some of what arises out of that it's not just a new project but also reforms to existing projects to expand the existing capacity yeah okay well I appreciate that and look forward to the progress on this so thank you thank you chair thank you councilmember Fogle thank you chair just one clarifying question will the 757 Fayette County school students be included in this count yes we'll be provide we'll be asking TC to provide us with all the Fayette County school numbers that we can so we can give them to the person doing this thank you thank you any other questions the only question or comment I have Commissioner is the timeframe here obviously this will must include this must envision a pretty in-depth and exhaustive analysis given that we've got almost a year of potential study could you speak to that just a little bit I think yes is the short answer I expect it to be a very in-depth and thorough analysis because we sort of only get one crack at this we haven't done it a long time and it's desperately needed I gave you sort of what I consider the longest case scenario in terms of the timeline you know i'm hopeful we can get it done much more quickly the reason that it is as long as it is again is the sighting when you start working on and any council member knows this where to put a shelter and who will operate it those are really complex questions that can raise significant issues and we want to make sure they spend a lot of time on that thank you i agree because i think if we're going to do something meaningful with the information having all of those questions answered on the front end will certainly help us. Moving forward, and like you say, this probably is a little bit more of an outside time frame. For instance, posting the RFP you've given through a month, which would be our council process of actually giving authorization, then I assume. Yes, sir. Do you need any sort of action from this committee to move this RFP forward, or do you have all the appropriate? We do not. We're ready to go. if council is comfortable with this presentation, which you seem to be, we will release the RFP and then you will hear from us again once we have a contract to bring back to you to approve. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next item on the agenda is a master plan presentation. Council members, through our discussions of expanding the urban services boundary and master planning that expansion, we talked with each other and then I committed to all of you all in this committee to have regular updates from either the staff, the outside consultants hired or both and the staff is here ready to give a presentation of the progress made and some of the plan moving forward and so I hope it will be helpful for our understanding and talking with our constituents and also to see the progress that has been made today. So thank you. Mr. Taylor, are you handling this one? Thank you, Chair. So this is the first update we've given to both the Planning Commission and to the Irving County Council on the master plan. This started back in October, and it will run all the way through the end of November of 2024. Just so you know who we're working with, the lead consultant on this project is a firm called TSW out of Atlanta. There has a local presence with Gresham Smith and Civiclex handling community engagement. And Gresham doing a lot of the transportation and infrastructure work. PES, Partners for Economic Solutions, is doing a lot of work on the sustainability in terms of financial aspects, the fiscal impact analysis component of this plan that is very important. They're digging in deep on that. And then South Face is a group that will come in a little bit later once we get some work done to address some sustainability issues that we identified as being key to this project. So just a reminder for everybody where we're talking about, We've got five different areas that were adopted or recommended for inclusion by the Planning Commission back in October. It's roughly 2,800 acres. There's five different areas, and I'll take you through them sort of briefly just so everybody's oriented. The first one is along Manowar Boulevard, Parker's Mill, just north of the Beaumont area. That's roughly 163 acres. The second area is along I-64, I-75, Winchester Road. Picks up a little bit up near Royster Road. All told, this is around 1,000 acres. Area 3 is what we refer to, longstandingly referred to as the Nose area of Athens-Boonesboro around Brenda Cowan. This is area around Athens-Boonesboro and I-75 between the areas just to the east of Polo Club Boulevard out towards, but not all the way to the interstate interchange. Area 4 picks up at Todd's Road. Todd's Road south along I-75 and coming down along Cane Break Road towards, again, the Blue Sky Parkway. Area 5 is the area of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So this meets what we call the nose in this area. It picks up at the Interstate Exchange, this area around here, and then picks up the area of the Blue Sky Industrial Park. All told, this whole area of around 500 acres makes up the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. In early conversations, probably one of the first wrinkles that we had with, you know, you know, taking this land that the Planning Commission recommended and getting with the consultants, is we have an issue where the area of the Blue Sky Industrial Park is fully developed. It's fully developed. It's very active industrial use. It's highly occupied. So doing land use recommendations for that roughly 300 areas of the Blue Sky Industrial Park is complicated by the fact that we're really at a point where we're making bigger picture recommendations for the other areas that you see here. And so the master plan at this time is going to do the full land use and recommendation treatment for the areas that are not part of the industrial park, but that we want to come back as soon as this project is finished at the end of this year and do a small area plan for the industrial area. And that's really important because the future of Blue Skies Industrial Park may hinge in many ways on the recommendations and the future land use changes that are going to be coming in this area. And it's too soon for us to probably get into the details with that because there's an extensive amount of public engagement and involvement with the property owners in Blue Sky about what that may mean. And those recommendations from this master plan I think are going to be very helpful with those property owners taking that next step. And so just it's clear on this plan we're recommending that the consultants sort of leave this piece for a future small area plan. That's roughly, again, 300 acres. So we're really in part one of a three-part part of this plan. And the first part is just gathering information and taking public input, building sort of the existing conditions report. This next two phases will really start probably at the middle of March, 1st of April. But so far in this part one, what we're working with is the consultant to facilitate all of the different meetings with the different departments of government that are going to be impacted through this master plan and through this new areas. Also, the consultants have been on site multiple times going out to the actual properties. They've met with the property owners on the sites, walked those sites, talked to them about what their plans, what their ideas are for the property. And then we've started getting the word out through a public website, our distribution of materials, working with the Civic Lex partners on the public engagement, as well as giving mailed notice to the property owners and adjacent neighbors and adjacent neighborhood associations. We sort of targeted social media outreach, and then we've been trying to give council updates as well. We had our first kickoff meeting in December. So if you're working backwards here, the Planning Commission made a recommendation at the end of October. In about a month, they started meeting with all of the different government stakeholders, the property stakeholders, created the public engagement, and then held a public kickoff meeting at Grayline. We had all things considered for public input on something like this. We had a very good turnout. It was well over 100 folks in attendance. And right now, at the time this presentation was put together by the consultant, there were around 700 responses on the survey. We're up to almost around 800 at this time. We're having additional outreach and that survey is going to stay open for the next couple of weeks. And then, you know, there's additional tabling exercises being done by civic blacks at various community events around town. And so really just want to give council the update on where we are in the timeline, let you all know that this is still very early in the process. We are sitting right here around this existing conditions inventory analysis. The land use spatial framework piece will pick up and we're going to have around a two to three day public design charrette for the community. That will be around at the end of April and early May, that's sort of the last weekend of the month there. And so that's the last or the next big opportunity for public engagement on this project. That's where the public will start to see some visuals and some graphics of what these areas may look like in terms of land use recommendations. And that'll be the first chance we have to get some feedback on that. We expect to be back with you all a couple of times through this committee. The consultant would have been here today, but they had a family health issue to deal with. And so we're happy to cover for them. And staff of Reins, happy to meet with you all individually. if you have questions on this project as it moves forward. But we'll be working with Chair Worley to keep this in front of you as often as you all would like to see it. So with that, if you all have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Council Member Gray. Both of you got in before committee members, so... Council Member Sevigny, if you... Thank you. Even though I'm not on the committee, I appreciate your recognizing me. My question is mostly about the community engagement piece. The only thing I want to at least point out, I don't know if we're going to, I can tell you that the people that are around Parker's Mill Road, the Beaumont neighborhood association the Harrods Hills neighborhood association the people in the Beaumont Park neighborhood association people on Parker's Mill Road they all want feed to provide feedback and they're expecting something to come to them for feedback so I'm just curious as to is that going to take place and I'd really love to coordinate that because I I think that And I think we could do it like an open house method where there's tables and they walk around and they provide feedback. I just want to know how that's going to roll out. Well, I don't have the specifics for when that piece will take place. Because what I think will happen is the two, three-day design trip, the entire community is going to be really important to first put something out and let people come and tell us what they want. So it's not going to be initial, we have something, you respond to it. The first part of that is going to be community being involved in that design work. So it's not a design charrette where we're going to do that design. The community is going to be a part of that. So I think first we need to get as many people in those areas to come to the big event that we're planning for these specific areas. But in the development of the first piece that is presented back from that, it is our expectation that we'll be taking those out to more focus groups areas, and we'll be coordinating that with probably you all as well to make sure you all are going to be much better at getting word out to your specific folks and neighborhoods than probably we are. so we plan to work with the consultants on that once that piece is ready to be brought to the public yeah that that's my big thing so if if and to be honest with you getting those dates on the calendar and me and working with me to arrange in in my area like a place to do it and so I can start driving attendance because there are definitely people that want to have their have their say so I appreciate it thank you thank you chair since I already had called on you I won't do it to you so councilmember gray you may go ahead thank you chair you've made my day sir so this goes along with the community engagement and I know that notice that we're still doing surveys which have a low turnout and it's not definitely reaching our entire population for me that is problematic I would like to welcome you to perhaps having an engagement with the sixth district since it's very close to where the Winchester Road area Royster Road area will expansion will be you can come to one of my sixth district district-wide meetings that will have a great turnout that you can get more insight from residents that will directly affect that's just my suggestion we're happy to attend any any any event that's on any of your calendars if it's not within the scope of the consultant work in terms of the number of meetings we have available to have them do them planning staff is happy to come to those as well so we'll put that out to everybody and we'll be happy to join any meetings that are in anybody's districts that we'd like to come and talk to thank you sir yes the survey is we're taking the survey out to people. I know that's people going to an online survey is not super, you know, in that regard. So, like I said, Civiclex is doing some additional tabling in some areas where we're not getting the engagement and feedback that we want. So taking that first round and looking at where there's gaps and then Civiclex is trying to go back and fill in with some of those areas and make sure that we get some specific targeted feedback in person in those areas. In addition to that, also on my end, I can also share it to, I know, underserved communities that typically won't but see the survey so i can help l on on my end as well but so thank you sir and thank you for your time but you can't remember cast member lakery thank you chair uh... have a couple more questions back to the engagement to uh... when we're thinking about the scope of his community engagement efforts and what kind of metric are we going to be using to measure success What does that look like for us in terms of the survey and then in terms of charrette engagement, for example? Well, for us on the survey, we have data on just how representative it is based on our community demographics. And so we look to try to mirror those. As a minimum, we try to match our community's demographics. Right now the survey isn't doing that. It's not at those levels, which again is why we're trying to fill in some of those gaps with the different type of engagement. But also, this early piece is really just to get the word out that this is happening. And we are on a very accelerated timeline. And so each piece of public engagement for each phase, we're probably going to have to evaluate it in the moment, see where the gaps are, and then try to do some addressing of those things along the way. Some things are very hands-on and visually oriented, and we have to get people out to these meetings. And that's not always an easy thing to do. It's much easier to give feedback and educate folks on the process of things that are happening and put those in front of them, but to get people to come to these very visually oriented project meetings, it's difficult. And so we're going to have to find ways to get that information out to people and get their feedback on it. But our general standard here is to try to just match our engagement with the community's demographics. I know that as part of getting the word out, you all mentioned council member updates. I think it would be really helpful for us, and maybe this is already your all's plan, but to have a variety of different graphics that we can spread out not only on social media but in our newsletters early and often, especially when it comes to some of these in-person events. Because Civic Lex is involved with the outreach, should we expect that type of material from our planning division, from others outside of government? How can we expect to get that? Well, the primary responsibility for that is probably going to fall to the consultants and Civic Lex in that capacity, but also staff is willing and able to supplement those and make sure that there's a package for you all, especially as we lead into this as soon as the details, the final details of the location and the dates for the two to three day event get put together, we'll put together a package of information for you all to use. And then if there's more information or changes to those that you would like, let us know. We can work with that. We should have, I don't want to speak for the consultants again. The lead consultant on this isn't here today. I would expect that sometime in the next two to three weeks we would have those details and then we could start putting the package of sort of assets together for you all. Okay, that's really helpful. I know that people sometimes have to see things three or more times. in order for it to stick and for them to know it's something that they should be involved with. So I appreciate that. Chair, those are my only questions for now. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. And I think we're all on the same lines of questioning here about engagement. So my questions go along the lines of what do you hope to see out of this engagement? For me, I'm trying to wrap my mind around is this like when a developer comes in and is going to develop something, and they have a meeting with the surrounding neighbors to try to work together. Is this asking people literally, do you want this or do you not want this? Or is this saying, this is happening, and we want you all to be aware that it's happening and have some sort of input? I'm just kind of lost on what we're doing with engagement. That is a key distinction. And I think oftentimes when the public gets engaged with planning efforts, it is because there's a very specific application by a specific applicant. And they do have something already in mind, very specific, that they want to do. And so the public engagement is more along the lines of a response to something like a specific proposal. This is different in that there's a comprehensive plan that sets out broad vision. and what we're asking the community is how do you see that we can apply these goals, these objectives, and these policies of the comprehensive plan to new development? And yes, new development is going to occur in these areas. Those areas have been identified. The first round of public engagement on this is how do we implement the comprehensive plan through new development? And we try to frame the conversations about new development and growth through those parameters. people generally are very engaged in that because they like to talk about how they can get the things that they want and generally the comprehensive plan because it's a two year project encompasses things that community says they want broadly now we have to narrow it down to specific areas that are near them and that's a different conversation for people but we have found that in areas where we've done detailed land use recommendations through either smaller plans or master plans like this that it does go a long way towards what the actual product on the ground is going to look like maybe not a hundred percent but pretty close and it does generate community buy-in it won't make everyone happy but the process is generally pretty inclusive and it grabs lots of input and if we can frame the issues correctly i think everybody leaves feeling like they at least understand what the process is so it wouldn't be a like do you want want this or do not want this, but how can you be engaged? We're in the process of doing this, how can you participate and how can we have your feedback on what types of things we're going to include? Is that accurate? Yes. Okay, thank you. Then I'll echo my colleague's remarks about getting information to us so that we can share it to our constituents as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Plumman. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. Obviously this really impacts the 12th district, so we're very vested in this. And I wanted to know, when these folks showed up at the Greyhound back in December, did you gather profile information on them? In other words, who were they? Mostly we were just interested in getting contact information for people that would want to be interested and follow along in the process early on. We weren't trying to get specific information on their interests and what angle maybe they are coming from. It was to let them know what's happening. At this point, this has moved so fast that the community really has not been aware of the very specific areas. So the first thing we're trying to do is tell people where these areas are and what's happening and what the process is. And so one of the key questions on that survey was would you be interested in being involved in a focus group? And so roughly a third of people were interested in being more involved in the day to day of this project. That's really good. So I think while we don't have specific information about what people's interests are, we do have a very engaged chunk of folks who want to be more involved in the process. Did you ask the district number? Ask the district number? No, I don't believe we did. Okay, I don't want to. Of course, from an agricultural standpoint, all of this is going to be very important and we'll have pressure on that land out there. So what the community engagement, we've all said this over and over again, it's key. But I'd like to be kept in the loop, step by step, who's giving this information? Who's sharing, not who's sharing, but who's receiving this? Because the last thing we want at the end of the day is to folks that are out in these areas that do feel threatened not to be up to speed. So that's really, really important that we do that. And I can't stress that enough. See if I had anything else there. No, I think that's it. Again, the point is please get engagement. And I think you will. And I would recommend too, I know that was downtown. Well, a lot of these folks, they live out. So we ought to plan some that are closer to where these areas are. And because we got to make sure attendance is there for this group. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Taylor, for the presentation. And I know we've put a lot on you and your team with this, but we know how important this particular piece is after all the struggle that we had over it. In terms of building the plans going forward, Does the consultant have any leeway in considering acreage, or is this kind of set in stone and this is what they have to work with? Our very specific guidance and recommendation to the consultants has been we are only looking at clerical administrative acreage issues that might come up for very specific reasons. The consultant is not looking at the addition or removal of wholesale parcels. It would be cleanup type nature of stuff. Just because the timeline of this is so tight that to reopen that discussion with the planning commission again would not help us in meeting our deadline. And so the recommendation that we've given the consultants and that they are working through is only things that might come up with, you know, small boundary issues. Those are the types of things, adjustments, minor, minor adjustments. Okay, that's good to hear. Do you know right now, in terms of public input, how many sessions that you all have planned, or is this still in flux? Well, right now, everything is really focused on getting everything set up for the big community engagement piece. And then, you know, I know Sam could probably give you a much more detailed answer on what they have in the pipeline for that, but I don't have that answer right now. Okay, no problem. And then, you know, with these regular updates that you all and the consultants will be giving to council, what do you feel like could be our role in terms of giving you input? How would that work if we had specific suggestions about directions or details about things? Well, in terms of most important would be like you all have offered to help us get the word out to people. That is, your mailing lists are much more substantial in those regards than ours. So that's the most helpful thing is us to give you the materials to get out to your residents. In terms of feedback, we're happy to have that discussion in a session like this, or if you all have things that you would like to talk with us about, we're happy to come and schedule individual meetings with you all to talk about whatever it is that's on your mind. So I think there's multiple avenues, however you all are comfortable. We're happy to have those conversations with you all. Yeah, and it sounds like from my colleagues' comments that we are not only willing but eager to help with that engagement piece and really kind of let our constituents be able to speak. And then my last question is, in this process, how does it finish? When you all give your presentation about a year from now to us, what is the last piece of it? Is there a final sort of authority that checks it off? Is there a vote? What happens at the end? The final action on this is a formal public hearing by the Planning Commission that adopts this plan as an element of the 2023 comprehensive plan. That is the final piece. I think we have scheduled another update to the council in that time, but as far as action and a vote, the Planning Commission updates it and it becomes part of the comprehensive plan, and we move forward from there. Okay, so the council at that point at that last presentation is for information only and we don't have a role to play in kind of checking that off. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Taylor, for the presentation and all the work that you and the consultants and all the planning staff have put into this. At the very beginning of the presentation, you mentioned you were working with South Face for sustainability. Sustainability has a lot of definitions to a lot of different people. So is this environmental sustainability? Is it related to theme B of our goals and objectives? Could you talk a little bit more about that? Sure, happy to. It is, it's going to be one of the more difficult pieces of this plan to implement, and I don't want to give anybody the impression that we're going to build a 100% sustainable expansion area master plan. The goal here is to start incorporating principles of sustainability into our long range and master planning documents. That is new for us. We have a new goal and objective related to carbon emissions. That is sort of driving the entire discussion around growth and development patterns and even our regulations that Hal's going to talk to you about in a minute. So we are coming at this very much from an environmentally sustainable standpoint. And our hope is through this that we get some really good ideas about how to do and what the type of development has to be in order for it to be at least more substantially, more sustainable building on the fringes is never the sustainable way to do development it's just not but it doesn't mean it can't be more sustainable than our previous decades of growth patterns have been so again that's part of why this text amendment that's coming is is to this issue and then we we're not to that stage yet with this consultant but they were they look very qualified to do it their work in other places has been very good so we're excited to see where that goes thank you thank you chair thank you are there any other questions for mr taylor all right so our next item i think uh mr bailey's going to jump in uh to help with this this is a plan a presentation on the urban growth ordinance zoda i've had an opportunity to speak with many of you and i've tried to spread the word around of my thought process today but if we could talk just a little little bit about it. So this particular text amendment has seen robust public work through the Planning Commission but this is the first time publicly that Council is taking a look at it and this text amendment is probably one of the most comprehensive changes to our zoning in decades. And while I'm not normally the type to add extra meetings and extra process and knowing that this will inform a lot of the expansion area master plan work and that we need to move this as quickly as we can as a government I think it would be appropriate that this meeting is more of a informational meeting for us the staff has developed a great presentation for us I know we will all have a lot of questions that may take up all of our time anyway but I would ask council members that already have thoughts of motions they would like to make or changes that they have seen to hold those for now and then in our next meeting that is scheduled for April or if we feel the need to schedule a meeting before then but we don't have a scheduled meeting until April we could pick up and do more actual work but I think it would be beneficial just like the vice mayor did with the goals and objectives for us to have a good informational discussion to see it for the first time and then come back with more prepared thoughts and so I would ask that everyone hold any motions today and again I think we're going to have a lot of questions answered our own questions maybe some from stakeholders that have been sent to us I see there are several stakeholders in the room that I know will be interested in the answers to some of those questions so that's my thought process and we can work on scheduling and timing a little bit more but I think today's our best use would be to a dialogue with the staff about about this text amendment so with that mr. Bailey please thank you very much ladies and gentlemen my name is Hal Bailey I am the principal planner in the division of planning today I will be talking about the urban growth management zoning ordinance text amendment or what has commonly been referred to as the UGM Zoda. The text amendment before you today is not a small text amendment. In a perfect situation, staff would have brought this to you in several different pieces over several years. However, due to the need to ensure that any future expansion development is representative of the community's wants and needs that are represented by the adopted comprehensive plan, these changes need to be reviewed in a more prompt fashion. This text amendment sets the stage for the development of our proposed areas within the Urban Growth Master Plan and will be influential in planning's discussions with the community over the next coming months regarding how we envision that future development to be. While this text amendment is robust, the Planning Commission and the planning staff have brought several legislative items to you to bring our zoning ordinance out of the 1980s when it was originally written into the modern era. These multiple text amendments that you have seen over the past few years have really represented national best practices that help meet the needs of Lexingtonians. However, with any type of zoning ordinance text amendment, it is necessary that we look beyond the national best practices and look at how this meets the needs of our community in a Lexington based context. Since the staff started work on this text we have worked with numerous groups to create the best possible language that meets the needs of our community and these are the needs that are reflected within our comprehensive plan but we also need to make sure that we're hearing from the business operators as well as owners within our community so that they can continue to prosper. Included in this text amendment amendment is the modification of three residential zones, the creation of one new residential zone, and the extensive modification of two of the commercial zones within Lexington. The proposed changes within this text are specifically focused on the development of a more equitable, sustainable, and and safer community as we grow both up and out. In regards to the residential zones within the zoning ordinance, we focused on three of our least utilized residential zones within our community. While the proposed modifications allow for moderate infill and redevelopment within the current urban service area, they are also very important to the goals of equity and sustainability with our future urbanized areas. The proposed changes within the zones will provide increased density, allow for flexibility long term, and incorporate a mixture of housing types that will allow our population to grow and age in place. Within the current setup of our zoning ordinance, there is a discontinuity within our residential zoning. The types of housing that can be provided specifically within the R2 is not in agreement with some of the other zones that we have. The R2 does not build upon the land uses that are allowable within the R1T. The proposed tax amendment seeks to realign the different types of housing available in each of our residential zones. These changes will allow for the incorporation of missing middle housing types in the R2 zone, while also modernizing the setbacks within our R2, R4, and R5 zones. This will allow for greater utilization of our residential land that we have in our city. Additionally, the proposed modifications to include new conditional uses within the R4 and R5 zones will allow for the organic development of neighborhood businesses that are actually within neighborhoods. Finally, the proposed text amendment includes the creation of the corridor node zone, or the CN zone. This residential zone is specifically created to pull transit to new areas of development by requiring a minimum density. This zone is intended to be more walkable in nature. It allows for but does not require a mixture of commercial and residential land uses and promotes the integration of transit along our major arterial roadways. In addition to the modifications to the R2, R4, and R5 zones, we are seeking to include the Council's push for greater affordable housing options within our community. Incentives for the production of affordable housing typically comes in two ways, either through funds that help offset the costs in the construction of affordable housing, or through the availability or making land available or the density available for these projects to actually happen. The proposed density bonuses are the best planning tool to incentivize the production of more affordable housing options within our community. The affordable housing density bonus is targeted at incentivizing the production of housing for individuals who are struggling the most economically within our community, specifically those earning less than 80% of the area median income. This density bonus allows for the developer to produce housing utilizing the provisions of the next zone up, specifically looking at setbacks, height, and then also the lot size. This allows for greater utilization of the land Lexington has to get those in our community that are struggling economically into safe and affordable housing throughout our community. While Lexington's affordable housing providers indicated that the affordable housing density bonus would be one of the most significant tools targeted at production of affordable housing throughout the community from a planning standpoint, they also noted the need for greater flexibility within the provisions. Due to the often limited funding sources, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allows for affordable housing providers to incorporate housing up to 120% of the area median income. This allows for individuals to provide that affordable housing option and offset the cost by providing closer to market rate housing options. This also provides a greater amount of flexibility for Lexington's workforce housing group, which has also been struggling in finding housing within their price ranges. These two density bonuses represent a significant effort to produce more affordable housing options within Lexington. Since the start of this text amendment, we have met multiple times with different stakeholders and one other aspect of what we needed to do here was review our commercial restrictions. The commercial zoning restrictions are representative of the 1980s development rather than the modern principles wanted from the Lexington community. This text amendment is about creating new walkable commercial opportunities within neighborhoods as well as creating new residential opportunities and safer, more efficient commercial opportunities along our corridors. To make neighborhood business zoning what our neighborhoods have been calling for and are comfortable with, we do need to remove some land uses from our B1 zone, including gas stations and drive-through facilities. In doing so, we can then address the long-standing issues about our corridor business zones. The lack of residential options, the inefficient utilization of our B3 land by existing prominent land uses has been an issue within Lexington. The proposed changes would allow the community to reestablish the B3 as a recommended zone within the comprehensive plan, which it has not been for at least a decade. Since the start of the text amendment, we have met multiple times with different stakeholders in our community. These meetings included commercial and residential developers, environmental and sustainability advocates, neighborhood groups, and many other sustainable and advocate perspectives. Through our conversations with organizations like CPAL, the Kentucky Retail Federation, numerous affordable housing providers, staff has recommended numerous changes to the text during the review prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. These included ensuring drive-throughs and gas stations would continue to be conforming uses in the B1 zone which can expand and be modified in the future. This is an important aspect of any modification that the Planning staff and the Planning Commission made because essentially made those who have an existing gas station or drive-thru facility a principal primary use in the B1 zone. It alleviates any concern of non-conformity. It also alleviates any concern if they want to tear down the structure and rebuild it in a modern way. We see these uses as being important uses within our community to the prosperity of our community and we want to ensure that the rights of the owners are being protected. We also recommended and the Planning Commission adopted a relaxation of the distance requirement and the intersection requirements for new gas stations in the B3 zone. This text amendment ensures that the development of new gas stations and drive-throughs occur in areas which they are the most appropriate and the most market desirable locations which are our arterial roadways in our community. It also allows for the production of new neighborhood commercial opportunities that supports neighborhoods and are within neighborhoods. During the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed text amendment, the Planning Commission recommended two modifications to the text amendment. Planning Commission member Nickel proposed the workforce housing density bonus, and Planning Commission member Mickler recommended the removal of the maximum setbacks within the R2, R4, and R5 zones. Both changes were meant to allow for greater flexibility within the zoning ordinance. Additionally, a member of the public made a request to further clarify the number of vehicular locations for refueling allowable. The Planning Commission adopted these modifications and recommended approval unanimously at their December public hearing of the text amendment. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them now. Thank you Mr. Bailey. That's a fantastic, far more than summary. That's a great explanation of a lot of questions and issues I know many of us have. Getting to it, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you Chair. Thank you Mr. Bailey. I've received a lot of calls and emails about the change in the B1 to the B3 and the drive-throughs. That has seemed to be the one that's garnered the most output from people that are concerned about that presently. And can you explain how that change would be and what we have now and what would it go to? Because at this point it's a conditional use, correct? And they have to go to the Board of Adjustment for that? There are two different ways to go through for a drive-through facility. IT WOULD BE A TRIP EITHER TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE OR IT WOULD BE DEPICTED ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE AT THAT LOCATION. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A MODIFICATION TO REMOVE THE FULL-SCALE DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITY OUT OF THE B1, KEEP IT AS A REMAINING PRINCIPAL PRIMARY ACCESSORY USE IN THE B3 ZONE. However, we have created a new use within the B1 zone as an accessory use called a drive-up window. This is specifically to get at the needs and concerns of those who would want to incorporate a more vehicular-oriented but neighborhood setup type of business, like a dry cleaner, like a bank, like a pharmacy, in which an individual can get up to the point, they can order from that location, they can get their money, get their prescription, and then they can move on. These are the typical things that you see within neighborhoods. When it's a drive-through facility associated with a restaurant, it typically necessitates a greater amount of space, vehicular use area, buffering requirements. I think that's going to be the, of the ones I've seen, is probably going to be the one that we probably need to discuss the most because we've had a lot of communication about that. The one about the affordable housing, I'd like to look at that one too for the residential. Would this be inclusionary zoning? Is that how that would that be kind of? Absolutely not. Inclusionary zoning would require someone to go ahead and include some percentage of their property as affordable housing. What this is doing is it's trying to incentivize the development of affordable housing and specifically focuses on affordable housing providers giving them the bonus that they need to build in our community. So it would, and I'm glad to hear that. So with that, then they could, you said they could step up then on what they could do on the zoning then from the, to allow more to the setbacks and all that then would give it more opportunities to get more people involved or people in the units? Absolutely. And in context, so if you're in an R1 zone, it would allow for townhomes to be developed. If you're an R1T or an R2, it would allow for slightly larger housing, but within the context or the form of the housing that's already there. Would it have to be for the whole unit then? Yes, it's specifically focused on the dwelling units. So it is focused on anything that is the affordable housing dwelling unit or the workforce housing dwelling unit. That's what is covered within that. It does not go to conditional uses. It does not allow for other things to be brought in, just the housing units. Well, thank you. Look forward to hearing the discussion. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bailey, I just want to thank you for your great presentation. I don't have any questions today because I appreciate the meeting that we had one-on-one with Commissioner Horn, Director Duncan, and you and Chris. Y'all answered my plethora of questions that day. So I really appreciate that meeting and you doing so much great work with this. And I look forward to learning more because I'm eager to learn more and understand. So I really appreciate the time you all took to develop these proposed amendments, and I look forward to continuing discussions. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Hal, for the presentation and the whole planning staff and department for your work on this. It's a lot included in this, and I especially appreciate the efforts in regards to being more supportive of affordable housing and housing affordability in this ZOTA. Can you elaborate a little more about what planning support means for the production of affordable housing? Yes, sir. So in terms of those two different ways that you can get housing or support or incentivize housing, it's either funds, which we cannot get into. We do not have the budget strengths, or the availability of land and the relaxation to allow for the flexibility of groups to come in. With this tax amendment, it would allow the developer to go in and provide a slightly increased density of housing. That also saves them from going through a zone change process. It would actually be a remaining in the zone that it is. It's not a zone change, but it allows them a bit more flexibility to provide greater housing options. And I think, you know, having to keep developers from spending additional funds and resources on zone change, are there any other additional supports that you envision? I know it's been brought up quite a bit in different task force meetings and conversation about being more supportive of affordable housing development. Other than the zone change and that whole process, do you see any other benefits? There are small things that we can possibly do in the future, but I'll be honest this is a significant change to the way that we look at the production of affordable housing within our community and in our conversations with other affordable housing providers and our housing team in the government this covers a significant amount of the barriers to the production okay the other thing is expanding or having a conversation about expanding the deed restrictions I think it's 10 years on the affordable housing piece and 15 years on the workforce housing was there any conversation about making those terms longer and how that would impact whether people would take advantage of those density bonuses so in in terms of the affordable housing typically when affordable housing providers come in they also have other agreements either with the city or the federal government and they have longer time spans typically between 15 and 30 years the staff wanted to provide a slightly less rigorous time frame at 10 years because if someone wanted to do this without the funding from the government, they were trying to do it as part of their project or out of the goodness of their heart, they could do it and the property owner would be able to recoup that ownership in the future at some point in time. Specifically if Habitat for Humanity, they have a five year time span. We were going a little bit beyond that because it would help them through their process. With the workforce housing, we wanted to make sure that we were preferencing the affordable That's why we bumped it up to 15, but that does meet with some of the lower level of HUD funding or local funding aspects. Okay. All right. And then the setback adjustments, you know, I think is a benefit to the whole ZODA. How will we ensure that when we allow for flexibility in those setbacks that they either flow well or mesh well with existing neighborhoods and developments? I'd hate for a neighborhood to see a new development come in and be two feet off the sidewalk where everybody else is 20 feet off. How are we going to adjust for that? Within the infill and redevelopment area, which we typically see those closer buildings or in some cases the further back buildings, we have a regulation that says that they need to match the housing on either side. in time in terms of the other areas of our community they have slightly more urbanized kind of setbacks that they fit within and especially when we're looking at some of our expansion areas or our newest r3 areas we don't perceive this as being drastically different from what they're producing right now okay so we don't foresee that being a huge issue no we do not okay And then I think you hit on it quite a bit when Councilmember Ellinger's question, but more clarity on the drive-through change in B1. So currently it's a permitted use, and now you're changing it to a conditional use. So currently it's a conditional use in the B1 zone, or it can go through the Planning Commission. They have discretionary review. We are removing it from the B1 use but allowing a new use to occur that is similar but as an accessory use. They don't have to go through the conditional use process. In the B3 zone, it was a principal primary use. It remains a principal primary use. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member LeGree. Thank you, Chair. thank you for this presentation and for all of the hard work that you all have done to get us to this point it's really interesting to review I had a couple of questions from constituents that I wanted to bring up some of my constituents expressed an interest in knowing a little bit more about the R2 changes so what they wanted to know for example if they live in a neighborhood AND IT ZONED R2. WHAT HAPPENS NOW, SAY, WERE THESE CHANGES TO GO INTO EFFECT WITH THOSE EXISTING R2 NEIGHBORHOODS, PERHAPS IF A HOUSE WERE DEMOLISHED NEXT DOOR TO THEM OR SOMETHING SIMILAR. COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? So staff has been honest throughout this process that this will eventually end up with some redevelopment in our community. With any type of change in our regulations, there is some modification or some change of the oldest housing stock that is not covered within an H1 overlay. That is part of living in a vibrant community. We have that changeover. So there can be change that might occur within neighborhoods. And we will say that some of our two that is right next to the university, we do anticipate some change there. That is where we are seeing the greatest housing kind of pressure right now. And that will also slow some of the proliferation of student housing as it goes back into more established neighborhoods. However, there's also the economic aspects of this. We have changed the regulations in many of our zones in the past and it hasn't resulted in any type of significant tear down rebuild of full blocks of housing We do see some modification But because of the economics of having a house in place the value of that house value of that land We do not see the full scale redo of neighborhoods because of these changes However, this can allow for the integration of different housing types into those neighborhoods that were precluded in the past. These are the housing types that people are often asking for. The missing middle, we talk about that quite a bit. These types of housing products, which are smaller in nature, allow for individuals to both enter into a housing market, but then also age in place. We do have a significant issue in our community in which individuals are staying in their larger homes when they would like to step down in the size of their properties. But they can't find that home in their neighborhood because we haven't allowed it. By incorporating some of the more of the missing middle housing types, more housing options, people can grow into housing and then also age in place at that housing. Thank you. That's helpful in terms of philosophy and practice. within the proposed R2 zone change, how many units could be included now in an R2 zone? So within the R2 zone, as proposed, it would be up to eight units, and that is somewhat similar to what other areas we see in town. There is a limitation on the maximum lot size. This is to make sure that whenever we're trying to get these new housing types, We're not just building a smaller structure on a very large lot We are trying to integrate these make sure that we're maintaining our density within our community and Allow for new options to occur. I'll also say that approximately 50% of our R2 lots within our community are currently nonconformities So if someone were to tear down their home, they in all likelihood would not be able to rebuild the same thing back So by making these changes, an individual can go ahead and add on to their home. They can play around with their situation a little bit more. Okay, thank you. That's very, very helpful. Thank you, Chair. Those are my only questions for now. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bailey, for the presentation. If any of my colleagues are ever confused about this stuff, and it's a lot to absorb, and it's not simple and a lot of it's not intuitive at all. I always feel smarter when I talk to you guys in planning, so I would urge my colleagues to take advantage of their generosity and patience on explaining this stuff to us. Right now, do you all know how many gas stations and drive-thrus are within B1? So we don't have a specific number on that, and I can get you that specific information. We did do a review of that in several of our zones, and this would not be a significant amount. And the way that this text amendment is written, if you have a gas station in a B1 zone or a drive-through in a B1 zone, you can continue to operate. You will be able to modify. You could tear down your whole entire building, rebuild it as it is, and come back and continue to operate. The changes that were made prior to the Planning Commission public hearing were specifically focused on ensuring those that have B1 gas stations and drive-thrus are able to continue and prosper into the future. Yeah, and that was my follow-up question, so I'm happy for that clarity that current drive-thru and gas station owners would not be negatively affected by these changes. Correct. What does happen when I sell my property and it becomes someone else or someone else wants to come in and create a gas station or a drive-thru? That land use stays with the property. It is not a property to property. That's specifically why we wrote in the regulations that it would become a principal primary use within the zone directly following the date of the adoption of the ordinance. So, again, that provides protection for the land use. It provides protection for the owner and the potential buyer in the future. Thank you for that. And I also appreciate the explanation, drive-through versus drive-up window. And I can visualize it in my head, but I want to just kind of talk it out as well. When we're talking about drive-throughs, we're talking about mostly fast food restaurants, coffee shops, where you kind of have to pull around and do a whole big thing. there are usually two windows, and it requires a lot more real estate and a lot more traffic impact. Yes. Right? Whereas a drive-up window, as you said, like pharmacies, I think about Regency Kroger, for example, has one window, and then you pull up to it, and then once you're done, you pull off. There's not a whole lot to do. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And that is specifically tailored to say that there are opportunities or uses that are necessary to have this type of facility. and within a neighborhood context, we do need a step down. This is meant to provide options for developers to go into neighborhoods and provide the businesses that people are asking for without having the scare of saying, oh, it's going to be a Chick-fil-A. We hear that quite often. Or it's going to be a gas station. It's going to be so close to me. These are the conversations we have too often with zone changes when they come in in which conditional zoning restrictions are applied on those sites. Yeah, and I feel like as a consumer myself, I'm kind of an example of sort of the design dictating my behavior because I'll pull up, and if there are too many cars in the drive-through, drive-up window, rather, I'll pull over and walk inside, and usually the line's shorter there, so kind of you can adapt your behavior to it. And then lastly, I was trying to explain all of this stuff to a friend, and I kind of went with this, and I want to run it by you and make sure that I'm on the right track. What we're doing right now with all these ZOTAs is we're not coming up with new ideas per se. We have a comprehensive plan that's been vetted, that has support from the city, from its residents. and right now what we're trying to do is bring our policies and regulations and guidelines in line to execute that comprehensive plan. Would you agree with that? Absolutely. And with all of our zoning ordinance text amendments, we are also making sure that we are looking at the health, safety, and welfare of all changes, and that's how we try to gauge any type of regulation modification. Yeah, and I really appreciate that, and I really appreciate the balance that you all are trying to pull between making things better, which inherently changes things, but also trying to mitigate the negative impacts of the people who are in these existing situations who don't want to take that kind of hit. So I appreciate your work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Chair. And I, like Council Member Lynch, appreciate you all taking the time to sit down with me for additional clarification. So that was nice that you all were able to do that. I served on the Growth Management Committee last fall. And one of the things that came out in our conversations was the last time we expanded back in 1996. And there is roughly 2,700 acres thereabouts of the over 5,000 acres that are not developed yet. So what I would like to hear is how this interacts with that. Because my understanding this will not have anything to do with that land that's not developed and that's still something that needs to be done. So can you comment on that and tell me? ma'am so the 1996 expansion we created a expansion area master plan that had very specific zoning categories that were tied not only to that plan but also to the exactions program because of the exactions program that plan in place we are unable to make some significant changes to those zones specifically. So within this text amendment and within the future areas of expansion, we want to make sure that we're utilizing the zoning categories that are more abundant within our community and that aren't encumbered with other programs. This allows us to make sure that if there is a change from a community-wide perspective, it is also influencing our new areas and we're making sure that we have the most modern zoning ordinance we can. So unfortunately, We cannot deal with those 96 zoning categories at this time. But this will allow for us to create that social, equitable, and environmental kind of issues that we're trying to get at with this expansion. Well, maybe the reason that they're non-developed is that zoning codes are not correct. I mean, can't we look at them again? I believe that we are, it is within the comprehensive plan that we will be looking at the EAMP or the expansion area master plan in the future, and we're hoping to move that along. So that will possibly be on the table. Because, I mean, that land has sat there for 27 years. Yes, ma'am. And, again, if the zone's not right, let's look at changing it so that this growth could take place inside without having to take it out. Yes, ma'am. But, you know, having served on that committee, I know that was brought up several times over, and I think that we need to take a look at that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Can we talk a little bit more about the density bonuses? So I see in the ZODA change text that, you know, where we have at least like the 80% or 120% of the area mean income. That is what qualifies you for a density bonus. But does it in that, in like a multi-unit space, I see that for the B2A zone, 50, at least 50% of the dwelling units have to be at one of those rates? Yes. Right? So what, is there a percentage requirement for the number of units in these other zones? Does it have to be 100% of the units? Yes. So it would have to be 100% of all the units to get that benefit, except for that B2A. Okay. And then for those other zones where it has to be 100%, can it be a mix of the 80% and the 120%? Or does it have to be 100% 80% affordable housing or 100% 120 workforce housing? And that's where we went to the 120% and below. So we wanted at one point in time we did provide language that had a specific split. You had to have 60% affordable, 40% could be up to 120% AMI. And that flexibility wasn't there for our affordable housing providers. And it wasn't there to really meet the goal of providing another form of density within our community, which is targeted at the workforce housing level of that 120. Okay, so it can be mixed rate as long as it's at 120%. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Bailey. I know you've been working hard on this and trying to explain everything to all of us time and time again. So I appreciate it, and I'm sure I'll have more questions for you soon. First of all, the gas station thing, I appreciate that you all have, you know, changed it a little bit from where it was and just wanted to express that we had a situation several years ago on Versailles Road where there was a gas station and a convenience store that wanted to go in, tearing down housing and a former restaurant. And the neighborhood was up in arms about it and just livid because there were so many gas stations in a small area. So I want to encourage local business and gas stations. I want that. At the same time, I understand that a lot of my constituents have been frustrated about the concentration of them and wishing that there were other businesses in the B1 area adjacent to where they live. So I appreciate that we're trying to work and come up with a compromise there. I have a question about mobile food vendors. Yes. So I'm trying to understand this language is new, correct? That is correct. And that's it within the B3 zone. A mobile food vendor park was a recommendation by the consultants for the Reimagined New Circle Road plan. It is a type of establishment that you see in other cities in which they have many different food vendors in one location. It could either be a pop-up location or it could be something that is more standard there all the time. So because it has been mentioned in my district as well, so that would not be allowed in a B1 zone? No, it would not. What about mobile food vendors but not a mobile food park? Because the 11th District has a very high quantity of taco trucks. so what those would still be allowed so those are regulated specifically within the code of ordinances and I couldn't talk to that as much I think there is a permitting and timing requirement for turnover my understanding is that if the business allows them to park there then they're allowed to park there and then these regulations of like having a bathroom and all of that would not apply to them correct no no this is a specific use of a grouping of many of them many of them okay that's that was my question thank you very much welcome thank you uh councilmember civigny thank you chair and thanks so much for the presentation and all the time that you guys have spent um working on this and meeting with me individual individually etc um just a couple of things i I wanted to mention. I do agree with Councilmember Plowman with the idea of the 96 expansion area. I am kind of just spitballing the idea of when we do this, do all of a sudden those areas never get dealt with? Do they never actually get developed because they've got some old set of rules on them and we don't have a committed date to fix that. And so I don't know if there, if, oh, there we go. Thank you. Council Member Spignett, you may be aware that we're also looking at the exaction program. And as Hal mentioned, that's very much tied to the land uses and to the different zones in the expansion area. So I believe it's incumbent on us to walk those two together. And as we come to a resolution on the exaction program, then that opens the door for us to then revisit the expansionary master plan and see what we need to do about zoning and land use in the 96 expansion area. Thank you. And do you, you could just want to follow on. Do you have a committed, do we have a committed time frame? Like who is that dependent on for us to actually fix that program? Well, the work of the exaction program is being led out of the CDO's office, so that is ongoing, and that is continuing to evolve. And at the same time, for several comprehensive plans now, we have called for a revisiting of the 96 expansionary master plan. So I think they will continue to march together, but really we need to resolve the exaction questions first, then we can move on to the land use. Okay, thank you. That will be something else I think we work on then. Then my next question is, I do like the idea of bonuses. I do think, you know, two things. I do recognize that the Planning Commission made kind of a fairly gross adjustment when they did the 120% and with no limit on the affordable. And I do find that if you look at 120% of AMI, that pretty much captures, I mean, pretty much you could build most anything for anybody in 120%, with the exception of something that's humongously expensive. But there is a ton that fits into that category. So I wonder if we've just kind of created a bonus for the sake of a bonus. I think that I know that there is concern from some neighborhood groups that developers are just going to take this and run wild. From staff's perspective, any developer that is looking to put a deed restriction on a property for 15 years is typically targeting a certain population, population whether that be affordable or a mix of affordable and workforce so staff doesn't see the same concern that some of our larger developers would come in and say we're just going to do this whole hawk but staff sees that the flexibility inherent in this can be very helpful for affordable housing providers and also allow for those individuals that are now aging out of larger properties and are moving away from solid incomes to a more fixed income as they retire, this is where they fall, is typically into a 120% AMI range. So we believe that it catches a lot of those areas that are quite important. All right, I have two more things. Is there any thought in some sort of bonus that was restricted to owner purchased property? Because while I love our development community, they tend to want to basically be the landowner and then do rent. And I do want people to get on the ownership bandwagon. I would love there to be some sort of some way to support that methodology. Unfortunately, from a perspective of planning, we look at housing as in housing units. We don't look at the ownership agreement of that because in one moment the individual might be owning it. The next moment they catch a windfall, they buy another house and they want to rent that home. It is somewhat hard to legislate the ownership regime of certain properties. Thank you. I have a follow-up, but my time is up. Thank you. Is it a short follow-up? Yes. Please go ahead. Yeah, yeah. It's just, it's not, it's, I do feel like this is such a large, it's a large sweeping change that will actually change the landscape of our community. and there are there are a lot of things that we have a formal public feedback meeting on as council that are that have much less impact than this and so I would I would like to have this committee consider an actual public feedback meeting I'm not on the committee so I can't make a motion and I don't want to but I just want I just want to make that known thank you To be considered, as you know, this chair does not allow public comment in committee. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Chair. To the rest of the team, thank you for meeting with me. I was missing one individual, but that's okay. How? So I noticed in the plan that we have a new housing type, such as the cottages. And I'm just curious, were any other types of housing also considered? So the cottage housing type was an important aspect of this. The CN zone, which is really focused on transit-oriented style development at a dense rate, was the other aspect that we are trying to promote within this text amendment. In terms of the R2, there was also the conversation of up to an eight-plex. So specifically capping a size of residential multifamily unit within that zone. However, we are still always looking for the potential for other types of housing. We are looking at potential changes in the future for new smaller scale, what is called a detached townhome. However, we need to look at the building code for the state of Kentucky to make sure that that is something that we can incorporate. And staying on this cottage thing, so why particularly the cottages? I know that according to the sizing, it's at minimum, was it the max 5 feet or 10 feet backyard, 30 square feet, I believe, front yard, am I correct? There's, so the cottage housing type is a little bit different in the fact that we have group residential which means you can put multiple buildings on one lot for multifamily but we don't have that for single-family zoning so we're a single family detached product this would allow for the development of multiple single family detached projects or products on one lot to be served by an access easement one of the biggest issues with the development of some of our lots is that you need to provide a public roadway, you need to provide a certain amount of frontage per lot. This takes away a lot of those restrictions allowing for a lot more flexibility. The setbacks are really focused on off of the right-of-way and then between properties. So it could still be on the same lot but between one structure and another there's a certain distance that they need to have. Well thank you sir for your time and thank you chair. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Hal, and the team. You guys have put in so many hours, and it's been such great work, and you guys are very, very intellectual people, and we are so lucky to have you on our team. I have a couple of quick questions. So as we've developed this CN zone with an increased focus in transit, I then look back to the list of outreach individuals and Lex Tran was not on that list and I'm just kind of curious why so part of what we were trying to do within this tax amendment was really talk about how can we draw Lex Tran out there and all too often with our conversations they say well we need to have a demand how do we bring this how do we get to the demand that will warrant us spending the dollars of the city's money to actually go out to these further areas. It all too often comes either with major employment sectors or rooftops. Chris talked about a few of those areas and hopefully the consultant will delve into this a little bit more, but there are potential, there's real potential in each of these areas to draw transit out there. We just need to make sure that we have the minimum residential density to promote it. for that clarification and then i'm going to go back to the deed restriction conversation a little bit so i know that in the planning commission you guys had a pretty robust conversation about the time frame and as you were looking at other communities as you were kind of modeling this soda after other communities did you see that those deed restriction time periods were fairly consistent overall or was this based on a best practice? So we actually with this this is more targeted at what is happening in Lexington with our density bonuses not many communities are actually going through some of these I focus on increased density within the zone in terms of the deed restrictions it ties a little bit more with the public funding that's available that we thought that the 120% AMI at 15 was very appropriate because that's typically the minimal amount that HUD kind of works with as well as our local agencies in terms of the affordable housing we wanted to bridge the gap between that minimum HUD level as well as what Habitat for Humanity is doing Habitat for Humanity currently does a five-year restriction and then the owner of that property can go ahead and sell that and recoup that cost build that generational wealth so we found that that was a good in between while also allowing for that workforce housing to be longer okay all right i think that's all the questions i have for now thank you chair thank you council member sheehan thank you chair um coming back around to public engagement and public comment um one i i feel like we have had extensive discussions about how we need more housing, more affordable housing, higher density, for many different reasons. This was part of our comp plan discussions and continues to be a conversation around the community. So, one of the things that has come up, and you kind of alluded to this, is that for these density bonuses, you kind of get to bump up a zone, which encourages higher density and more housing, like we've all been talking about. But then from the public engagement perspective, if you're not going through a zone change, then you don't have a zone change hearing. So what other opportunities would the public then have to engage on a development that might be utilizing a density bonus but not going through a zone change? So in this case, it depends on what type of property they're developing. If it is going from a single-family detached zone to allow for townhouse development, there THERE WOULD NOT BE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. THE APPLICANT WOULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, MAKING SURE THAT IT MEETS ALL OF THOSE REGULATIONS. BUT THAT'S A MINISTERIAL ACTION. THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, THOUGH, IS IF YOU'RE IN AN R1 A THROUGH E ZONE AND YOU'RE GOING TO AN R1 T ZONE, IT'S THE SAME HOUSING PRODUCT. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. So when staff was looking at that, we found that this allows for that density to occur. That is in kind to the development that is there. It is the same housing type in a single family home. When we're going up in intensity, that would allow in some cases to have a development plan if necessary, and that would allow those from the public to come and talk about the project itself. The part of trying to allow for greater density and providing for greater opportunities for affordable housing is to decrease the cost in which these affordable housing projects are getting built. And one of the major costs is either a zone change, which can cost anywhere between $25,000 and $30,000, or it can be just the development plan in which people are here just to oppose. Okay, but so like for the development plan process in those cases, our planning commission does have time for public comment during their regular meetings, not even just having a specific hearing. Yes, during their regular meetings there is the technical review, then with our committees, our subdivision committee, and then a public meeting in which the planning commission discusses the project. Okay, thank you. And then for our process and for the ZOTAs, I would just, I know we don't have public comment in any of our committee meetings, but I do think we have lots of opportunities for public input. So we have our work sessions and our council meetings, which are three and typically six o'clock. Sometimes our council meetings are five o'clock. But those are evening hours and anyone can come and speak to us about anything that is before us. I would encourage people to come and speak to us about the azotas at those times because then you also have the bonus of not just speaking to the committee but speaking to the entire council at that time. So thank you, Chair. Thank you. And you are 100% correct about the opportunities for public engagement. So thank you very much for pointing that out. Councilmember Sevigny. Thank you again, Chair, for recognizing me. Just one last thing on historic overlays. How does the historic overlay fit in this? Because I do have one historic neighborhood, and they have some general concerns. So kind of walk me through that same process in a historic neighborhood. So within a historic neighborhood, if there is a lot that has a house on it, that house is preserved. There are very few cases in which a house can be demolished. if a house is torn down for structural issues or a fire or something along those lines any future construction would have to go through the board of architectural review to ensure that it is meeting or coming into congruency with what they're seeing at that site so there there are very strong protections within the h1 overlays that prohibit changes to the built context but if there were to VA change there is an extra review process that is held. And is there a public feedback section in there? Absolutely there's a public hearing. Okay thank you that's all chair thanks for your thank you. Thank you Mr. Bailey been incredibly informative. Just a few follow-throughs for me and Vice Mayor Wu asked these specifically but I just want to make clear because we're still getting some misunderstanding from the public and some of the stakeholders out there about the you know quote grandfathering issue so could you be clear then that a temporary stoppage of the use a sale or a tear down rebuild of the same use does not in any way foreclose the use if you just again in your words if you could tell us that again because you stated it very very well earlier that is correct a tear down a temporary stoppage any type of of modification of the land use, you would be able to continue, rebuild, modify, expand, contract to do what you need to do to make your business profitable and move forward. The staff is supportive of these businesses. We have been part of the reason why the B1 has been used on our corridors. We want to ensure that those businesses that are at those locations can continue in operation in any way they see fit. It is within the zoning ordinance, you said grandfather it is not going to be a grandfather it will be a principal primary use within that zone and I think that's that's important for folks to understand not only within our own zoning ordinance the definitions of principle permitted use accessory use conditional use but in state law and in the way that the courts have interpreted those were those that when you say principle permitted use that is a by right use and and so when we hear nonconformity when we hear change that's a use that gets to continue on even though it doesn't meet the law and it's supposed to stop at some point but if principle permitted use is intended to continue on in perpetuity in perpetuity and we want to see them thrive we would like to see these businesses do well thank you then one question that I want to get some clarity on from some of our gas station stakeholders some the distance the 1,000 foot distance now and I'm knowing our ordinance know that that is the exact same distance as a block length yes sir so but I don't know if that's exact what the Planning Commission was intending there if that's what you if you could give some commentary about how we came to a thousand feet between each new gas station so the perspective of the thousand feet was specifically tied to block length within our community which was adopted just two years ago i believe the initial perspective of it was a aerial 1000 feet so a circle around the property that is not what staff heard from the the public was doable so staff changed the regulation it's 1000 feet along the frontage of a property so that would allow for a gas station to happen on a corner but within a THOUSAND FEET ACROSS THE STREET, IT COULD HAPPEN ON AN OPPOSITE FRONTAGE ON THAT ROADWAY. STAFF MADE VERY, VERY KIND OF TARGETED CHANGES BASED OFF OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, SPECIFICALLY DUE TO THE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WITHIN GAS STATIONS. SO WE'VE ALSO MADE THE MODIFICATION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT OF GAS STATIONS AT INTERSECTION FROM ONE TO TWO on opposite corners of the area so that that again you can get the inbound and outbound traffic this was meant to alleviate some of the concerns of saying oh you're just going to put a center point measure around it and it's very hard for us to now develop gas stations within our community it was a lessening in those restrictions but a real targeted perspective on health and safety sure so and again you talk about along the street frontage so it's basically could potentially be a gas station per block on either side of the streets absolutely that that that court that helps me with my understanding there one other question about gas stations could you provide a little commentary on the the restriction that a canopy should not be part of the front yardage of a gas station and what the front yardage would then be considered so the canopy is in regards the front yard we were trying to streamline some of our language within the ordinance and how we are considering vehicular use area it is meant to be a more clarifying element of what is the vehicular use area in front of the building as associated with the front yard in a b3 zone when we looked at our parking regulations last year within the b3 zone we modified those to bring the building up a little bit more so that we can have a more activated frontage. Now within the gas station context we still want to make sure that we're situating the building appropriately, making sure that there is adequate access into and out of the site and ease of access for the cars to go through the site. So it really was meant to clarify that vehicular use area in front of the structure. And but that discussion even with even before this clarifying change would work out through the development plan process? Yes it would. One thing I'd like to address about the the density bonus is that I really applaud the creative thinking there. I think when we were going through the goals and objectives you said you all told us many times it's very difficult to legislatively encourage affordable housing and so and you absolutely have come up with something I think is a possibility here that will help this community and just my own commentary of it is you affordable housing whether it be workforce housing or low-income housing requires some form of development subsidy and where we normally see that to be cash from a government this in a sense is a development subsidy without actual government money because more units means that you could keep a potentially lower costs because you're getting a better rate of return for your development. So I think that that's, it's laudable. And I also want to be clear that I say this right, but not only do I agree with adding workforce development or workforce housing, and I think that's what Commissioner Nickel was trying to do, but in our goals and objectives, we made very clear every time we said the phrase low income housing, we also said workforce housing, middle income housing. Yes, sir. So I think that concluding that matches what we as a council put forward in our goals and objectives. And then I think adding a longer restriction to the workforce housing is, I guess, acknowledging what some have said, that the workforce housing rent is closer to full market rent while not entirely. So you need a little more commitment from that developer, but you're still not trying to make that commitment so much that it's not a desirable incentive to take hold of. Yes, sir. We do not need to do a poison pill. And I think that that also goes to having a lesser time frame than even some of the, I mean, 10 to 15 matches some land use restrictions with money, but some of the money that comes from Kentucky Housing Corporation, it's a 15-year initial, then an additional 15-year. So these things are going to be restricted through other mechanisms. But as a city, we're not trying to disincentivize the use. So we need some commitment, but we don't want to make that too onerous. Is that the concept there? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. That's all the questions I have right now. Council members, is there anything else that you'd like to add as we start to get towards the end of our meeting? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. The items referred to committee we went through fairly extensively in our last meeting. I think we're good to go there, except would you all make sure that the shelter feasibility RFP accurately reflects that that's Council Member Fogel's item, even though I'm the one that actually made the motion. That was an assist to her during the fund balance discussion. And with that, we stand adjourned. you