# Planning Commission Work Session - April 18, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 18, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6095 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6095?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-04-18 - **Last revised**: April 18, 2024 - **Length**: 14,351 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 Planning Commission held a work session on April 18, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Phoenix Building 3rd floor Conference Room. The session focused on four informational agenda items covering key planning and development topics for the community. The commission reviewed updates and information on the Trees and Landscape Ordinance, received the annual Purchase of Development Rights report, discussed a proposed Lighting Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, and examined updates to the Urban Growth Master Plan. All four items were presented for informational purposes, allowing commissioners to receive updates and discuss these important planning matters without formal action. No formal votes were taken during this work session, and no public comments were heard. The meeting served as an opportunity for commissioners to stay informed on ongoing planning initiatives and policy developments affecting the community's growth and development standards. ## Contested Items The April 18, 2024 meeting featured two primary areas of contention that generated significant discussion among participants. **Trees and Landscape Ordinance** A heated discussion emerged regarding proposed changes to the Trees and Landscape Ordinance. The debate centered on two key aspects: the potential impact of the revised ordinance on parking lot designs and the specific definition of what constitutes "significant trees" under the new regulations. Participants engaged in detailed exchanges about how the proposed changes would affect development projects and whether the tree classification criteria were appropriately defined. The discussion highlighted concerns about balancing environmental protection with practical development considerations. **Urban Growth Master Plan Boundary** A procedural dispute arose concerning the Urban Growth Master Plan boundary determination. The specific point of contention involved whether to include a particular parcel within the master plan boundaries. Supporters of inclusion argued that incorporating the parcel was necessary to ensure comprehensive planning and provide appropriate buffering between different land uses. The disagreement appeared to focus on planning methodology and the criteria used to determine boundary inclusions, with participants debating the procedural requirements and planning principles that should guide such decisions. Both contested items reflected broader tensions between development flexibility and regulatory oversight, with participants working through complex technical and procedural questions. The discussions demonstrated the detailed consideration required for municipal planning decisions and the various stakeholder perspectives that must be balanced in the decision-making process. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided data for this meeting.* ## Trees and Landscape Ordinance [timestamp: 00:00] Eve Miller provided an update on the draft language for a zoning ordinance text amendment addressing trees and commercial landscaping requirements. The presentation focused on proposed changes to two specific sections of the zoning code: articles 18-5 and 18-7. Miller outlined the draft modifications to the existing ordinance language, which would update regulations governing tree preservation and landscaping standards for commercial developments. The amendments represent ongoing efforts to refine the municipality's approach to managing vegetation and landscape requirements in commercial zones. The agenda item was structured as an informational presentation, allowing Miller to walk through the proposed text changes and provide context for the amendments. The discussion centered on the technical aspects of the ordinance language and how the revisions would affect current tree and landscaping standards. As this was a presentation-style agenda item, no formal action was taken during the meeting. The update served to inform attendees about the current status of the draft ordinance amendments and the specific articles being modified. The focus remained on the procedural aspects of updating the zoning code language rather than debating policy implications. The Trees and Landscape Ordinance discussion represented part of the ongoing process to review and update municipal zoning regulations, with Miller serving as the primary presenter for this technical update on the draft amendment language. ## Purchase of Development Rights Annual Report [timestamp: 01:30:00] Beth Overman presented the annual report on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program during agenda item II. The presentation provided an overview of the program's progress, current funding status, and recent accomplishments over the past year. The PDR program is designed to preserve agricultural and rural lands by purchasing development rights from property owners, allowing them to continue farming while preventing future development. Overman's report covered key metrics and outcomes from the program's activities. The presentation highlighted the program's progress in protecting additional acreage and detailed the funding mechanisms that support these conservation efforts. Recent accomplishments were outlined, demonstrating the program's continued effectiveness in preserving the community's rural character and agricultural heritage. This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required from the governing body. The annual report serves as a regular update to track the program's performance and ensure transparency in how public funds are being utilized for land conservation purposes. The PDR program represents an ongoing commitment to balancing development pressures with the preservation of agricultural lands and open space, providing property owners with financial compensation while maintaining the rural landscape for future generations. ## Lighting Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment [timestamp: 02:30:00] Boyd O. Sewe presented proposed changes to the lighting zoning ordinance during this informational session. The presentation focused on adjustments to existing lighting height and brightness standards with the primary goal of reducing light pollution in the community. The proposed text amendments would modify current regulations governing outdoor lighting installations. Sewe outlined specific changes to lighting height requirements and brightness limitations that property owners and developers would need to follow under the revised ordinance. The presentation emphasized the environmental benefits of reducing light pollution, which can impact wildlife patterns, energy consumption, and nighttime visibility. The proposed standards aim to balance adequate lighting for safety and security purposes while minimizing unnecessary light spillage and glare. As an informational presentation, no formal action was taken on the proposed lighting ordinance amendments. The session served to introduce the concepts and gather initial feedback from meeting participants before the item potentially moves forward in the legislative process. The discussion represents part of ongoing efforts to update municipal lighting standards to reflect current best practices in sustainable development and environmental protection. ## Urban Growth Master Plan Update [timestamp: 03:00:00] Hal Baillie and Jim Duncan presented updates on the Urban Growth Master Plan during this informational agenda item. The presentation covered two main components of the ongoing planning process. The speakers provided an overview of the market analysis report, which appears to be a key component in understanding development patterns and economic conditions within the urban growth area. While specific details of the market analysis findings were not captured in the available materials, this report likely informs future planning decisions and development strategies. Additionally, Baillie and Duncan discussed plans for an upcoming design charrette. Design charrettes are typically intensive collaborative planning sessions that bring together community members, planners, and other stakeholders to develop design concepts and solutions for specific areas or projects. The charrette represents a public engagement component of the master plan update process. This agenda item was structured as a presentation to provide council members and the public with current information on the master plan's progress. As an informational item, no formal action was taken by the governing body, but the update allows officials to stay informed about the planning process timeline and upcoming opportunities for community input. The Urban Growth Master Plan Update represents ongoing efforts to guide development and growth patterns within the jurisdiction's urban growth boundaries, with the market analysis and design charrette serving as important tools in the comprehensive planning process. --- ## Full transcript . It's going. All right. It's 1.30. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Now 1.30. April 18, 2024. Welcome to the Planning Commission Work Session. We start on the agenda. Trees, landscape, ordinance. Eve Miller. And, Mr. Chair, while Eve is making her way to the lectern, you all may recall that the last time she presented to you, which wasn't that long ago, she was with the Division of Environmental Services. Eve is now a senior planner in the Division of Planning, So she is one of ours, and if you all haven't had a chance to talk to her, you'll get to see more of her. Thank you. Okay. Okay, good afternoon, Planning Commission. My name is Eve Miller, and as Director Duncan mentioned, I am the newest member of the Long Range Planning Team, and I'm very excited to be here. This afternoon, I'm going to quickly provide an update on the draft language of our first phase zoning ordinance text amendment on trees and commercial landscaping, which in the zoning ordinance refers to articles 5, 18, and 26. Also here with me today are several environmental services staff that can answer any questions that you all might have. We have Director Jennifer Carey with us and our urban forester Eric Sutherland. So since our last presentation to you all in late February, staff have been busy reaching out and engaging with stakeholders and interest groups about phase one of the zoning ordinance Texas amendment proposal we've attended several events and have planned to attend others in the near future and to gather residents feedback as well it was from these meetings and feedback sessions and events that led to internal discussions with staff about proposal changes to article 18 and we are hoping to quickly provide that update to you all this afternoon so like I mentioned we are looking to change two sections in article 18 the first section that we're looking to revise is article 18-5 plan submission and approval and in this section we readjusted the plans look and we modernized the landscaping plan requirements to include more detailed landscaping and planting information including plant species statistics elevation certification information as well as the planting schedule and any other conditions placed on the plan by the Board of Adjustment or the Planning Commission and we believe this would be allow for a transparent process and plan to be developed and if staff wish to take that plan out in the field they could do so as well as share it with residents if needed and then the second section we're looking to revise is section 18-7 which is variances and we are looking to dissolve the landscape review committee the intention to dissolve the landscape review committee came out of the primary drive to streamline and consolidate the variance process for enhanced efficiency the landscape review committee was originally formed before the division of environmental services had ever been established at City Hall and now that we have dedicated staff with in-house expertise and people who are out in the field every day we feel that the need for additional review by the committee is not necessarily needed and nor is utilized for that matter should the Zota be approved the division of planning and environmental services would continue to work in consultation and coordination with one another and would oversee all the variance requests for landscaping plans and then subsequently all findings would be forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for final determination and staff has sent this proposal to the landscape review committee board members and we've received supporting feedback thus far and those are our two quick updates for you all this slide has a projected timeline with the hope that we can come back to you all this summer for final approval of that proposal and I'll take any questions you all might have very quick oh yeah yes sir yeah thanks Thanks for your work on this. I have a few questions. I'll start with what you sort of concluded with, which is the landscape review committee. How would that impact alternative parking lot or vehicular use designs that currently our ordinance defers to them on sort of innovative parking designs? That's a great question. I'm not too sure how that interacts with parking. I might pass that off. So with that ordinance, we would be working and planning and the division of environmental services to come up with other solutions that would be proposed to the board of adjustment. It just takes out a little bit of the middleman in that situation. And we've struggled to have the attendance necessary to continue to make those recommendations with the landscape review board in the past. So when the board has received recommendations, it hasn't actually come with any sort of vote or unanimous consent or anything like that. This is one way so that the two divisions can work together to come up with solutions to present to the Board of Adjustment. And so the groups that would be working on the recommendations to the Board of Adjustments would be one more time? Division of Environmental Services and Division of Planning. Okay. They would be working jointly. And then I guess where the current landscape review committee is sort of designed to represent different interests. So it has a member of the Builders Association. It has a professional landscaper on it. It has a member of the tree board on it. this I guess the this isn't an opinion but it's just sort of a thought we're taking that I just want to make sure that we're thinking about is we're sort of taking in theory a sort of community with different pieces and representation and putting it more in a sort of technical review, which I do think in most cases would streamline it, so that makes sense to me. I do wonder a little bit about those plans that are different or are innovative as being a little bit more receptive to sort of that broader stakeholder group as opposed to the Division of Environmental Services and Planning, which typically takes a more checklist type of approach. And in those cases, we believe that the Board of Adjustment has the opportunity to be that broader community aspect in which we have different perspectives that are coming together that can discuss or deliberate about other potential solutions. Okay, thank you. My other points are that I wanted to bring up the question about the aspect, and I think it was maybe included earlier but wasn't really discussed today, but with the edits to the buffers, specifically in thinking about one of our comprehensive plan goals, which is to create more opportunities in neighborhoods for B1 businesses. That's why we redid the B1 zone to make them more compatible with neighborhoods. Removing the fence as an option to reduce the buffer, particularly in our already built up neighborhoods, could make sort of bringing those neighborhood businesses into adjoining R1 sort of street blocks like you see with, say, Mickler's or Kinwick Table or these sort of residential block, but neighborhood-serving businesses could be a challenge. and I wonder where we have the canopy requirement and we have the open space requirement and we have the vegetative planting requirement. Is it necessary to eliminate that tool that they can use a fence for a buffer? I think we will deliberate that on a little bit more and get back to you if that sounds good but thank you for your feedback we'll definitely take a look at the fence component well and just to be clear my feedback is that that should stay in could you take us back to the first slide absolutely I've got two more points oh I'm sorry The other one is the mulch requirement of three inches. If anybody's interested, you can pass that around. This is a mulch myths by the UK College of Agriculture written by Professor Bill Fountain. And I would point out the text on myth number three. If some mulch is good, more is better. Fact. Three inches of mulch is all that you need on the soil surface and only two inches if you're using a finely ground mulch. More mulch than this keeps oxygen and water from getting to the plant roots and causes the roots to grow up into the mulch. And the way that the draft text is written now, it requires a minimum of three inches. And I don't think that is in alignment with a lot of broader horticultural opinion that I think may be an opinion of a particular staff person or something like that. I'm not sure where that came from, but I would encourage us to eliminate that requirement. And then my final comment would be the prohibition of the use of columnar trees. I feel like this is a little bit of like whiplash of what's in style or what's the opinion of the day. Because it wasn't long ago we were requiring columnar trees in certain places in our city. And now we're saying, no, they don't meet any requirements. You can't count them at all. And I think a little bit more nuanced approach would be better because they do function as buffers if planted close together. And they do block wind and they're traditionally used in many landscaping applications as boundary trees or wind breaks out through the Midwest. and I see this as a little bit of sort of a trend statement and I'm not sure it needs to be in the ordinance. I think that we addressed it before I got on the committee or that the trees board had addressed it with the recommendation of not really counting the tree canopy anymore because it's true that they don't really contribute to that, But where we have a canopy percentage requirement, I feel like that's sort of addressed, but that I'm not sure that we should remove their use from buffering and things like that, that they do still work for. and those are my notes and overall I felt like the general trend of the text in the ZODA was very positive and would have a really good impact for Lexington and so don't take my my four comments meaning that I don't appreciate you really diving into this and finding a lot of details and ways that we can improve our tree protection I'm fully supportive that those are just some of the revisions i'd like to see when it comes back to the board thank you commissioner miss worth i'm going to make two comments on what you said and then i'll ask my question i heard at the extension office in the last two weeks same recommendation about how much mulch and not put as much mulch as typically people have been using and you all didn't even mention mulch volcanoes but i know that's in other materials so you didn't have to put that in there and the other one it hinges on the lighting ordinance which is in my neighborhood where we have light fights because we don't have street lights and people put in their own security lights columnar trees are a very good addition when you're in a light fight with your neighborhood so i would add that for thought and that actually the first set of changes that you the slide that you had that on could we i was fumbling papers when you put that first one up there and i would I'm just like, okay. Okay. I read it at home. I can't read that here, but I know what you're referring to, so I'm good. I'm not sure I could read that myself, so we can get that for you. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Nichol. I've got a question in regards to the, in Article 18, I believe that there was a change made in the definition of significant trees. Is that correct? In Article 26. 26. So that's not what we're dealing with here. Correct. Okay. Thank you. No, they did change it here. They totally changed the significance tree definition here. Okay. Well, then my concern is we are going to see some major problems with infilling our vacant and underutilized property. if we reduce the size of significant trees from 24 inches to four. So please make sure that you speak to all parties who may be affected by this because a four-inch tree, from a 24-inch tree to a four-inch tree, is going to make our vacant and unrealized property almost all difficult to develop. Thank you. Any more questions? Just curiosity. I noticed there were some trees that were eliminated from that list. I can't remember if it was hophorn beam or some of the oaks. And I figured the tree board had passed on the changes. But do you know what the thinking was on how they settled on certain? I know why they took ash off. But there are some other things that were still on there. Do you know why they took those off? We do have a representative from the tree board, our urban forestry area. So the thinking is by lowering the canopy, the size of the tree that's considered significant, we're gonna capture more trees to be examined? Right. The current standards had certain species of trees, but then related genera, which are oaks and that. But the idea, I think, in removing that was to, by lowering the significant tree definition, we would capture those trees anyway. And it's mostly designed as a way that we are able to make a case for more trees. than we are now. And it's 36 inches in diameter is what significant tree is currently listed as. Thank you. Just as a follow-up, I'm not going to dwell on it, but I'll just say ditto as to mulch and columnar trees. I'd be in favor of what was just spoken about. Talking about trees or significant trees or trees on a list or not on a list. I think last time we talked, Catawba trees probably were not on a significant tree list. That's something that I spoke to the other day. I'd definitely love to see those things be able to stay around, simply put. I don't know if there's a reason that they'd gotten left off originally or not. So. so just for the record we consider arborists consider all trees significant because they are so sure we'd like to have an extensive list but we're trying to capture that with lowering the dbh for significant trees that's going to capture all those so say there is a catalpa that tree will have significant status. So then that affords us the ability to try and protect that tree. And then I wanted to address Robin too. The way Article 18 is currently set up in this revision, commercial properties can plant them. They just don't count toward their required landscape requirements. So they could still plant those. Oh, yeah, I understood that. Yeah. And then in 26, if we allow those, they would be treated as 100 square feet canopy, which is like a small tree. Well, the current text only allows them if approved by staff. Is that correct? Right. And the new text takes away essentially your discretion on if they're an appropriate tree to plant. Right. And, you know, so take, for example, like I live four houses up from the Kroger on Euclid. So Kroger was approved for a variance, so the building is very close to Marquis Avenue. And so they planted columnar maples along there to satisfy their landscaping along the side. In the context of that construction, I feel like you would want the authority to approve that tree given that context. But my understanding of variances is our variances have to be dimensional. So if you take away that authority, you would not actually be able to approve those columnar trees in that context. Is that correct? So they could still plant those trees. They just would not count toward their canopy coverage requirement for the landscaping. So they could still plant those trees. And for the record, those maples are horrible trees. Does it only not count towards the canopy coverage, or does it not count for the street trees or the buffers? Because it says any requirement, if I'm not mistaken. Maybe Boyd wants to jump in here, but I think that the way we wrote that is it says required landscaping. So from this text, you can still plant them. The environmental benefits of having a columnar tree over any other tree is very little. So one thing we are trying to do is we are working hard on the tree canopy coverage in Lexington. So the space that that would take, because right now, according to this text, our current ordinance, a columnar tree gets the small coverage as a small tree, which is 250 square feet. and we know that's a columbia tree doesn't get that big but that's the credit you get for planting one so you can still use it if you want to use it for buffering you can use it as a shrub because shrubs don't count towards uh tree coverage and there are some shrubs like vibranums they get big but well i think i think i hear you and what what i think we're in agreement but i maybe personally misinterpret the text, but I think maybe the text could be looked at so that the text just reads that column of trees do not count towards the canopy coverage as opposed to do not count towards any requirements. Does that make sense? That makes sense. We'll look at it and send you some new text. are we going to be able to see this again before we vote on it because i think you are showing that you are making adjustments will it come back here before we are making a vote um i believe that would be appropriate but so this will uh be formally uh kind of applied for in this upcoming month but you will still have time at your zoning committee and we can bring this to you at another work session to discuss it at the end of next month if you were interested in having further comment and review over the language we're generating as we have some more public input associated with this as well i i am interested that if my fellow commissioners are because of the significant tree size reduction is going to if it is reduced to what is being proposed it will dampen development in Lexington. And it's a major concern, and I think it would be better to have the conversation here rather than in council chambers now. so yes sir we can make sure that that is on the agenda for your May 30th work session and then you will also be seeing this at your zoning committee meeting and your subdivision committee meeting. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Do we have any more questions for Ms. Miller? Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. We have Beth Overman up for purchase of development rights. Annual report. Okay. All right. Okay thank you all for having us here today so we are we provided this report to the council on Tuesday and it went very well and so it has a few educational slides in the beginning that may be repetitive to some of you all who heard this before or served on our board but I know mr. Jonathan Davis is new so that will be helpful for you we also have our board chair Gloria Martin here today and so if she has any comments to add after I'm finished or helps me answer questions she will be here and so with that I will go ahead and get started so while crafting Fayette County's 1996 comprehensive plan our where citizens and leaders recognize the importance of protecting the rural service area for future economic development and tourism, as well as its vast natural and cultural resources. The rural service area is comprised of some of the highest quality soils in the nation. The prime farmland soils are illustrated in green on the map to the right, and in yellow, the statewide important soils are in yellow. The Rural Land Management Plan was adopted in 1999 as an element of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, then updated in 2017 as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. So our Rural Service Area background, the Rural Land Management Plan was designed to document the natural and historical attributes of the Rural Service Area and recommend ways to manage and preserve them. preserve them. These attributes include but are not limited to the prime farmland soils, historic rural hamlets, historic roads and turnpikes, stone fences, and the Kentucky River Palisades. The plan notes five distinct focus areas especially important to conserve. Let's see, I pointed those for you all. So they are all based on tributaries. So this is the North Elkhorn Creek and then right up here we have I mean sorry South Elkhorn Creek and then we have old Frankfort Pike and then over here they're all in pink hatching and then that's North Elkhorn Creek focus area and then down we come down here on the right and have Boone Creek and then the Kentucky River tribute protecting the rural area is called for in the plan has a trifecta of community benefits environmental sustainability with a protection of our tree canopies, water bodies, soils, and wildlife habitats, economic development from the agricultural, equine, and tourism industries, and better health for our citizens by having access to locally grown foods and to parks such as Raven Run and Heisel Farm and less air pollution. So our PDR program background. The Rural Land Management Plan also called for the creation of a farmland protection program. A group of 26 community members representing multiple facets of business, industry, government, and conservation met regularly for two years and were known as the Implementation Committee. PDR was established in the year 2000 with an ordinance stated goal to purchase easements on 50,000 acres in the rural service area. The 16-member board was created to govern the program, and per ordinance is comprised of representatives from the groups who served on the implementation committee. As well as three council appointed seats added in 2019. 13 members are voting and three are non-voting. The board meets monthly to steward the easements and oversee acquisition of new easements. Stewardship. So, PER easements are perpetual. We get asked that sometimes about is there a limit, will they expire at a certain point. they are perpetual transfer with the land they are recorded with the property deed at the county clerk's office just like a mortgage or a utility easement the easements require the landowners to obtain the rural land management sports permission to add housing and if they were purchased if the easement was purchased after 2007 when an impervious surface limit was implemented then they also have to obtain the board's permission to add barns or anything that's going to add an impervious surface. Since PDR farms regularly change hands, a letter is sent to the property owners annually reminding them of these rules and that they need to make sure that their contact information is on file with our office. The easements must also be monitored annually, and reports must be submitted to NRCS for each federal easement. Most monitoring is conducted in person, but we also use the aerial photography that the GIS staff purchases every two years. The board and PDR staff must also field questions and requests regarding utility easements, cell phone towers, road widenings, subdivision expansion, and all sorts of other issues. And any easement that was utilized federal funds also has to have the permission of NRCS if there's a question about expansion or road widening or anything like that. So our board, and it is unique, you know, it's different than you all where any citizen can apply or the board of adjustment. So it is made from those organizations. And as you will see, so the Fayette County Farm Bureau has two and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association has two. But otherwise, they all represent different organizations. And it really works well. We like that. And the two council appointed seats that were added in 2019 have been good at filling in gaps from areas of the community that we might not have represented through the board or through the regular of the nominating group. So that's been a nice addition. And council member Savigny, having him, he's been very engaged and helpful. So we've liked having those three additional seats. So the financial benefits of farmland preservation. Fayette County's rural area is a globally recognized landscape that brings investors and tourists from around the world. Mary Quinn Raymer is on our board. Visit Lex has reported for years that visitors come to Lexington to see our horse farms and scenic beauty. It's the number one reason. The Breeders' Cup had an $82 million impact on Lexington and the surrounding areas. Lexington is the horse capital of the world and home to the Kentucky Horse Park, Red Mile, Keeneland, and Fasic-Tipton, in addition to numerous horse farms and training centers. And we also are seeing a big diversity in that sport horses coming in. I don't know if you all have seen that. Well, I know Zach is very familiar with this. But, yes, so we're seeing a lot of diversity in that, a lot of people coming here now for sport horses. the legacy trail extends through the downtown court of the horse park where over 30 equine businesses are located now and in addition to the multitude of recreation and other tourism activities they host and we also cannot forget our cattle in kentucky so fayette county is also home to the bluest blue home to the bluegrass stockyards which is the largest stockyard east of the mississippi river we are kentucky is the largest beef producer east of the mississippi River and home to nearly 1 million beef cows per the USDA. In 2022, gross receipts from cattle production totaled $1.1 billion per the Kentucky Cattlemen's Beef Association. And we do, we are seeing more and more of our PDR applicants are cattle farmers. We're also seeing that. The Kentucky bourbon industry generates $285 million in state and local taxes and 15 to 20 million bushels of corn go towards making Kentucky bourbon every year and 75% of that corn comes from Kentucky. Corn and soybeans are the row crops most frequently raised on our PDR farms. Our thriving Lexington farmers market operates five days a week during the spring and summer season and many of our restaurants depend on the produce and meat supplied by local farmers. We also have wineries in the rural area, including a small one on a PDR farm. So, key to our success, the federal funding partnership for farmland preservation. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service that we refer to as NRCS, with whom we partner, states it well by saying, agricultural land easements protect the long-term viability of the nation's food supply by preventing conversion of productive working lands to non-agricultural uses. Land protected by agricultural land easements provide additional public benefits, including environmental quality, historic preservation, wildlife habitat, and protection of open space. NRCS has partnered with the PDR program for over 20 years and awarded us over $29 million. Over half of PDR easements are federally funded. The funding program we utilize is called the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and it receives bipartisan support from Congress in every farm bill so far. So our PDR ranking process, I will not read all of this to you all, but parcels in the rural service area that are leased 20 acres meet the acreage requirements for easement purchase. A property owner can also, if they have two adjacent tracks that they can combine to equal that 20 acres, that 20 acres they can also apply that way and one thing we do in case you ever if you know of anyone with in this situation so we let them apply to PDR let's say they have two adjacent 10 acre tracks we let them apply to PDR with those and put that it's going to be a 20 acre track with the intention that they are going to get a consolidation but until we've gotten funding for that from our federal match or we have the funding or we have actually made them an offer and they've accepted, we do not require them to get that consolidation plan because we don't want them to go to that expense and lose their individual tracks if something were to happen or we didn't get funding or something. So that is an option. And we are flexible with people. We work with people on that. And they do that sometimes. We have several that, you know, we had one out near Old Frankfurt Pike that had three tracks that totaled 45, and so they were doing that. So to ensure impartiality, parcels are ranked using a land evaluation and site assessment system that is provided in our ordinance. So, and it includes all of these items here. So it has ag supportive scoring, it has environmental protection scoring, historic protection scoring, and also negative scoring, which is awarded to parcels that are in the sewerability categories, one through four, that I know you are familiar with after the work last year with the expansion, and if they are very close to the urban service boundary, they lose points. Now, those are negated if they are in a focus area, one of the five we looked at, or a wellhead protection area, which is that protection area over near Spindletop so and also one note parcels of any size can be donated including those less than 20 acres so our conserved farms and acreage and you all do have this is the big map you all have so you all have a large one of this that shows all of our conserved easements and it also shows the bluegrass land conservancies easements and the floracliff nature sanctuary so with the federal investment in PDR and the Commonwealth of Kentucky's initial $15 million investment. The program is nearly two-thirds of the way to the 50,000-acre goal. There are 286 farms totaling over 32,000 acres permanently conserved and over 930 acres under contract to close. In addition, the Bluegrass Land Conservancy holds 18 easements in Fayette County totaling 2,300 acres, and the Mary Wharton Nature Sanctuary at Floracliff has 337 acres under easement. that has been designated as a Kentucky State Nature Preserve. It is a goal of both the PDR program and the federal matching program to create a critical mass of contiguous conserved agricultural land, and you will see that on this map. Like here, you can see things like that. That is what we're working on, or up here. And when we get to the, we've got another slide about a farm we just acquired last year. I'll show you some more. But these areas, they're on military, you know, that's what we are working to do is those large areas of contiguous mass. So our largest easement in PDR history. So we purchased an easement on four tracks. Farm 4 2020, owned by the Foxtrot Corporation, was purchased in December of 2023. It is nearly 1,200 acres. Its soil score was 88%. It's PDR adjacent on multiple sides and was a batch application with two other neighboring farms. It's in the Boone Creek Focus Area and Boone Creek National Register Rural Historic District. It has rural greenways, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, and large trees throughout. It is part of the Fayette County's designated scenic view shed and has over 7,400 feet of frontage on a historic turnpike and a Kentucky scenic byway. And it is used for cattle and crop production. This is a picture from the farm. It was federally matched 50-50, and NRCS said it is the largest agricultural easement they have purchased in Kentucky as well. So we were very proud of that, and they were too. And it is a neat farm because they do have the cattle, the crop, it has huge, because of its size, it has and location. It is actually on your map, let's see, I'll go ahead to this one. So here it is, it's over. So we're on the bottom right, here we are. And so this is it outlined in purple and you can see how big it is. And it really, what a puzzle piece it was for us to get. So we had this conserved land and then we had that, all these little pieces around it. And then we were able to fill that in and we're so excited. So that was really, and that's part of our goal to get big areas like that. So, but because of its location and being on that side and getting closer to the being near, you know, the natural areas in Kentucky, it's very treed in a lot of spaces. You know, the turkeys running around, foxes running around. It's really special. So we're very excited about that. Oops, let's see if I went too far. Okay, so we also, we have 14 farms under contract to close that are federally matched, and here are the first eight. And then these are our next six, and they total 931 acres. In addition, we also have three newly federally matched farms that are in progress, and three pending on a federal application, and two donation applications, and those total 320 acres. And then we also have five applications in the queue that meet PDR application requirements but are not yet funded due to life estates or the inability to qualify for the federal match due to federal ownership. And then we have one, the ordinance actually requires that we report the name of the landowner and the location of any unsuccessful applicants. So we have one of those to tell you all it was Farm 8-2021 on 5201 Mount Horeb Pike. It's listed here at the bottom. And it was federally matched, but the landowner just wasn't sure yet that she wanted to move forward with PDAR. It's a family farm, and so she declined the board's offer. And so our news and accomplishments. So an exciting thing for us, I think we've probably, when we've been here before, we've talked about the slow federal process and enclosing easements. And the board was named a certified entity last year. And this designation is based on our longstanding successful partnership with NRCS, through which we share over 160 easements. It is our understanding there were only four certified entities in the U.S. prior to 2023, and we are the only certified entity in Kentucky. So this is going to give us more autonomy to close easements and should expedite closings. because instead of waiting for it to go through multiple layers of federal review, they pretty much turn a lot of that over to us. And then they will conduct an audit at the end of each year of 15% of our closings and just ensure that everything's going well. And so we are very excited. We've just gotten permission to start, and so we expect hopefully when we come see you all next year we'll have a lot of closings to report. another is the non-profit non-profit seed leaf is leasing 32 acres on a pdr farm and has expanded to the rural area for the first time this is the largest their largest space thus far in their first time in the rural area they actually had a kickoff event last and judy was there and so they had an event last fall one beautiful day and invited their supporters out and just did a little tour of the farm, but they plan to allow farmers who have completed their training program to have their own one and a half, one to one and a half acre lots out there. And they also are going to have land for migrant farmers to use. I don't know if some of you all saw the article that was in the Herald sometime last year about a lot of the migrant farmers that are living in Lexington and are looking for space to grow foods that are native to their countries. And so Seedleaf is setting up space for them as well. And so we are very excited about this and grateful to Seedly for doing this and also the PDR farm owner who is leasing the land to them. And third, the board was awarded a $10,000 grant from the American Farmland Trust to encourage farmers to implement better soil health practices. Uses of the funds thus far include perching a soil penetrometer that will be used to measure soil compaction when conducting easement monitoring. And Charlie Farmer, who was with NRCS for 30 years, does the majority of our easement monitoring. And so when we sent out our annual letter to the landowners this year, we told them we now have this soil penetrometer, and that when Charlie conducts his easement monitoring, he can test it for free for them. And so we hope that some of our landowners will take advantage of that. We also provided funds to the Fayette County Soil Conservation District last fall. They have a program where they give cash awards to incentivize farmers to grow cover crops during the fall and winter. And so they asked for help with that. We supplemented that so that it gave a little more. And that goes to all Fayette County farmers. It's available to all, not just PDR farm owners. And lastly, the NRCS had a big conference in Winchester last year for cattle farmers. about creating, implementing better soil health practices, and we paid for some of our PDR farm owners that raise cattle to attend that. So in summary, so over 32,000 acres have been permanently conserved, including 36 donated easement, totaling over 1,400 acres. The PDR staff and board are currently working with 27 PDR applicants in stewarding easements on nearly 300 farms. The federal partnership is strong and the Inflation Reduction Act is raising the investment in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program from $450 million to $1.4 billion annually over a five-year period. And we just recently received funding for three new easements provided by that funding. We have just been given the green light to begin closing farms as a certified entity and look forward to a productive year of easement acquisitions. And that is all. So that concludes, and I'm happy to take questions, and Ms. Martin can join us too. Thank you, Ms. Overman. Okay. Any comments? Yes, sir. Thank you, Beth, and thank you, Chair Martin. It's thrilling to hit 32,000, but to have the single largest easement closed, and I know that's something to really be thrilled about, but I didn't know it was the largest that NRCS had done in the Commonwealth. That's hugely significant. So thank you all. Yes, thank you. And I'd like to add to the being the certified entity designation is huge. Thank you. And congratulations. Thank you. And I hope you can get some of those applications through the pipeline. Yes. Thank you, Jake. Yes. Awesome. Thank you, too, for all your hard work. Okay, that's all. Okay, thank you. I just got one question, too. Okay. You got any tips on how can I get some of that beef you were talking about? No. I'm sure we can connect you. It's getting expensive and cruelly. Yes. As a matter of fact, last year. Hey, see? Yes. Last year, the Farm Bureau did, and Fayette Alliance, they do a tour each year. And I don't know if they've been including the, have they been including the planning commission? They take the council on a tour of farms each year. And so two years ago, we had actually had Wagyu beef hamburgers on midway through the day grilled on this farm. So we will talk to Brittany and make sure you are included in the future. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that. You're welcome. We won't mention Brittany's Rothenmeier's name. Thank you again. Okay, agenda item three, Boyd, lighting zoning ordinance. Good afternoon, everyone. You good? My name is Boyd Sewe. I'm here to talk about Article 30, which is the Outdoor Lightning Ordinance. Our current ordinance provides limited guidelines when it comes to outdoor lightning. The most comprehensive outdoor lightning ordinance in our current regulations is found in Article 16. I didn't know that at all. Our most comprehensive outdoor lighting ordinance is found in Article 16, which was passed in 2022. And it has to do with the parking lot lighting requirement, which is limited at a height of 12 feet. And the 12 feet height was designed for small parking lots and it has had a lot of, not the best feedback from the developers because you require a lot of those with big parking lots and we know recently we dealt with a project that was on a Newton Springs that they required a variance to move from 12 feet to 25 feet. This article 30 was initiated by the council and they are allowed to do that. And the comprehensive plan also called for us to look into how to reduce light pollution and to protect dark skies. And now if we look at this, this is one of the things that really looks beautiful, encourages us, makes us feel like Lexington's beautiful, and what we are trying to do here is make this look better. So the intent of this article was to establish a comprehensive and objective outdoor lighting plan, foster high quality outdoor, and this will include ways to minimize, oh I didn't look at that, sorry. To minimize glare, ways to minimize light trespass, as you talked about your neighbors fighting with your neighbors over the lighting thing, we're looking into that. And just minimize the sky glow in Lexington. So this will affect exterior lighting, lighting to access easements, and we will work with a complete street manual that is currently going through the process to make sure that we are aligned with what we want to do. And there will be exemptions to this because we have some lights that we don't feel comfortable telling people they can't just put out. So season lighting will be exempt from this. Simple porch lights and residential lights that don't go to your neighbor's property will be exempted from this. And when we look at what the plan requirements are for this, this will include, this will be triggered by landscape plans and development plans. And it will be prepared by registered landscape architects, registered architects, and professional engineers, all registered in the state of Kentucky. The standards will include fully shielded lighting fixtures. This is an example of different lighting fixtures that we use locally. The one on to the farthest left is unshielded. You see the light goes everywhere. This next one is just shielded at the top. You still have light spilling to the top and everywhere. This is what we are looking to get to. That's a fully shielded light fixture. fixture, but the one to the farthest right, if we can get that far where we regulate time when you can turn it off or use sensors so that we have total darkness at night, that would be good, but this article does not require us to do that. Just letting you know if you guys feel like pushing it to that, that would be appreciated. And we'll also regulate the Kelvins. Yes? I'm sorry, sir. Would you mind to turn your mic on? Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you again for your presentation. I had a question about the light sensors. Is it cost prohibitive? Is that why you guys are not currently requiring the sensors? Because actually it makes sense to have the sensors so that they have total darkness, you know, late at night. There are different ways of looking at it. And I think the most is trying to convince people that it's safe. Some people believe that light has to be on 247. So that's the biggest pushback we have. But hopefully we can convince people that they are good. And I like where you're coming from with that. Next we have the Kelvins. And Kelvins, I described that. That's the description of a Kelvin. and Kelvin doesn't regulate the brightness of the light. It's just the temperature of the light. So we see from daylight to what a candle looks like and that will be regulated. We will limit it to 3,000 Kelvins. That's what is not just the industry standard but best practice and also right now the traffic engineers recommend the 3,000 Kelvins and that's what a 3,000 Kelvin light would look like. I thought your draft was higher. Did I miss something? No, we have two different Kelvin limitations. There's one that's general, that's the 3000, then one is for sports field and entertainment, which is higher. Yes. And then we have the food candles, and this is what a food candle is. Basically, it's the light a candle gives in a square foot. We will limit that for developments. The trespass, we use that for the trespass and we limit it to .5 horizontal foot candles back to the neighbor fights, that would limit that. And this is how it works. There's the backlight, there's the light trespass which we are trying to limit, and there's the useful light. That's the bug. So, backlight, not good. Upward light, not good. The useful part is what we are trying to limit the light to. That's why we're using the fully shielded fixtures. Then the other thing that we are going to have in the standards is the maximum lumens. We're going to, just for those who might not be aware of what the lumens are, that translates to what a regular bulb is. For those who are older, they know what an index. Let me get that one. Incarniscent pub, what it is. And that's what has been the industry standard for the longest time. But the lumens is what they all have in common. That's how you can measure how much output they have. And that is going to be limited for developments. We're going to have them at 100,000 per acre for commercial developments and 25,000 for residential elements. This picture is of downtown. The lights might not be shielded. You can see some light trespass, and we need to change that so that we have a totally dark sky at night. Then one of the things that, as I said, that really triggered this was the height limit currently that we have of 12 feet. are trying to push that to 15 feet, I mean 12 feet within 15 feet of your property line at the front and the back. The reason for that is because this is where we have pedestrian access and we want people to use a 12 foot high fixtures because that really, really helps with its scale for pedestrian use. On the rest of the property you can go up to 25 feet. As you can see, that's a well-lit parking lot. Many people might say that parking lot is legit lit. And then with these standards, we also have the special provisions, and this allows for flexibility and innovative design to be used in this to meet the standards. Then let's see. So what we're talking about, the difference in maximum lumens that can be used, I mean Kelvins. When it comes to outdoor recreation and entertainment, we will go up to 4100 because according to the information we, when we did our public outreach, we got information that 4,000 is the best, the best Calvins for photography. So when you're doing your photography at night, videos, 4,000 is good, but we just gave them to 4,100 in case they had that. Also the height The height limit for the fixtures is more than 25. This can go, we have two. If the seating area is under 2,500 seats, it can go up to 80. Is it 80? 75 feet. If it's over that, it can go up to 120 feet. Then, like all other ordinances, we have ways of dealing with the non-conforming lights. And that's the end of my presentation. As I said, this might look so good, but one thing that's missing from here is the stars. So we are trying to bring back the stars, and I'm not talking about the 96 team. Thank you, boy. Do we have any questions? Yes, sir. Well, thank you. I think it's an important addition. I do have just one, or I have a thought on the timers. I do think maybe that your comments and goals on that could be incorporated when you're talking about outdoor recreation use and those brighter, taller lights, having a timer requirement on those lights to make sure that they go off when there's not. We do have that. You do have that in there? Yeah. Those are required to be off an hour after the end of the event. Okay. I just, in my skimming, I missed that, so thank you. And then I see both sides of this. I just, I really like the 12-foot parking lot requirement. I think that's one of the things that, you know, that's one of the regulations that I understand you're hearing, that the developers don't like because it requires a lot more light. Hopefully as parking lots get smaller, then maybe there won't be as many. But also just realizing that parking lots are also pedestrian areas and the whole parking lot keeping the lighting and landscaping oriented towards the pedestrians, I think, is worthwhile to give a little bit of pushback on the developers on that. And I think overall this improves what we have quite a bit, but I would encourage keeping that in there. This is clarification for me. Not development plans here. I'm talking about in established neighborhoods. Does what we have here cover requests to incorporate new lighting in established neighborhoods, individual homeowner? Would it? So for new lighting established, they would have to go by the rules that are sent here. If they already have lighting, they're held in with the grandfathering. You plant a pine tree there. Yes. That's what you do. So with any new lighting, they would have to abide by these ordinances. Okay, and then KU would be linked into. Do they have to get a permit? So with KU, we're getting into public property, and that is something that our Complete Streets Manual, Traffic Engineering, other groups are looking into to talk about how we're going to interact with the public sphere. So that's outside of this, but it is part of that Complete Streets process that Boyd referenced before. Actually, when I talk about KU, and I may be out of date here, but it was my understanding that if you wanted a security light installed in your yard, that's private property, but KU comes in and does the installation. Is there a permit required for that, and they have to comply with what the new regulations would be? They would have to comply with the new regulations, but there isn't a permit associated with that from the government. Thank you. Let me follow up on that just a little bit. As far as a homeowner's security lights, motion sensors, are you saying that new lights coming into play has to stay within their own boundary? So there's two things on that. Keep the light within a certain 0.5 Kelvin within your property, And then there's the exemptions where the lumens allowed is so high that your security light doesn't get that bright. So residential areas will be safe. Just don't point your security light into someone's house. So what I'm hearing is still it's supposed to be subject to within your own boundary? Yes. Interesting. I'm going in the middle of the night, falling season-wise and so on. I'm driving up my street and my vehicle turns on security lights on a front porch that shines right in my face. Just curious. Just curious. How are you going to mandate? How are you going to regulate that? Just like most things now. Yeah, with a food control trespass, you can actually measure how much light is trespassing. But someone's got to call it in. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question. If after this implementation, a homeowner in a residential neighborhood wants to do exterior landscape lighting, both for the aesthetics but also for a security consideration, would the landscape lighting that's done well is usually pointed up towards the facade, but it's very gentle and it's not harsh. But would all of these apply to that type of installation, you know, just a residential zone? If it meets the exemptions, which is for unshielded, there's regulations for the unshielded fixture and the shielded fixture. And I don't think landscaping lighting is bright enough to go past this. If you are making it that bright, you have to meet these regulations. Okay. So landscape lighting, you believe, falls under the... It's under. Way under. Okay. All right. Way under. Thanks. Okay, Mr. Boyd, thank you. I think we're good to go. Thank you very much. All right. So we've got dynamic duo, Al Bailey and Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much. I will be incredibly quick. This is really just an update for what is going on with the Urban Growth Management Master Plan. We did receive a draft element from the Partners for Economic Solutions. They came and spoke with you last work session to talk about the market analysis. It was a little bit more cohesive in their presentation previously, but it got to a lot of the things that are outlined within this report. This is on the Urban Growth Lex website and is available for anyone to use. it was sent out to you prior to this meeting. So this is just an update, making sure that everybody from the public, as well as everybody here, knows that that is available for review. Next, we have our upcoming three-day charrette that everyone in this room is invited to, as well as everybody within the community. This will be on April 29th, 30th, and then culminating in a urban growth festival on the 1st of May. We hope to see as many people from the public out and engaging in the development of what we see as the first steps of designing and outlining how these areas of expansion will look into the future. So this last day will be kind of the unveiling of what is being done over the two days prior. There will be many different meetings with members of the public as well as internal agencies, the school system, trying to get everyone on board and envisioning this area for the future. So we hope to see you out the April 29th and 30th and then culminating in our meeting or our festival May 1st at the Whitaker YMCA. Will you have a May poll? I'm sorry? Will you have a May poll? I hope so, but that is, We'll see what our consultant can pull together. Is Charette also at the Whitaker Family Wymt? No, I'm sorry. Those are actually at the Pam Miller Downtown Arts Center. So right nearby. This is a centralized location so that we get everyone from the different areas of our community to kind of come down and play a part in this. Thank you, Mr. Bentley. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you all this afternoon, and I'm happy to be talking with you. Haven't done this in a while. I wanted to bring you all an update and really seek your guidance to an issue that was brought to our attention by the consultants for the master plan. We have learned that there is a question about what should be the best practice and even what was the intent of the planning commission when selecting a portion of the land for the consultants to consider through the master plan. So when the consultants brought this to our attention, we reached out to the chair and the vice chair and asked if they would join us to help us brainstorm. And we also asked Mike Owens to come in because Mike was the person who made the motions, particularly in the area that we were considering. So we wanted to find out what was the intent of the Planning Commission so that we could provide clarity to the consultants as they continue to master plan leading up to the charrette coming up in a couple of weeks. And the chair and the vice chair and Mike all said, well, we understand what you're saying, but we'd like you to go back and see if you can find out more information about the history of this so that we can understand it better and then bring it to the full planning commission and get everyone's input on this. So that's what we've been doing for the past week or so. I reached out to some history-making people in the community and got their input on this area. We dug into our own files and found some information as well. And before we go any further, let me make it crystal clear for anyone who has a question about this. We are seeking your guidance only. Nothing we're asking you to do today will in any way make one blade of grass any different than it is right now as far as development goes. Nothing we're asking you today expands the urban service area or makes any land available for development or takes away any existing right that anyone has. I know that's a clumsy disclaimer, but I know there are a lot of people who think that we're trying to do things that perhaps are not exactly as we say. This is as we say. We are seeking clarity from you, and we'll go with the suggestion that you make. So you should have a copy of a letter from our consultant laying out the issue, and this is what we want to talk about with you today. So the area in question is Area 5 that you all selected back in October as part of the master plan. This is the area that is generally called the Blue Sky area plus some additional land. So when you all, and this is in the southwest part of town, southeast part of town, I'm sorry, along Athens-Boonesboro Road and Interstate 75. And this is the area that you all selected. So area five, and it includes in the yellow boundary and most of the orange and gray, is the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center as defined in our rural land management plan. And then you also selected as part of this area these two parcels, which are not in the Rural Activity Center. That's 5660 and 5530 Athens-Boonesboro Road. adjacent certainly and across the road from but not in. So all of the orange area plus this is part of what you selected. But where we're looking is right here. This is 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road and you can see the yellow line which forms the boundary for the Rural Activity Center is not aligned with the property line for 5354, Athens Boonesboro. So here is the zoning map for this area, kind of in close a little bit. Athens Boonesboro, I-75. This is the portion of the parcel, 5354, adjacent to another parcel here. Property lines established for decades. the B5P zoning, which is in the orange, established since the late 60s. The B3 zone, sort of here in the lower right, was established a couple of years ago to accommodate the soccer stadium and the outlots associated with that. So the soccer stadiums on an adjacent parcel, the outlots and parking are on 5354. Here are the soccer fields which are not in the rural activity center and are in the agricultural zone adjacent to this area. The big green, two parcels over here represent PDR. So PDR property is adjacent by this point to 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road. So back to the zoning map. Zoning in place, B5P squares it off down here along with the property line. So why is there a mismatch in the property line, the zoning, and the rural activity center? Probably several things go into telling this story, and we may not get them all, but we're going to give you every one that we have. So here is a development plan from 1970. It was certified in 1970 for the same area. This is 5354 Athens-Boonesboro Road, or a portion of it. Athens-Boonesboro, I-75. Here's the interchange. In 1970, this area was envisioned as a golf course. So down here where we're talking about this little property, oh, this is a golf course, a hotel, and some other uses. We know most of that never came to pass. And so years passed, and the property owner decided that they wanted to develop north of Athens-Boonesboro Road, which was not included in the Rural Activity Center, and it had an agricultural zone. So that was going to make it nearly impossible for them to get the zoning they needed and to do the development they wanted. So in 1996, during the comprehensive plan process, the property owners, who were the same on this side and this side, asked to swap land out. They asked if they could bring in this portion of the land that is not in the Rural Activity Center and remove this portion. This little trapezoid is about seven acres. the comprehensive plan in 1996 did that. It removed this, moved this, added that, and said when those properties come in for zoning, whenever that is, then the fulfillment of the comprehensive plan would take place. And of course, just as a reminder, property is not zoned through the comprehensive plan. Land use is designated, and future policies are designated for land use. So that's what the 96 plan did. So some more time passed, And in 2008, the same property owner came in and said, we're ready to rezone. We want this to be B5P. This is on the north side of Athens-Boonesboro. We have a use for it. And we recall that we're supposed to take this part out of urban zoning. It's already been taken out of the Rural Activity Center. It's all in the minutes. In 2008, when this hearing was held, this piece was considered first. The applicant received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission forwarding to council. And then the applicant asked to withdraw the application to change the zoning of this property. And it was granted. So therefore, the Rural Activity Center request to change the zoning on the north side was fulfilled. to change it on the southwest side was not. And so the property remains zoned B5P, even though seven acres is not in the urban service area, or in the rural activity center, I'm sorry. And this property got zoned B5P for a B5P development. The problem then that's been pointed out by our consultant is that by leaving that portion out down here, then you leave it vulnerable because the master plan then cannot make any recommendations about buffering, land use, access, everything else that the master plan is going to do for this property. And yet, it is in the parcel, and more importantly, it is zoned, B5P. And so that property owner has a right to pursue a B5P use, whether it's in the master plan, whether it's in the rural activity center. May be challenges with infrastructure, may be challenges with access, but if they can overcome those, then they can put a motel, they can put a drive-thru restaurant, they can put a gas station, whatever B5P use. Now, I don't say that to be threatening. That is a fact. That fact has existed since 1968, and the property owner has not done so. But this property has never been as activated as it is now. With a soccer stadium coming in, with soccer fields coming in, with other development associated with soccer coming in, that all of a sudden makes the rest of this parcel. And with most of the rest of this potentially being brought into the urban service area through this master plan, that's going to make the fullness of this property very attractive. And so in order to leave, in order to prevent this property from remaining vulnerable to development that is not considered by the master plan, we are seeking clarity from you so that we can guide the consultants on what to do. And if you believe that it would be in the best interest of the master plan or even if you think it was your intention at the time of selecting this land that that was going to be squared off at that parcel as part of the zoning and include that in the master plan, we can pass that guidance on to the consultants and they will continue to pursue that. The main thing that will come out of that is it will give us an opportunity to describe what is an appropriate buffer between urban land and PDR land. This is the only place that in your recommendations that PDR even comes close to the land. And so if we don't do something about that, it's left up to what the existing regulations allow or require. And I can tell you with the passage of House Bill 443 this session in Frankfurt, we're not going to have any discretion to require more here unless we have a regulation or a plan or something that tells us to pursue that. So as Sam points out in her letter to us, in the second paragraph, we limit the ability to provide plan guidance for this portion. We miss an opportunity to establish protection policies. and then we create a scenario where we would have to buffer this area from this side and you could have potential mismatches of land uses on either side. So I think you can tell where we're leaning. The staff would prefer to be able to tell the consultants that this would be in the best interest of the master plan and best practice all the way around for protection of the rural area and for ensuring that we get the best results out of the master plan to include this as part of their planning effort. That is our recommendation, but we want to have that discussion with you, and I appreciate you letting me tell a long story to get us here. We'll do our best to address any other questions you have. Mr. Chair. That's a question, the tall one. Yes. Oh, yes, first of all. First of all, thank you so much for the explanation. That cleared up a lot of things for me. exactly how this all happened. I get it, and I don't see any malicious intent on, you know, what their end result is, but the fact still remains that it did happen. And, you know, from my personal experience just being in business in this community, you know, for the last 30-plus years, you know, somebody has to own this. Somebody has to say, even though it's not your fault, somebody has to say, you know what, I screwed up, it's a mistake, it wasn't our intention, but I'm going to fix this. So from a PR standpoint, I think taking ownership and getting in front of this is probably better than mistakes were made and being squirrely and hoping nobody notices, notice what happened. But if we're just proactive and one person put the name on this, you don't have to follow your sword, but you might have to prick your finger. So people know that a mistake was made by someone. They can say, if this guy made a mistake, he's not going to do it again. If this lady made a mistake, he's not going to do it again. And it wasn't the intent. The intent was X, Y, Z. Let's move forward from there. And I think if we did that, I think it might be an easier sell than hoping that nobody notices it, and then somebody does notice it, and now they've got a problem. Sure, and certainly, and of course that's the way we hope that you all see that we operate in everything that we do, is that everything is above board. And Mr. Davis, I wouldn't even say that there was a mistake that was made here. I think it was an oversight more than anything, and perhaps a lack of full understanding of the history of the area. So I think more so than that, right, right, right, right. You know, I think that the biggest problem we have with this is, of course, the fulfillment of the 96th Comprehensive Plan somehow that didn't happen. And so now what do we do? Let's make it right if we can. This is Zach Davis. Just hold on a second. Thank you, Jim. And thank you for the history. That was, I mean, my first question when we were talking about this was, how did that happen? Was there a reason? Knowing the history and knowing what I believe the intent of the commission was with the motion and the vote, I'm not only perfectly comfortable with the consultant's recommendation. I think it's a very good thing because, as we talked about or tried to talk about a month ago with buffering on agricultural properties, particularly PDR, I do think this is a perfect opportunity to get it right the first time. So thank you for this, and I appreciate it. Yeah, I'd like to suggest that we separate the two questions. One is, what do we want to do about this piece of property? What's our recommendation to you? The second one is, how do we manage the communication? So I would say, you know, I can't imagine anybody sitting around this table would want to create an orphan piece of property that did not belong to the rest of what we were doing with a comprehensive plan update. And so I think my feeling is what you suggested, Zach, that it was inadvertent, but our intent would have been to include it if somebody said, hey, it's hanging out there. and go for it. Mr. Mickler? Well, I was just kind of going to second that as well, just to throw that out there, that certainly when I voted for this, my understanding was that all of the B5P around the interstate was in the Blue Sky Activity Center, and that we were including it, we were adding that because we felt that it was important to get a good plan and to get better utilization out of that zone around the interstate, and that it was the intent for that B5P to be planned. Let me just agree. I vaguely remember some of that 96 comp plan stuff, but I think it came up after the fact. But the fact that that one remnant never did get fulfilled with what was offered at that time kind of explains how that got left out. And I can say that the intent and belief was, as Robin just said, was that the B5P, that B5P, all of that piece of B5P was part of the Blue Sky Barrel Activity Center. And it was omitted, not by anybody's, I can't say this to anybody's fault unless we can go back to 1996 and point some fingers. but it was an omission and we can own up to that omission and say that was the intent and we'll move forward. Ms. Meyer? I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said. It was unintentional and let's fix it and move on. Mr. Chair, what I think we're hearing here is that we will guide the consultants to then work with the fullness of this property all the way to the property line. And then recognizing that it's adjacent to agriculture, adjacent to PDR, adjacent to large lot rural residential. And we would be expecting to see a master plan that would respond to that. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thanks for getting that history for us. Yes, and I appreciate you all letting us bring that to you because that's important going into the charrette that we know what we're doing here. And, Mr. Chair, one more thing, if you don't mind, unrelated to this, and again, because you're in work session, you can't take any action on this. We just wanted to give you a preview that the week of the first work session in May, which is the work session is May 16th, is the week that several of the staff will be out for the Kentucky American Planning Association Conference. So we will be recommending at the next meeting that you can do so that you cancel the May 16th work session, but we will still hold the May 30th work session, planning commission work session, where there will be additional updates about the master plan, any ZOTAs that we've got going that we need to do, and anything else. So we'll bring that to you all at probably your next meeting. And, Mr. Chair, I think that's all we have. That's all we have. Okay. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Owens? You don't want to say anything? Okay, all right. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to sleep still in your eyes. I remember all the laughter and the tears we shared last night. And as we lie here, just two shadows in the light before dawn. The sweetest thing I've ever known is love in me And I have never been afraid of losing And I have never wanted love to be taken I always know that when I'm with you You're my sunshine, you're my face The sweetest thing I've ever known Is loving me Down you and I We're not children We have both been loved before We have given and we have taken Many rides on troubled shores With all the heartaches and temptations Only make me love you more The sweetest thing I've ever known Is loving you And I have never been afraid of you And I have never wanted love to be a change Hurry on, let's go there When I'm with you, you're my sunshine You're on me The sweetest thing I've ever known Is loving you The sweetest thing I've ever known Is loving you Hey girl, what you doing down there? Dancing alone every night while I live right above you. I can hear your music playing. I can feel your body swaying. One floor below me, you don't even know me. I love you. Oh, my darling, not three times on the ceiling if you want me. Twice on the pipe If the answer is no Oh, my sweetness Means you'll meet me in the hallway Twice on the pipe Means you ain't gonna show If you look out your window tonight Pulling the string with the note that's attached to my heart Read how many times I saw you How in my silence I adored you And only in my dreams did that wall between us come apart Oh my darling, knock three times on the ceiling if you want me Twice on the pipe If the answer is no Oh, my sweetness Means you'll meet me in the hallway Hi, I'm Liz Sheehan, 5th District Councilmember, and I am here today with Jill Farmer, one of our recreation manager seniors for LFUCG. Jill, tell us a little bit about the program that you oversee. I work for Lexington Parks and Recreation. I am over the therapeutic recreation division and I offer programming, recreation and leisure programming for people who have disabilities. That could be a physical disability, it could be a cognitive disability, an intellectual disability, a learning disability, what have you, everything under the sun. And I probably have the coolest job in the city. Well, I know I have stopped by some of your activities in the past and it always looks like a great deal of fun. What age groups do you work with? So we start as early as five. We've taken a couple of kids who are a little bit younger than that just because they were on the cusp of turning five, but we go all the way up. I think our oldest participant right now is 67. So we do it. We serve everybody. Yeah. And could you talk a little bit about some of the activities that you do with the participants in your program? So our program actually has been in place since 1955. We started our program through a grant through the Kennedy Foundation. And that was our first program was called Camp Kennedy, which is a summer camp program. So since then, obviously we've expanded over the years and offer everything from dancing classes to cooking classes, a yoga class that's getting ready to start in this very room soon. We do sports, we do fitness and just anything that you can think of, we try to come up with a way to get people involved, keep them active, keep them healthy, keep them informed about what we offer as a city to our citizens. It seems to me like this is a great service for our community and the families in our community who are looking for these types of programs. Could you talk a little bit about, you have summer camps that you offer sometimes. Could you talk a little bit about those and how those work and where people might find information about those? Sure. We have a whole registration process. We do for our particular programs, we do registration three times a year. We'll do January. We'll do February starting for our summer camp, since you just mentioned. And then we'll also do another one in August for our fall winter programs. So anyone who wants to learn more about us can go to our website, which is lexingtonky.gov slash parks. You can learn about all of our programs, but specifically you can learn about therapeutic recreation and the programming that we offer year round. For your programming, are there costs associated with enrolling? We are a fee-based program. Some of our programs are free. We do day trips sometimes out in the community, like we might take a trip to Keeneland for the day, and they'll have to pay for their own costs there. But the majority of our programs are fee-based. We do have a scholarship program called Everybody Count Me In, and it's an opportunity for somebody who might not be able to afford the full cost of the program to at least get half off. And that includes for our summer camp programs as well. So it's a great opportunity. And for those individuals who truly, truly have a really hard hardship, we will work with them to make sure that they can get that experience as well. We're always looking for inclusive opportunities to mix and mingle our programming with another community program. We do that a lot. We do that with our dance programs. We do that already with a lot of our programs. But we're always looking for opportunities. And we're always looking for volunteers who are very interested in maybe working with these populations, but also just working for parks and giving back a little bit. And how, if someone is interested in volunteering, how would they communicate with you or give their information? We have a volunteer coordinator. And again, you go to our website, lexingtonky.gov slash parks, and you'll look up for volunteer opportunities. And we do background checks on our volunteers. so we know that everyone is safe and secure in all of our programming that we do. So it's a great opportunity for somebody, if they're trying out working with different populations or just want to, like I said, give back to the community a little bit, it's a great opportunity to come and volunteer for our programs. Yeah, and one of the other things that I like is that you move around the community, right? So you're not always just in one place in one location. So, you know, families from different parts of town could interact in different ways and see different parts of town, but have programming closer to them sometimes. So like we're at Artworks right now, but I came over and played some games with you all in the Kenwick Community Center in my district. So I really value that about this program and how you kind of expose folks to different areas. And we want to make sure that we are serving our community that way and that we are giving our participants who might not have an opportunity to mix and mingle in a different community setting the opportunity to do that. So any of our parks facilities, you will see our programs going on there. Any of our open parks, you'll see our summer camps. We also go to non-park related facilities too to offer programs. We do a bowling program at Southland Lanes and we do a swimming program at the YMCA. And so we look for opportunities like that. And like I said, I have the coolest job in the city. It's certainly a fun one. It is. Thank you for all that you do for the families and our community. and thank you all for watching our video today. Of a deep blue dream Seven horses seem to be on the mark Thank you. The End It's calls from the many malls when they're downwind from his halls. When his tractor backs up traffic, the reception ain't too warm. The city's growing around him, but daddy won't sell the farm. You can't roll a rock up a hill that's steep. You can't pull roots when they run that deep He's gonna live and die In the eye of an urban storm Daddy won't sell the farm He worked and slaved in 68 He bought these bills and trees He raised his corn in a big red barn And a healthy family He learned to love the woodlands He can't stand the dumb harm There's concrete all around him But daddy won't sell the farm He can't roll a rock Up a hill that's steep You can't pull roots When they run that deep He's gonna live and die In the eye of an urban storm And he won't sell the farm One day he's gonna leave it all to me And I'll start my own branch Of the family tree They'll get the message written on the roof of the barn Daddy won't sell the farm You can't roll a rock Up a hill that steep You can't throw roots when they run that deep He's gonna live and die In the eye of an urban storm Daddy won't sell the farm We're gonna live and die In the eye of an urban storm Daddy won't sell the farm Oh, you know I'll come to more pensions high Thank you. See the curtains hanging in the window in the evening on a Friday night Headline is shining through the window Let's me know everything's alright Summer breeze makes me feel fine Glowing through the jasmine in my mind Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind See the paper van on the sidewalk A little music from the house next door So I walk on up to the doorstep Through the screen and across the floor Summer breeze makes me feel fine Blowing through the jasmine in my mind Summer breeze makes me feel fine Glory to the Jasmine by mine Sweet days of summer The Jasmine's in room July is dressed up And praying her too And I come home From a hard day's work And you're waiting there Parking the world See the smile of Wayne in the kitchen Food cooking and the plants for two Feel the arms that reach out to hold me In the evening when the day is through Summer breeze Makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind Summer breeze makes me feel fine Flowing through the jasmine in my mind Thank you. I was standing all alone against the world outside You were searching for a place to hide