# Planning Commission Work Session - August 15, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 15, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6186 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6186?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-08-15 - **Last revised**: August 15, 2024 - **Length**: 8,810 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 met on August 15, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. in the Phoenix Building 3rd floor Conference Room. The meeting focused on informational presentations and updates, with four agenda items addressed during the session. The commission received updates on the Green Way Master Plan and discussed House Bill 443, both presented as informational items. The meeting also included time for other business before adjourning. No formal votes were taken during this session, and no public comments were heard. The meeting served primarily as an informational briefing for commission members on current planning matters and legislative developments affecting the commission's work. ## Contested Items During the August 15, 2024 meeting, commissioners engaged in a procedural dispute regarding invitations to external presentations. The disagreement centered on concerns about selective invitations being extended to external presentations, with commissioners raising questions about the transparency and inclusivity of the invitation process. The discussion highlighted tensions over whether all relevant parties were being appropriately included in external presentation opportunities and whether the current invitation practices met standards for open and fair participation. Commissioners expressed concerns that the existing approach to issuing invitations may not adequately ensure that all appropriate stakeholders have equal access to participate in external presentations. The debate focused on procedural matters related to how invitations should be handled to maintain transparency and promote inclusive participation. The nature of the dispute was primarily procedural, dealing with process and protocol rather than substantive policy disagreements. However, the underlying concerns about transparency and inclusivity suggest that commissioners viewed this as an important matter affecting the integrity of their external engagement practices. The extracted data does not specify which individual commissioners were involved in the dispute or provide details about the ultimate resolution of the disagreement. The outcome of this contested item and any decisions made regarding future invitation procedures were not documented in the available information. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided source materials for this contested item.* ## Green Way Master Plan Update [timestamp: 00:00] George Sebastian presented an update on the Green Way Master Plan during this informational session. The presentation covered several key components of the ongoing planning process, including recent survey results that have been collected from community input efforts. Sebastian discussed the ecological assessments that are being conducted as part of the comprehensive planning process. These assessments are examining the environmental conditions and opportunities within the areas being considered for the Green Way network. The presentation also included an overview of draft deliverables that have been developed for the master plan. The Green Way Master Plan is designed to create connections between parks and green spaces throughout the city, establishing a network of linked recreational and environmental areas. As an informational presentation, no formal action was taken on this agenda item. The update served to keep officials and the public informed about the progress being made on this citywide initiative to enhance green infrastructure and recreational connectivity. The master plan represents a significant effort to improve the city's environmental and recreational assets by creating a coordinated system of green spaces that residents can access and enjoy while also providing ecological benefits to the community. ## House Bill 443 [timestamp: 01:30:00] Traci Wade presented information regarding House Bill 443 and its implications for local government operations. The bill establishes new requirements for local government ordinances, mandating that they must have objective standards and be applied ministerially. Wade explained that House Bill 443 will take effect in July 2025, giving local governments time to prepare for the changes. The legislation focuses on ensuring that local ordinances contain clear, measurable criteria rather than subjective standards that could lead to inconsistent application. The ministerial application requirement means that once ordinances meet the objective standards outlined in the bill, local governments must apply them in a straightforward, administrative manner without discretionary interpretation. This represents a significant shift in how local ordinances may be structured and implemented. The discussion was informational in nature, with Wade providing an overview of the bill's requirements and timeline for implementation. No specific action was taken during this agenda item, as the presentation served to inform attendees about the upcoming legislative changes and their potential impact on local government operations. ## Other Business [timestamp: 02:30:00] The commission addressed several administrative and scheduling matters under the Other Business agenda item. The discussion focused on coordinating upcoming meetings, planning public hearings, and establishing procedures for handling invitations to external presentations. Commission members reviewed their meeting calendar and discussed scheduling considerations for future sessions. The conversation included coordination of public hearing dates and ensuring adequate notice periods for community input on pending matters. The commission also addressed the process for evaluating and responding to invitations for external presentations and speaking engagements. Members discussed establishing clear guidelines for determining which invitations align with the commission's mission and how to handle requests for commissioner participation in outside events. This agenda item served an informational purpose, allowing commissioners to coordinate schedules and clarify administrative procedures. No formal votes or decisions were made during this portion of the meeting, as the discussion centered on logistical planning and process clarification. The Other Business discussion provided an opportunity for commissioners to address housekeeping matters and ensure smooth operation of future meetings and public engagement activities. ## Adjourn The meeting was formally adjourned at approximately [timestamp: 03:00:00]. No discussion or debate occurred regarding the adjournment, as this was a standard procedural item to conclude the meeting. The adjournment followed the completion of all scheduled agenda items for the August 15, 2024 meeting. No additional business was raised from the floor, and no motions were made to extend the meeting or schedule additional discussion time. The meeting concluded in an orderly fashion with the standard adjournment procedure. --- ## Full transcript you okay good afternoon everyone it is now 1 30. welcome to the planning commission work session is August 15th, 2024. First on the agenda is Greenway Master Plan update. Demetria Kimbrough. Is it Melhorn? Yes. Oh, thank you. I have to have a call now. Okay. Let's see here. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm not Demetria. My name is Jordan Sebastian. I'm a landscape architect with Lourdes Sargent. I'm part of the design planning team on the Lexington Greenways Master Plan Update, along with ALTA Design and Planning, Biohabitats, and EHI. I know that I think last month, the meteor gave you all a bit of an introduction to the project, and today we're just going to kind of give you another update. We're still a long way to go, but we're making some good progress. A couple of things we're going to go over quickly, some survey results, an ecological assessment that we've completed, some draft deliverables, and then next steps for the project. First survey results, we had an online survey that was up for about a month and a half that asked a variety of questions about the greenways. We had over 338 responses, which we think was pretty good, and in general they were actually very positive, which we were maybe a little surprised about, but overall very positive. We asked some open-ended questions such as this one about the Greenways Plan will be a success if. We've kind of summarized all of these. There were a lot of responses, but in general it said the Greenways Plan will be a success if it provides protection from natural resources and adds open space, increases tree canopy, creates an actual connected system, and is actually implemented. And then we had a variety of questions that ranked importance, and again, sort of the important items were continuous trail network, preservation of native species, access to water, restoration of tree canopy. This is sort of a continuation of those. We asked them what kind of structures and fixtures they most like to see in public green spaces. It's hard to see at this scale, but the most important items they highlighted were a variety of walking trail types, community gardens, benches and seeding opportunities, and informative signage. Also we asked what type of greenery plantings they like to see. The three they highlighted the most were wildflowers, wooded areas, and pollinator gardens. The question six here, the kind of word cloud you see, we just asked them what are their favorite green spaces in Lexington? So everything you see in larger text, that's what was mentioned the most. Arboretum, Veterans Park, Raven Run, College Springs, Legacy Trail, those things were mentioned many, many, many times as far as people's favorite places. We asked a couple of demographic questions. You can see there's three categories that are pretty evenly split. In general, the main age group that we hit was between 18 and 70, so pretty wide range there. And then we had lots of, again, additional comments, hundreds that we tried to sift through. Again, they were all pleasantly positive. They all just want to see a green, you know, connected greenway system implemented. All of this is online, is on the Lexington Greenways website, and all of this will be incorporated into the final kind of plan as well, the plan document. So those are the survey results, and next we're kind of going to go into the ecological sensitivity findings that we've done. Biohabitats did some pretty kind of intensive analysis where they looked at stream buffers, floodplains, wetlands, forest sizes, canopy coverage, all those things where they have identified areas of the city and county that are the most ecologically sensitive. So the areas in blue are the most sensitive in general they follow the waterways, which would make sense, but it also takes into account canopy coverage, street trees, that sort of thing. So the very light green you see there, kind of little parcels here and there are generally looking at some tree canopy coverage. And then they also took a look at that data and corresponded that to the rural land management plan, the priority areas and how those associated together, as well as the greenway zones from the original or the 2001 Greenways Master Plan. Really, we're looking at where those priority areas overlap with the sensitivity analysis. In terms of that previous map, are the big shaded areas the areas of overlap, or where are the areas of overlap? Those are some focus areas that were identified in the plan that we highlighted. They're not, they sort of correspond to watersheds, but not exactly. They also took a look at tree canopy and forest areas and highlighted areas, so everything in red here is potential for future forest canopy coverage, basically looking at where the gaps are in the system and where can we focus and increase canopy coverage in the future. So this was kind of, we presented all of this back in, I think it was March, during our ecological forum. And again, this has kind of been driving the past just few months of additional work we've been doing. So I want to show you some of those draft deliverables now. where we've taken a look at the overall greenway system. And these, believe it or not, they are color-coded based on watersheds. So there are nine kind of major watersheds in the city, and we're developing the conservation corridors based on the watersheds, which was kind of how it was done in the original Greenway Master Plan. So we have that overlaid with that ecological sensitivity analysis. And at another scale, you can actually see those sensitive areas within each watershed. So this map shows schools, parks, water bodies, and the ecological sensitivity. And if we zoom in just a little bit, basically onto each watershed. So this is the Town Branch Conservation Greenway, which is the Town Branch watershed. You'll be able to see parks, schools, the existing waterways, and then the ecological sensitivity on top of that. We are in the process of refining all of these graphics to make them more legible. Not to get too down in the weeds, but the way our ecological sensitivity was originally done was it was kind of put in there as a solid layer of varying colors. And really what we need is the outline, which we have now, so that you can see the extents of that ecological sensitivity and how that relates to the existing greenway pieces. The next thing we're looking at is the overall greenway trail system map. We've been working with kind of a work group, stakeholder group for the past hour-long projects been going on looking at this kind of trail system that coincides with the actual Greenway areas and there have been 27 Greenway trail corridors identified it looks like a bit of spaghetti on the page here but those are it's a trail system that connects our parks green spaces other destination destinations across the city really trying to use our green spaces the greenway network wherever possible we for this system we're really trying to focus on mainly the two left types of trails on here the off-road more typical greenway trails side paths which are you know typically going to parallel roadways but be separated from it and then just wherever needed to make that bit of connection we also look at you know the on-road pieces we are working with Scott and bike bed like that group to make sure that anything that we show here is coordinated with the bike bed system as well so for each of these 27 trail corridors. We are kind of zooming in looking at each of them a little more detail so you can see everything that connects. We can look at possible constraints. Again we're working on the graphic to make it more legible so that you can actually see how all of this relates to the conservation greenway pieces, the sensitive areas, how all those are going to interact with each other. so there will be 27 of these individual sheets this will also all be you know online and be available digitally so you can actually zoom in and you know look at it better there and all the GIS data will be you know it'll be like PCG so they can use it how they how they would like in addition to these 27 trail pieces we also have three sub areas that we're actually getting into a little more depth on where we look at trail routing a little more in detail which pieces are conservation greenways which pieces are the on-road little connector pieces water the constraints in these areas so there are three these are a little bit larger subgroups than the 27 individual trails so these have taken you know a little more time Alta is really helping us with this trying to figure out best routing and ways to really make those connections. Along with this, there will be these kind of perspective renderings where you can see trail routing, conservation greenway areas, parks, all that sort of stuff so that you can really get a feel for where this might go and connect in the city. So there will be three sets of these sub-area plans. I think this one is Masterm Station. The other one is kind of the Wolf Run area, and then looking all down the Tates Creek corridor. And then just quickly going over our next steps for this. Obviously, we still have a lot of work to do on finalizing all these, just the graphics and final kind of connections, all that sort of stuff. But next steps, we do have another public forum coming up September 18th, which is really talking about just greenways and the trail system. We're going to be presenting some updated renderings from this, you know, what I've just shown here. And ALTA is going to be presenting, talking about greenway, trail systems, best practices they're seeing across the country. So that's going to be September 18th. And then in general we're going to continue to refine the plan. We're working on some kind of action items. We also still have quite a bit of coordination to do with some other groups like the expansion area team. But in general we're making some really good progress. We're seeing some good feedback just based on the one online survey. survey. Our hope is after the next public meeting, we'll have another online survey where we can post some of these maps and get some feedback from the public is there as well. And that's kind of the general update. I don't know, Demetria, if you want to add anything, or we're happy to take questions. Okay. Thank you, too, Josh. Any questions? I can't read that Very little of it So would you just sort of restate I don't want you to name all of them But at a high level What's going to be connected in this system Parks to what So It connects a lot Parks There's green spaces that aren't parks So it's going to connect that Major destinations Across the city but generally it's focused on open spaces, open spaces and major destinations across the city. Some of those trails will be in greenways. Some of those are not technically, but we've tried to focus this trail system, and much like the original master plan did, in areas where you can have separated systems, not on road. The linking? Yeah. Okay. Anybody else? I'm going to ask another one unless somebody else will. I think we're missing a commissioner here. I think if Graham were here, he'd be focused on water cycle. Are we doing work on trying to identify the economic benefits of what all this is going to do for our community in terms of better quality air, dealing with stormwater, addressing improvement of the water cycle so that we don't have Heat Island blocking rainfall over Lexington and going other places. Are you all looking at those kinds of questions? I don't know if Demetria wants to talk to that at all. That is not specifically a part of this plan. However, we are actually going to have an action item list, And so that's something really great to add into that action item list. One of the things as we look at the conservation or the ecologically sensitive areas is to protect those areas. So that's going to be one of the next steps that we really refine. So as we move forward with development or redevelopment, we know those areas we want to protect. So not only are we going to overlay that trail system, but also that conservation and ecological sensitive areas. I guess what I'm asking is a rethinking of how we talk about conservation. and a realization that these are working areas. They're working for the community. They don't have to be working in the same way that a street does or working in the same way that a business does. But in terms of the benefits they're providing for the community, they really are working. And they are, and so that is something that we can continue to focus on as part of our public education and outreach is to really, you know, we have a lot of great education information on that just to continue to show why all of these corridors connections are important. Thank you. Could you spend a minute and highlight what you think some of the weaknesses of the last plan were and how you're using this plan to try to address those? So the last plan done in 2001 was never officially adopted. Am I correct on that under the comp plan? It was never officially adopted under the comprehensive plan, so that is something that we are looking forward to do on this plan. In addition, we didn't have the correct ordinances and regulations in place to ensure that those corridors stayed connected and how they were connected, how they were managed. So as part of this plan, that is something that we're going to be looking at. So I'm sure you'll be seeing some of those updates coming in the future. So how can we say when new development or redevelopment comes in that those areas are protected? Is it under an HOA? Is it under open space? Is it under the city government? Those are some of the things that we're still looking at. And then as a kind of a follow-up, in a lot of the neighborhoods that were developed, there were greenways that were sort of preserved, but those greenways, and I know I've said this at other meetings, but I'll probably keep saying it, but those greenways are hidden. Have you all discussed some sort of concrete policies to open them up more visually to the community? Absolutely. So Boyd and Long Range Planning is working on that with the open space, and we'll be continuing to work on that with specifically greenways and HOA because that is a concern. We want, you know, the neighborhood to know that they're there and they don't feel like they're walking through people's backyards. One, thank you. And I'm going to echo what Robin just said was, you know, using the greenways as an amenity is huge. I've said that before, and like Robin will keep saying that. But we do appreciate the thoughts on utilizing that the best that we can to use it as a true amenity. Much like my cohort, I can't see a lot of that. I heard this is out on a website that we can look at individually. What is the website? LexGreenways.com Lex Greenways.com. Okay. What's your timeline? I think that's what that shows, but what's your timeline on finishing this? I think we want the report done by end of the year. I'm not sure about adoption. Yeah, so our draft report is the goal is to get it to you guys for a final review by the end of the year, which I know it's already August, and that kind of gives me some concerns, but we're working through everything. Like everybody else, we have a lot of stuff going on, so we're trying to make sure this continues to move forward and that all internal stakeholders also have a chance. This is a large moving part of the Greenway Master Plan. We have several stakeholders involved, so we want to make sure that we give them an opportunity. So I want to say end of the year, but we want to make sure it's right. So once it's a good draft to get to you guys for that final review and then finalize it to be put under the comp plan as adopted under the comp plan. I'm looking to planning to help me with that. I think George mentioned it that you're looking at and going to be working with the consultants on the new expansion area and so forth. And you said this is a large project. You start thinking about that. It gets much larger. But how are you going to be able to pull any of that in so that looking forward, you know, this is a 20-year-old plan that didn't get adopted. But, you know, how can we pull that in to try and stay ahead of the game? Yep. So that's actually we start talking with them immediately. They have heard. They've already looked at those. We've relayed our ecological sensitive areas already to them. We've relayed some of those paths that we're looking at and trail connections. and so they are actually working on connecting those with their overall plan. And then the end goal is to have that GIS layer with parcels or corridors identified so as development plans come in that the development community can look at that map and say, okay, well, these are the conservation areas, these are the greenways that we need to keep. However, that may be how we want to make sure that they are accessible to everybody. and so that's going to be included in that expansion area. So we're working with them. We've met with them two or three times already. Okay. Thank you. So in terms of the development community, I'm thinking of all our easements that we see on the development plans that come to us. I'm also thinking of some painful battles. Some of our neighborhoods have fought with Kentucky utilities. Are we working with the utilities companies as stakeholders, either in existing greenways in addressing those issues in this plan, and particularly as we start to look at new development and where you all are talking about what we're trying to do in the future. Are they at the table in these conversations? That's actually the next step. So we have what's called a Phase 2 stakeholder group. And so now that we kind of have an idea and have all this information, we want to bring all of those parties in to be involved. okay thank you for what you've done so far look forward to hearing the next update thank you okay Ms. Wade House Bill 443 Good afternoon. Our next item for discussion is House Bill 443, and that's probably something you're not familiar with. So we're here to get you up to speed and let you know what we're working on to implement this recent legislation. So House Bill 443 was first initiated or introduced in February of this year, and it was ultimately signed in April by the governor. It was sponsored by 15 state representatives, including two from Fayette County, Ruth Ann Palumbo and Chad All, which serve obviously different areas of the county. The summary that's available on the Kentucky Legislative Commission website and what was introduced is on the screen here, And we'll get into the specifics of the legislation, which is actually pretty basic, but it's far-reaching. So the other thing to keep in mind is that the legislation goes into effect next July. So we have about a year, a little less than a year, to make sure our ordinances reflect this legislation. So, again, this is an amendment. Almost all of our amendments that relate to planning are in KRS 100, which is the state legislation that enables planning and zoning for the state of Kentucky. So KRS 100 has multiple sections. This particular legislation didn't say what section this would be added to. So currently on the Legislative Commission's website, it doesn't say where it's going to be added. So we've just provided the specific legislation to you today. So a new section of KRS 100 that will ensure that local government's ordinances, subdivision regulations, rules, guidelines that we are providing and are governed by Chapter 100. So Chapter 100 covers our subdivision plots and development plans as well. All of those standards that we adopt in our zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations. and then other guidelines and manuals that other divisions use must have objective standards. And that's something that generally our ordinances do have objective standards, but there are places and exceptions to that that we do need to go back and clean up so that you're not hearing the staff say, well, the rule of thumb is, or the best practice is, it needs to be an objective standard identified in our ordinance. so that our development community knows what is expected when they file. The other part of this change is that when we apply these objective standards, our development plans and plats will be applied, this will be applied ministerially. And I know you've heard that term before, so we're going to get into that in a second. But the other half of this new regulation is when the commission or the body that reviews development plans and subdivision plats should be able to provide some discretion. And so the state regulation allows that our body, the planning commission, be able to apply discretion into circumstances. And again, may. We may adopt regulations that allow for the commission to apply discretion under two cases. Either the applicant seeks a deviation from the established objectives or the approving authority, the planning commission and or their designated staff, determines that there is a specific threat to public health, safety, or welfare for the plan. And it would have to be, in the way this is lined out, there has to be substantial evidence behind that. So you might in the future hear the staff come to the Planning Commission and say, although this is a ministerial action normally, we believe the Planning Commission needs to review this because there is this specific public health, safety, welfare concern or threat. Again, we have until next summer. I think three terms I want to make sure everybody is on the same page about. Objective standards. So objective versus subjective. Objective means it's measurable. It's not biased. It's equitable across the board, and it's specific. So when we require a sidewalk, we state the required width, the minimum width. That is specific, and it's measurable. When we talk about being applied ministerially, again, I know you've heard the law department talk about that. For final record plots, those are ministerial. So the commission no longer hears those unless there's a waiver or an ag plat. But applied ministerially means we are administrating the process without discretion. So if the commission still hears it, there won't be the wiggle room of saying, well, we think your landscape buffer needs to be bigger here because. So we'll have to follow the standard of it's either 5 feet with a fence or 15 feet. And currently an applicant gets to choose, and the commission can say, well, we like 5 feet, but 15 is better here because. And so you are applying your discretion to require the larger standard of the two. And then the third thing is just the discretion piece. So we will need to set out reasons for how the commission might use discretion or when that might be applicable. So we have to establish those parameters. And then I am intending to think of this sort of like waivers to the land subdivision regulation. So you would receive a plan to review. The applicant is not meeting all the objective standards. And so they're asking for review by the commission to maybe three, four, or five things that they either can't meet or their opinion is they don't. They want to do it a different way. So then it would come to the commission for review and discretion. And I'm sorry this is so small. I don't want to read it to you either. But my example or our example, and this came up in a meeting not too long ago. It has to do with Article 12, which is the regulation that governs our commercial centers, our shopping centers. So this particular regulation calls out transit facilities, and it says, for commercial centers located on a transit route, a transit shelter and seating shall be provided, which is, of course, that is objective, right? It is a thing. It should be provided. But what it doesn't address is where. So it indicates it shall be indicated on the development plan clearly, but then it gives approval to a different body, to Lex Tran, to our transit authority. So that's where the subjectivity really comes in. they are choosing where to locate the bus stop and the transit shelter. Of course, they do that anyway for their normal routes, but in working with it, it takes away the objective nature of it and makes it more subjective. The second half of that piece then also says adequate pedestrian facilities must be provided to serve the required transit infrastructure, both on the right-of-way and internal to the site. And again, approval by the MPO. So we're looking at what does adequate pedestrian facilities mean. Two intelligent people could come to different decisions or opinions about what that means. And so in that regard, it's no longer an objective standard. It's subjective, right, where two people think their design might be the best for this situation. And then the third sentence of that section goes on to say, it will be strongly encouraged that the development plan afford appropriate facilities and accommodations for additional ride-sharing services. So in this example, there's really kind of three identified issues. While we know that transit facilities are important and called out in our comprehensive plan and our metropolitan planning transportation plan, this part of the zoning ordinance is not really specific enough to allow for our applicants to know what's required. And so phrases like strongly encouraged is not enforceable, right? How do we really enforce that? And then adequate facilities is not an objective standard, and it's fairly vague. So we as a staff, as the city, are combing through our ordinances to identify where those areas are that need to be updated in order to say, yes, we are providing an objective standard, not subjective and vague requirements. So, yeah. That's just one example. You know I have a bunch. No, and I don't really mean to interrupt, but I may forget. The second statement that you were talking about where, yeah, it starts out as objective, but there's two decisions, two policies, where does that go? How does that get resolved? Well, so if we, I think the idea is to make them an objective standard, And then if an applicant doesn't want to or they want the commission to express some discretion, then I guess we're still kind of working through process changes and how we see that happening. But the discretion would then go to the planning commission and say, we would like for you to be the arbiter of this question of what's adequate. Of course, we'd have to take out adequate. But it would become more descriptive, right? instead of saying adequate pedestrian facilities, you might say pedestrian, five-foot pedestrian facility through the center of the parking lot to be perpendicular to the – so it's going to be more words, but hopefully it will be something that, again, our design professionals won't have questions about, and they'll be able to meet it. Okay. Sorry. It's okay. Yeah. it's it's a little related to what you just said so just trying to understand one of the newer ordinances you all have done with the parking ordinance has the two sides it has the really specific side of these are the widths of the aisles and the spacing requirements and the design standards and the tree things that probably without much editing would be in compliant. And then it has the side that says, but if you want to do something different, you can submit an alternative plan to, I think at the time, the landscaping committee, but that's gone, so I don't know that it's even possible now. Yeah, go ahead, Chris. So I guess how I'm sort of thinking from the other side, you have this sort of dichotomy where you have the rigid, but does everything that doesn't comply necessitate a waiver, or is there another strategy for sort of allowing people in the community to still use creativity without, like, waiver, waiver, waiver, waiver? Well, we're still trying to figure that out. Yes. Some of those provisions that I think you helped facilitate some of that language to provide that flexibility and discretion. I'm not entirely sure we've worked out what that means yet and where we can still provide that flexibility. I don't think it's the intent necessarily of this House bill to remove that type of stuff entirely, but what we can do within this new language is still something we're trying to figure out. I think we had an example from the meeting that we held with other divisions where, and I think this is common for engineering practices, where they'll say, here's our standard, but we understand that engineering practices change, and so if you can prove to us that you are meeting that standard just with a different either methodology or your underground detention system is different than the one described in our manual, you provide the specs for that, and again, maybe it's a little easier because it's numbers, if it meets the requirement, then we'll accept it. So it's kind of an engineering substitute, if you will. So I think if we can identify where if an applicant supplies something that is the equivalent, that we could still ministerially approve that without. So you're right, I don't think we want to take away the creativity because that surely makes us have a better community overall. Anybody else have a question? Judy, did you have a question? Yeah, I'm not sure I have my question formulated. I'm just trying to think about standards are based on certain projections, volumes, population, all that kind of stuff. And I presume engineering manuals take this into account. But if the projections are off, turn out to be not correct in terms of number of people using traffic volumes in a particular area or number of people going to this mall as opposed to that mall, or twice as many people are out there. How does this way of approaching things build in flexibility in thinking about what might be as opposed to what is? Does that make any sense? Yeah, and I'm not sure that the, I'm not sure that I have probably a strange look on my face. I'm not sure that our system accounts for that. Well, it does engineering-wise. There's a factor built into the equations that, you know, ensure our dams don't get overtopped and the basins hold enough water plus a margin of error, right? and that's probably true for roads as well right we have a right-of-way that's wider that can accommodate expansion but maybe we only built you know a lane instead of two but i'm not sure if i'm not sure that our current system addresses that completely and and once a development is finished those infrastructure changes demands on the infrastructure become the city's responsibility no matter what. Anything to add, Jim? Solutions. It's not a solution as such, but one of the things they teach you in design courses as such, you can have a perfectly designed objective, but at the end of the day, what you have to ask yourself is, so what? I can tell you what a perfectly designed objective looks like, but it still may not make any sense. Right. And that's the personal stuff that still has to be flowed through this whole thing. Right. That's true. And those are the questions that, I mean, you all don't deal with all the time, but as a manager I deal with with the Board of Adjustment is everything that they, about half of what they see is an exception to the rule, right? We need a variance to this or that to make our project work. The next steps or what we've done, we did meet with division, representatives and kind of identify that this is out there and those divisions will need to review their regulations that are in place to ensure that they are sub are not subjective but are objective standards that um they're taking out the discretion so we talked about what are those like keywords you say that flag applicants as to well is this written down somewhere right so i get that question from time to time. And if it's not written down, that should be your, for these, the divisions, that should be your kind of trigger of, well, if this is something we want all the time, we need to write it down. It needs to be an objective standard that everyone knows they're expected to accomplish. And if it's not something you expect all the time, then, you know, you're going to have to quit asking for it. So, and there's, there again, some more Other examples, solid waste often will come in and say, well, to access our dumpster, we need X, Y, or Z, or this is where we want the dumpster. Well, there's not any specific regulations adopted that say they can only back up 50 feet. That's just their rule of thumb for safety. They have reasons, of course, but it's still not a standard that is adopted and able to be shared with the public. So it's like they get surprised when they come in and they can't meet it. We also met with some development stakeholders to review the legislation early on and just to kind of take a temperature of are we understanding what was adopted the same as you are. And then our next step is to follow up again with the divisions that have some changes to make. And some of them were already making changes anyway for other things, and so they'll incorporate these changes into their manuals, regulations, and so forth. And then we will draft changes to the zoning ordinance and the land subdivision regulations as needed. In terms of next steps, we'll also follow up with the development stakeholders to share draft text and then come back to the commission to initiate text amendments. Hopefully sometime over the winter. I know December we don't have work sessions, so it could be January, but that's where we're going. This could result in shorter meetings for you all. But not necessarily less work for planning. We like shorter meetings. Mr. Wilson, before you speak, Mr. Chair, Just to add on to what Tracy said about sort of the next steps, we may not capture everything. You know, it may be years before we come across something else that's in our regulation that is not subjective, that we just don't ordinarily deal with and hadn't thought about. That doesn't mean we can't address it at some other time or continue to improve our regulations, but July 1, 2025 is when standards go in place. So even if we don't do anything to our regulations, everything defaults to whatever the minimum is or whatever the bottom is or the lower end of the range or something like that. And anything that says should be or a range or anything like that would not be enforceable at that point. Or we would accept whatever the applicant said is adequate, you know, pedestrian facilities. If they think it's adequate, then. Well, I was just going to, on what you just said, it seems like there's a certain sense that taking that multi-year approach even has some logic to it. because other than maybe some critical things that you want to make sure, you could easily run the risk of editing things you don't end up needing to edit and giving the law some time and some breathing room and seeing the applications would maybe, at the risk of a bad development, but result in better edits. So I guess there's almost a positive side to not capturing everything right away. And just way back when we started the update to the comprehensive plan and we had all the stakeholder meetings, the benefit to this I think according to what we heard from the development community is that it takes the subjectivity minimizes the subjectivity makes the process more predictable and more efficient that's what we anticipate the one question that I had I think I heard you say but I want to get clarity on it two people, two different applicants they could have two different perspectives on what means objective does that then come back to the commission to make that determination related to do we then mediate that and say, well, we think this is the objective that we want to deal with? I think hopefully it's a yes or no. You're not thinking objectives like goals and objectives. When Tracy's talking about objectives, she means the sidewalk's got to be five feet wide. There's no deviation from that. If it's less than five feet, it's not meeting the standard. if it's more than five feet, we can't enforce it. That's what we mean by objective. Okay. And sidewalks may not be the best example because those in the subregs in there, it is a very specific requirement. Right. There's some leeway there, and we have exercised discretion in determining when extra landscaping is necessary. And really, we should just codify those instances and say, next to a railroad, it needs to be 20, not 15. Or not just distance, but with type of buffering. Right. Yes. From the standpoint of the sidewalk example, if we determine that it should be 8 feet wide as opposed to 5, can we do that? through the regulations you can, but not through the approval process of the plan. Unless the applicant asks to make an eight-foot sidewalk for some reason, they want to do that, of course. I think the only exception is if we, as a government, say this, the approving authority determines, based on substantial evidence, that a strict ministerial application of the objectives would pose a specific threat to public health, safety, and welfare. So if they're maintaining a five-foot sidewalk and then they come and put their utility pole right in the middle, well, that affects our ADA accessibility and it creates a specific public safety concern, right? So I think we could say, listen, you have to go around the utility line with your five-foot sidewalk. And they might disagree in which point we would come to the commission and the staff would make their presentation as to why the sidewalk needs to be adjusted to address a public health safety welfare threat. Or I'm thinking some of the cases we've seen that were in school zones and connectivity issues about what the ordinance says as opposed to if it's in a school zone and you've got kids walking certain places, there might be a case to be made there. Or Manchester Street. All the people we, you know, we hear about people running across the road late at night, lighting's terrible, there's no sidewalks. You know, that's a situation where I think, you know, someone on the staff, whether it's planning, traffic engineering, would come and say, I know it's not required, but in this case, there's been accidents. There's been pedestrian accidents, that sort of thing. and share those reasons with the Planning Commission to basically advocate for something above the standard. Okay, Ms. Wade, thank you. Yes, thank you. Thank you, thank you. We'll be back again to talk about House Bill 443. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a reminder, this is a two-work session month. And although we did not talk about UGM today, we are going to talk about it again on August 29th. So we hope you all will be here back in the Phoenix building at 1.30 for that, in addition to perhaps some other updates as well. But we will be talking about the UGM at that time. And then also, we're probably not ready to ink this yet, but we are looking to schedule public hearings for the UGM in the fall. And what we're thinking about doing is recasting some of your work sessions later on as public hearing dates. But once we've got that finalized, we will ask you to do that formally at a meeting where you can then announce a public hearing date on a certain date, and we can start getting that out. But we're looking at holding two public hearings, one to make the presentation, to you from the consultants and the staff, take any of your questions or comments, and then take public comment as well and get all of that on the record, and then take direction from you for anything that you heard from the public or that you have yourself that you would like clarified, and come back at a subsequent meeting and address those questions, anything else you have, and then ask that you all consider what you want to do about adopting the UGM at that time. We should be able to give you a full schedule August 29th when you come back for your second work session of the month. So we'll be happy to talk to you about that. In the meantime, you also have a zoning hearing next week on August 22nd at 1.30 in the council chambers. Council is back next week and we do have at least one we know of robust zone change, maybe two next week. So be prepared if, for instance, if for chance at 545 we're still going strong, we may have to relocate over here to the Phoenix Building to finish that hearing. I guess so. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be happy to. 545? Well, the council meeting starts at 6, so, you know, for 545, 550, they usually like to shoo us out so they can get seated. No, I was just thinking it's going to go that long. Oh, well, I don't know. I don't know. But you all do know that both of those zone changes were... You'd be surprised if it's shorter. That's right. That's fine. Will I take any pre-orders on my program visit before Thursday? Medium well, please. Medium well. All right. That's good. Good. Well, if there's no other business... Yes, sir. I've got one. I guess, I don't know if it's a question, statement, or what. And I first heard in regards to it with Jim Duncan's email to all of us as far as proposed discussion about the ED Zota coming up. Since then, I've had cohorts say, well, did you get invited to a meeting? Has everybody been invited to a meeting? I have seen nothing, but others have. It sounds like there's some cherry picking going on. And I just wanted to put it out there. And, Mr. Owens, I don't know who got invited either. The only reason I know is if an individual told me they were invited. So the invitation did not come through the staff at all. I just wanted it to be known. Is it appropriate here to talk among ourselves about what we feel like is an appropriate response to that as individuals if we get that invitation? Well, let's try this and see where it gets us. As you know, the discussion of legislation, which the EDZODA is, is something you are free to do outside of the public meeting process. So if the applicant wants to provide more information to you, you're certainly free to do that, but we might encourage you to incorporate that into your comments at the public hearing then and say what you heard and what was shared with you that perhaps wasn't shared at the public hearing. That might be a good idea to do that. But you are free to do that, unlike the zone change, which the law department has asked that you not do that. And free to decline. And free to decline, that's right. That's a good point, Tracy. You do not have to accept these invitations because there will be a public hearing. and it will all be on the record, and you can ask your questions then. Well, I'll put it on the table. I got two invitations because I didn't respond to the first one. And I'm inclined to say, you know, there's no way, I won't say it in these words, but I can sit and listen to a presentation, but to say then I'm going to share what I heard with the other members of the commission who might not have heard it, ain't no way I'm going to remember all that. so I'd be inclined to say I'd like to hear at the same time my fellow commissioners do so we're all singing from the same hymnal. I got an invitation, too. I only got one. So we got zero, one, and two. Did any of you all, any others get an invitation? I've been getting invitations to the solar, and I did participate in the solar ZODA, which is legislation. I went on the tour, and because it was legislation, I am interested in the solar item. I'm also interested in the ED legislation, and I thought it was beneficial for me to go to the solar. And I thought that I'm glad that I did it. I've never seen any type of solar farm that was presented in that way, so I did think it was valuable. and I'm interested to talk about legislation with anybody who's interested in talking about legislation. I think I agree, and I think that's good. And, in fact, I've been invited to some other places just to speak about what we do and what have you. The issue of cherry-picking is the issue. For example, I didn't get an invitation to go to the solar thing. Okay, so it's almost like someone had a party and someone didn't get to go, and you wonder what happened and you wonder why that individual was invited and the other one was not. And it doesn't set up a good flavor, irrespective. In situations like that, I'd just as soon say, look, if you want to invite the commission, you can invite them as a whole and then they can make a decision whether or not they can come or whether they can't come. But to cherry pick things around make you suspicious to begin with. So in one instance, I feel gratified that I got an invitation to warn. I feel sorry for my colleague over here. And the whole thing sort of sets on a kind of interesting dynamic. But be that it's me, I have learned a lot, too, from going to different organizational things and what have you. And I would second that. I don't object to hearing things outside, but I do have a problem with some people get to hear it and some people don't, that weren't invited. I mean, then they can choose or not. And I'll continue since I started this. You should, Ian. In all fairness and everything, I was invited on the solar tour, and I appreciated that. But my take on any of this, it is truly legislative. However, in today's world, most of our ZOTAs are site-specific. If it's non-site-specific, truly non-site, I feel more comfortable speaking on a legislative matter with an applicant or something than if it's site-specific, simply put. So, you know, in that regards, I'm going to back away and let the staff present and let the applicant present and then anybody else that wants to talk and go with it that way. So, anyway, thanks for the info. I think Jim crafted a nice email for us earlier this week that's pretty much stated what everybody's talking about. So I didn't think there needed to be a comment made because Jim did a good job on crafting that email. I don't know who's been cherry-picked or not, But some parties you don't want to go to. Some parties you want to go to. That's fine. I thought everybody was invited. Now, I did go to the solar one, and it was interesting. But we only been out in the farm for about five minutes, and they had the lightning and stuff. Too much metal and too much lightning, and I was hopscotching over lamb, boo-boo. So I said, that's enough. So I understand. But, Jim, thank you for bringing that up earlier this week. So if there's not any other questions. I'm just making it Mr. Owens. You good now? I'm good. All right, cool, cool. All right, meeting's adjourned. Thank you. forever When the morning sun appears We'll find our way together I'll hold you and touch it Make you my woman tonight Only you You're loving it now Fill my life There's something in your eyes I see Let's not waste this precious time This moment's ours to treasure Hold me in your arms tonight We're making letters forever Something in your eyes I see When the morning sun appears We'll find our way together Oh, we'll your eyes be in the dark Fill my life There's something in your eyes I see Let's not wait this time It's time to lose This moment's eyes to trust Hold me in your arms Tonight We'll make it last forever There's something in your eyes We're not more than something Only you can make this world seem bright Only you can make the darkness bright Only you and you alone can thrill me like you do And fill my heart with love for only you Only you Can make this change in me For it's true You are my destiny When you hold my hand I understand The magic that you do You're my dream come true My one and only you guitar solo Oh, oh, oh, oh There's change in me. Oh, it's true. You are my destiny. When you hold my hand, I understand the magic that you do. You're my dream come true, my one and only you. You're my dream come true, my one and only you. Yeah, yeah. I used to be a rolling stone, you know If a cause was right I'd leave to find an answer on the road I used to be a heart beating both on one But the times have changed The less I say, the more my work gets done Cause I live and breathe And it's Philadelphia freedom From the day that I was born I've waited for time Philadelphia freedom took me Knee high to a man Yeah Give me peace on my mind I'm a daddy, never had. Well, fill up, tell me a dream. Shine on me. I love you. Shine the light. Through the eyes of the one left behind. Shine the light, shine the light. Shine the light, won't you shine the light? I love her girl Yes I do If you choose to You can live your life alone Some people choose the city Some of them Choose a good old family home