# Continuation of the Urban Growth Master Plan Public Hearing - October 31, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 31, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6261 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6261?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-10-31 - **Last revised**: March 29, 2026 - **Length**: 10,820 words - **Speakers**: Chair, I Can't Speak For Every Bank > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on October 31, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed one primary agenda item during the session: amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, which was ultimately approved. Throughout the meeting, commissioners took a total of 6 votes on various matters related to the proceedings. No public comments were heard during this session, and no formal presentations were delivered to the commission. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 31, 2024: • Mr. Neal • Mr. Worsham • Mr. Mickler • Mr. Taylor • Mr. Owens • Mr. Polk • Mr. Wilson • Ms. Barksdale • Ms. Werth • Mr. Duncan **Absent:** • Mr. Davis No members arrived late to the meeting. Ten of the eleven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included six motions, with one contested vote and five unanimous decisions on various amendments and policy directions. **Density Reduction Amendment** [timestamp: 03:15:00] Mr. Nickel motioned to amend Section 2, Development, Density, and Use, 2A, Residential and Commercial, reducing the percentage from 50% to 40%, seconded by Ms. Barksdale. The motion passed 5-4 in a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Mr. Nickel, Ms. Barksdale, Mr. Owens, Mr. Mickler, and Mr. Wilson. Voting against: Mr. Polk, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Werth, and Mr. Duncan. **Stub Streets Amendment** [timestamp: 03:30:00] Mr. Owens motioned to amend Chapter 6, page 208, 1D, regarding stub streets, seconded by Mr. Polk. The motion passed unanimously 9-0 with all members voting in favor: Mr. Neal, Mr. Worsham, Mr. Mickler, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Owens, Mr. Polk, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Barksdale, and Ms. Werth. **Protected Bike Lanes** [timestamp: 03:45:00] Mr. Mickler motioned to specify protected bike lanes as the default for avenues, seconded by Mr. Davis. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. **Corner Store Zoning** [timestamp: 04:00:00] Mr. Mickler motioned to explore amending the zoning ordinance for corner stores in residential districts, seconded by Mr. Nickel. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. **Utility and Tree Separation** [timestamp: 04:15:00] Mr. Mickler motioned to add language regarding separation of utilities from street trees, seconded by Ms. Werth. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. **Tax Language Removal** [timestamp: 04:30:00] Mr. Mickler motioned to remove language about not raising taxes, seconded by Mr. Polk. The motion passed unanimously 9-0. All unanimous votes included the same nine members voting in favor: Mr. Neal, Mr. Worsham, Mr. Mickler, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Owens, Mr. Polk, Mr. Wilson, Ms. Barksdale, and Ms. Werth. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated substantial debate among board members. **Concurrency Requirements in Development** A major disagreement emerged regarding concurrency requirements for new development projects. The debate centered on whether these requirements should be maintained, reduced, or eliminated entirely. Some board members advocated for removing or significantly reducing the concurrency requirements, arguing that these regulations may be overly restrictive for developers. However, other members strongly supported maintaining the current concurrency standards, emphasizing their importance in ensuring proper mixed-use development patterns within the jurisdiction. The discussion highlighted fundamental differences in approach to development policy, with supporters of the requirements viewing them as essential tools for managing growth and ensuring that new developments include appropriate mixes of residential, commercial, and other uses. Those favoring reduction or elimination of the requirements appeared to prioritize reducing regulatory barriers for developers. The item ultimately proceeded to a split vote, indicating that the board was closely divided on this issue. The specific vote tally and final outcome were not detailed in the available meeting data, though the split nature of the vote demonstrates the contentious nature of concurrency requirements as a policy tool. This debate reflects broader ongoing discussions in many jurisdictions about balancing development flexibility with planning objectives, particularly regarding mixed-use development standards and their role in shaping community growth patterns. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan [timestamp: 00:30:00] The meeting continued the public hearing for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, specifically focusing on the Urban Growth Master Plan and the Placebuilder Element. This represented an ongoing discussion from previous meetings regarding updates to the city's long-term planning framework. Key speakers during this agenda item included Mr. Neal, Mr. Mickler, and Mr. Owens, who participated in the discussion of the proposed amendments. The public hearing format allowed for community input and official deliberation on these significant planning documents. The Urban Growth Master Plan component addresses how the city will manage future development and expansion, while the Placebuilder Element focuses on community design and development standards. These amendments represent important updates to the city's comprehensive planning strategy. Following the discussion and public hearing process, the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were approved. This approval moves the updated Urban Growth Master Plan and Placebuilder Element forward in the planning process, establishing new guidelines for future development and community growth within the city's jurisdiction. The continuation of this public hearing demonstrates the thorough review process required for comprehensive plan amendments, ensuring adequate opportunity for public participation and official consideration before final approval. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-4): Amend Section 2, Development, Density, and Use, 2A, Residential and Commercial, reducing 50% to 40% - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Amend Chapter 6, page 208, 1D, regarding stub streets - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Specify protected bike lanes as default for avenues - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Explore amending zoning ordinance for corner stores in residential districts - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Add language regarding separation of utilities from street trees - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Remove language about not raising taxes --- ## Full transcript You'll be tomorrow Anytime You'll find the way And a hero comes along With the strength to carry on And you cast your fears aside And you know you can survive When you feel like hope is gone Look inside you and be strong And you'll finally see the truth That a hero lies in you That a hero lies in you That a hero lies in you That a hero lies in you Watch it! I was born in a drive-by hurricane And I howled at the barless driving rain But it's alright The fact is you guessed But it's alright I'm chocked with jet lag, shit's a guess, yes, yes I was raised by two bare-spitted hands I was the lowest driver cross my way But it's alright The fact is you guessed But it's alright I'm chocked with jet lag, shit's a guess, yes, yes I'm chocked with jet lag, shit's a guess, yes, yes I'm chocked with jet lag, shit's a guess, yes, yes I'm chocked with jet lag, shit's a guess, yes, yes Says she's had enough of me I've had enough of her too I might as well go on and set her free She's already turned me loose No fault, no blame, nobody done no wrong That's just the way it sometimes goes Sometimes two people just don't get along And it's time to hit the road, goodbye Farewell, so long Laia ponios, good luck Wish you well, take it slow Easy come, go, easy go We tried to work it out a hundred times Ninety-nine, it didn't work I think it's best we put it all behind Before we wind up getting hurt No hard feelings, darling, no regrets No tears and no broken hearts Call it quits, calling off our bets It just wasn't in the cards, goodbye Farewell, so long Laia ponios, good luck Wish you well, take it slow Easy come, go, easy go Easy come, go, easy go It ain't nothing but a small-frame house On an acre lot It ain't that much different Than many other houses on the block And it may not look like We've got all our share of the promise We've got all our share of the promise But at least one thing's for sure I got it honest Roll out of the sack every morning Head on down to the mill Give them all I got for eight Cause that's the deal If you check out my paycheck Well, you'll see that there ain't that much on it But every single penny I pay I got it honest I've never had to hang my head in shame Or putting a price tag on my name Never turn my back on what I believe Let my heart be ruled by greed Cause but if I didn't earn it I don't want it That way I can always say I got it honest Now you ain't looking at some dude Who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth And I might seem like some kind of lowlife To that highfalutin' crowd But I plain spoken, straight talkin' And damn proud of what I have accomplished Some folks appreciate that, some don't But I got it honest Now when I die, I may not leave my kids a fortune But I hope they know that my life's filled With the things that were important And I'll hand down the same sturdy old values To my daddy and my mama It made me every ounce of what I am And I got it honest I've never had to hang my head in shame Or putting a price tag on my name Never turn my back on what I believe Or let my heart be ruled by greed Cause but if I didn't earn it I don't want it That way I can always say I got it honest Friend, there ain't no doubt about it I got it honest I got it honest The king of broken hearts Doesn't ask much from his friends And he has quite a few of them They know he will understand No matter where you go The king of broken hearts Doesn't know he's a king He's trying to forget other things Like some old ship he sees He's walking through them alone When the angels and the stars start to spin He thinks of troubles that he's gotten in He recalls how his heart got broken And how it's still that way The king of broken hearts Is so sad and wise He can smile while he's crying inside We know he'll be brave tonight Cause he's... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... that there was some discomfort. We don't feel like we got firm direction from necessarily from the Planning Commission on the direction you all wish to go with that. If the Commission has wishes on it and would like to propose changes, we're happy to discuss those. I think generally speaking on the issue of concurrency, staff does feel that it is important to have some measure in place to ensure that the mixture of uses occurs in these areas. Whether or not we're hitting the sweet spot in the way that is spelled out. I think we would be open to entertaining a discussion with you all on that. But generally the staff is supportive of the concurrency as a concept and application in the plan. Okay, I'm definitely good with that if you all are. And there's no other talk right now. Two things I would like to bring up just for clarification purposes. One, and I've asked Hal and Chris both as far as the Pine Needles connection. I think that just needs to be reiterated and stated once again. As well as the Royster Road connection, which I believe is just simply bike ped. Yeah, so I think even for the draft that was shown on October 17th, the public hearing in area two, the Royster Road connection out here was revised to just a bike and pedestrian connection. Again, we've got a crossing back here and at this time it would have been the only connection for this area out to Royster Road. So the staff was comfortable revising that plan, this regulating plan to show and reflect and the legend accordingly, that that is a bike and pedestrian facility, yeah. And then the Pine Needles, is there a Hope area one? I forgot this is a PowerPoint. So again, on the connection or the issue related to the Pine Needles HOA, it is denoted on the plan as an existing HOA area, which makes it clear that it's just like all of this property really, it's all private property. And development on that portion is no more dictated and developed than anything else. It may or may not develop just like the rest of this property. But we feel that it is important because of the critical nature of that particular access point as the safest location topographically, that should development occur and should the property owners wish to do something and work with this property owner, that it is clear that this is where access needs to be. And if the residents out there choose not to, then that won't happen, that's fine. But from a planning standpoint, we need something of record that indicates what the safest location for access management is on this site. But that is entirely up to the residents of that area, the property owners of that space. Thank you. Mr. Neal. Yes. I want to go back to the concurrency issue, which is section two, underneath development and density and use. In what we heard at the previous session, and listening to what the development community has to say, it is my belief that the concurrency requirement will deter multifamily, single family and even commercial development. And that that should be addressed with our motion today. It is of my opinion that concurrency should be eliminated or at a minimum be modified. We heard a compelling story from Mr. Worsham about if we limit the amount of housing that housing units can be built in the outside, in this urban growth management area, we will not be able to develop the land that is best used for affordable housing. Also, as we're looking at workforce housing, it's going to be difficult to finance workforce housing or all housing with a hard stop on the development process by this document related to concurrency. That then puts us in a position where we have developers trying to bet on interest rates, where they may be at the time during closing of the note. And if the project gets stalled, what then could happen with interest rates and how could that negatively affect the overall development and therefore, make it more difficult for developers to get the appropriate loans that are needed to develop the housing in these areas. I know that if you are trying to bet on interest rates, you will go broke. It's not something that people are comfortable with and with the possibility of having extended construction times as required by residential or commercial concurrency, it puts you in exactly that spot. So it's going to be very difficult for local lenders to provide the loans necessary to develop this property. So I believe that this could be a hard stop on the overall development of this property if we have a concurrency element included in this proposal. Now I've spoken with some others and about some additional options, but I wanted to get that on the table, that concurrency will cause a hard stop on being able to finance the development of the land that we've worked so hard to include in our urban service area. I think it would be a major detriment to the work that's been done by everybody here, our staff, our consultants, and the development community as a whole if we had concurrency included. So eliminating 2A and renumbering accordingly is what my proposal would be. That's my first proposal. I'd like to bring that up for discussion, please. I'd like to ask a question and make a comment, but as I recall, the problem we're trying to solve here with concurrency is avoiding a situation we, before many of us were on the Planning Commission, ran into where a development plan called for housing out in the area where Costco is, and that housing never got built. And so what I'm assuming is that anything we put into this plan, whether it's concurrency or something else, would have to help us avoid that problem. So don't respond yet. But if you're going to propose something other than taking out concurrency, I think it needs to address that particular issue. And the other thing I would like to say about the concurrency, because I don't know squat about it, I think you guys did a great job in the sustainability at looking at how different communities are funding development. And so I'm curious whether you looked at concurrency as an issue addressed by other communities, what, whether they use it, how they've used it, what problems they ran into, what level, 20%, 30%. I'm assuming you ought to just pull that out of the air. Can you address that? Yeah, and I may have Sam come and address it further, but we asked them specifically to provide us with examples, and they provided us with numerous, numerous examples, ones where they have done it for cities doing master planning, and also for developers, they're developing concurrent plans to address cities that have concurrency requirements. In some places, that concurrency is in the regulations and the definitions for the types of development. So a town center and a village center may have a definition and a regulation that applies to that sort of timing. It's not all that dissimilar to some of the requirements we have in our MU zones, and we acknowledge that our MU zones have been difficult to build because they require a vertical mixed use, which is sort of the ultimate concurrency. This plan addresses that by identifying the retail-ready component that doesn't require a retail use to go in it, but it can in the future. So we've tried to learn some of the lessons from previous CC zones and expansion area, our MU zones, and gather national best practice from the consultants and the work that they do for developers and for cities. They provided that to us, and we were a little nervous about it at first as well. Again, we've recently experienced that over the years with the CC zone and the ED zone. So I think trying to find something that is more flexible and not as prescriptive as some of the things we had previously, we felt like it had a pretty good sweet spot. Now, whether it's perfect and where everybody's comfortable with it, that's really for you all to decide. But we're to a point where the staff felt comfortable and felt that it was important enough to leave it as an issue for the Planning Commission to help us get right. But we feel comfortable with the body of evidence that the consultant team showed us. And Sam, if you have anything else you'd like to add? Okay, then I think that covers it. Thank you. I guess I understand your point in the broader sense in that concurrency, it adds complication or complexity and could slow down the development process. And I heard that critique at the last meeting. And when I read through it with that critique in mind, what I saw, I guess, in specific to the area where I guess you sort of highlight that the sense of urgency in regards to housing is that the level of concurrency that this is asking for is 4,000 square feet, exclusively in one of those areas that's the town center or village center. So most of the land is not requiring that commercial concurrency. And that the level that they are asking for that commercial concurrency is very low. I mean, I can't help but try to put square foot into my mind about what's 4,000 square feet. So what jumps to my mind is that our central greenhouse at the cafe where we have the seating and plants in the middle, not all of our greenhouses, just the central one is 4,000 square feet. We throw the kitchen in, we're up to 4,600 square feet. I think probably a lot of restaurants are 4,000 square feet. Probably a lot of small retail stores are 4,000 square feet. Large ones would be much more. And so it seems like what they're saying is we need you to put one thing in that's commercial because you're calling it a town center or a village center. We need you to put one thing in. And that doesn't seem like it should stop the whole ball from moving forward. That's kind of my take. Mr. Taylor, which area he's referring to that concurrency is going to affect? It's on page 212, section 2A. Okay. I want to agree with Mr. Mickler and make the point that as we develop the expansion area, there needs to be a new mindset and there needs to be a new way of developing if we're going to avoid the mistakes that we've made in the past. And I think this is an excellent way to encourage movement in that direction. And I don't see it as being onerous at all. I think it's extremely flexible. It's a low bar, so I'm in agreement that it should stay in. My only concern on that one is from a banking perspective, commercial properties and businesses usually come in after residential is there. And it's from a financial aspect, this could hinder borrowers from getting funding because the risk is in the construction. And you can be sitting there for a number of days, a number of years waiting on this to take place. And then you can have dilapidated properties because you don't finish the construction. That's just keep that in mind. That's about it. I got to say on that one. Thank you. Do you think that in the scale of the, like what we're showing for Village Center or Town Center, that 4,000 square feet would throw off the funding? I guess what I'm wondering is it seems like a relatively small scale relative to, because these are the most dense areas of the development. I agree with that. I'm not sure we have to take it out. Mr. Polk kind of mentioned that it's probably not, may not be favorable based on where we are now, but is there an opportunity to increase that percentage? But that's something we have to decide if there's an opportunity there. Taking it out may satisfy some, but it may not satisfy us at the moment collectively. But is there an opportunity to increase the percentage? From, what is that, 20 right now? Section of 281? That's correct, right? Yeah. I think by, I hear what everybody is saying. And I can understand that perspective. But I think that when we are going to these percentages as written, it becomes more prescriptive, and I know that we're working to get out of that. We've had some zoning that has not necessarily gone the way we want, such as our mixed use zoning, that have caused some projects to fail. But hearing what the group is saying right now, I would like Mr. Taylor, please, to look at some alternative language that could increase the percentages to a percentage that could be agreeable to those in the development community and the banking community. Knowing that this is not the best solution, but this could be the best that we're able to get done in order to create the mixed use environments that this urban growth management plan has shown. Once again, being prescriptive is not the best option. But if we're in the position where that is something we need to do, here is some language I would like for the group to look at. And if there's a way that, if you could, please, Mr. Taylor, describe what language this is and how it would work. Yeah, as noted here, it would raise the percentage from 20% to 50% of the total units instead of just 20% of the proposed single family. Again, the vast majority of the units prescribed within the town centers and village centers are your medium and higher density. There's not a lot of lower density recommended there. So to the 50% to the overall, I think adds some greater flexibility there. And then keeping the 4,000 square feet, because it doesn't appear that the 4,000 is the issue as much as what that amount of housing is built. I think, again, to Mr. Mickler's point, what's key to us is that there is a place to go in these areas on foot, that they can then be a magnet to other things and places to go on foot. And so if having 50% of the total units is a better critical mass of units to support that business, I don't know the staff has a huge concern there. It is very important to us that there be something at least 4,000 square feet use. So I think staff is comfortable with this. It preserves the concept. And really, I can't stress it enough. A key, you know, a key, what is the word I'm looking for? It's an attribute of this type of development. And then the proposal at number three would exempt projects that might come in regardless of the timing for affordable or workforce housing as denoted in the UGM ZOTA that we did, where we defined affordable and workforce housing, that if a project were to come in under one of those provisions, they would not be subject to fulfilling that concurrency if they were sort of the one that triggered the number. If they were hitting that 50%, if they were the 49th and 50th percentage of the units, that the concurrency would not stand in the way of that project. So I think this is something that staff is comfortable with. I'm sorry, Mr. Owens. Wow, that was loud. Would you mind hitting your microphone? Sorry. I'll try again. Thank you. In looking at that very page, we're not talking about 2B hardly, but it does say retail ready and live slash work. Makes me think of what we constantly say is that we want to provide a place where we live, work and play. And I think anybody moving into a new area wants to have services available to them, which means commercial, means retail, means a place to work and so forth. And somehow we've got to build all that together. With what Chris said that he has knowledge of and Sam Castro does too, is that it has worked in other places and they're comfortable with it. So I'm comfortable with it. Mr. Taylor, could you discuss briefly where the 20% number comes from and the 50% number while you're at it? The 20% was, again, the recommendation from the consultant team. I would let TSW explain where they provided us their best practice number. The 50% is honestly sort of a mirror of number two. It sort of put those at an equal threshold really and truly. And to us, the more substantial change was the removal of the proposed single family detached and letting it count towards the whole pool. Again, if the issue is a volume of units, a number of people living there, reaching that critical mass of support business, then we thought it was not hinging that number on the single family was the wrong number to hinge it on. We'd rather hinge it on the total. The 50% to us was closer to what, you know, the feedback we were hearing and it sort of mirrored the language of number two. And I'll let Sam speak to the 20%. Yeah, I'd like to hear more about that because I'm uncomfortable with arbitrarily more than doubling the percentage if that initial 20% was based on research and consideration of locations that have been using such a provision and having success with it. Yes, that 20% is actually, I would say, much less strict than we typically have applied in areas elsewhere in the southeast. It's allowing for a little more flexibility, I would say. You know, we've worked with different percentages over time in different communities and found that, yes, if you go a little too far to one extreme, then you really have trouble getting that mix. We felt like that 20% initially was a good way to start to get in some commercial pieces into a development and then, you know, you sort of generate that energy that you need to keep building this walkable mixed-use community. But we purposely kept that number quite low because that isn't, concurrency isn't a standard that is typically seen by the development community here in Kentucky. It's more typical a little further south. But those numbers are, you know, asking for concurrency at this rate is pretty much best practice across, you know, many of our peer cities, I would say, further south. Do you know what number of housing units, the smallest number of housing units given these expansion areas would be required to be in place prior to that 20% kicking in? That's a great question and a question that I would have to ask Caleb about and get back to you. That isn't a number that I know off the top of my head. Ms. Castro, which are the peer cities you mentioned? Can you tell us which one of these cities that we compare to in the southeast? Sure, yeah. So we provided a whole bunch of examples. There are a lot sort of in the Atlanta metro suburbs, I would say. Woodstock is a good example. You know, they're operating at a different price point, I would say, than what, you know, the developers talked about that a few weeks ago. But the mix of uses still holds true in terms of what we're looking at. I can't think off the top of my head of the other example cities. The mixed use requirements, the consultant TSW provided us with Chattahoochee Hills, Georgia, Milton, Georgia, Woodstock, Georgia as being the primary examples, but then also provided several other examples throughout the southeast, and I am trying to pull those up as we speak. I'm also aware through just some of our own internal research, some of the newer developing suburbs around northern Cincinnati are developing with some of the very similar products that I didn't confirm their regulations, but they're doing the same type of product, the same type of walkability, the same type of block standards with the mixture of uses that we're seeing, and that only happens with a master plan governing it in those regulations. So I think, again, a lot of current development that we're seeing in other places is exactly what is prescribed here, both in the plans and in the development criteria. Mr. Chairman, we're spending a lot of time talking about this. Would there be any room for a consensus so that we can perhaps discuss everything else we need to chat about today? It sounds like Mr. Poole did not want it to go to 50%. He thought that was too high. So Mr. Nickel? I think my position is to eliminate it completely. So we've got 0% and 20%. So after speaking with people in the development community, if 50% is as good as going to be offered, I think that we could get our community behind something like that. And as we're looking at our peer cities, we are not in Atlanta, therefore Woodstock would not be a suburb of Lexington, which would be the comparison. I mean, for years we've been waiting for the boom to come here, or at least a certain group of people have been. We've seen other communities far exceed our economic growth, and we've heard that housing is a big component of that. And it went Atlanta. It went Nashville. It went, now we're looking at, we're not even competing with some other small communities. We are being passed up when it comes to job growth. We're being passed up when it comes to growing our community. We have a tremendous amount of opportunity here. We have one of the most educated communities in the country. We've got a wonderful workforce. Blue-collar jobs are going to be at a premium in the coming decade, and we've got a fantastic, well-educated group of individuals that can participate in that. If we cannot provide the housing necessary, we are going to miss out. So that is to strongly promote the 0%, but from my perspective, 50% could be a compromise. I don't want to miss this opportunity to provide the jobs necessary and to take advantage of the talent we have here. Not just the talent of individuals, but our abundance of diverse economies, and we can also protect the land. That's what we have done here, is we are protecting the land, and now we need to utilize that to the best of our ability and hopefully grow our community that is not as big as Atlanta, but somewhere that can compete, or somewhere that could provide a tenth of a suburb as Woodstock is to Atlanta. So, Mr. Nickel, to get some confidence here from the commission, 50% seems not going to kick it through. Will the commissioners be okay with 40%, 35%? If we're going to play this game, it would be 40%. I'm not playing any games, but what I'm trying to say is anything better than what has been written. I agree with you, but if you're not going to get it, get it. But 40%, I mean, 50% is the goal. That's at a minimum of what I've seen, and if I can't get those votes to make something like that happen, 40% would be our next bet. I'm just asking you. No, I'm agreeing with you. I'm doing the best I can to promote our community to the best of my ability. Mr. Wilson? No. I've been purposely quiet. I'm enjoying the conversation. You didn't have anything to say about any affordable housing today? I had a lot to say, and fact of the matter, I thought about the easiest way to not keep everybody here is to write my questions down and send them to Chris and send you all copies of it. But the way we started on this whole activity was connected with affordable housing, and yet we don't talk about it. It's almost like we're admiring the problem, but we're not doing anything about it, per se. And that's not going to come about by accident. That's going to have to come about by intentionality. So I don't know how it fits in, but I had some questions on affordable housing. I have some questions on renewable energy. I have some questions on some other things, so I'm just going to write you a note. Thank you. That's the first. All right. I just wanted to make sure I understand. When it comes to this 20% number, is the whole premise to make sure that when we're doing a village or a town center that we have a commercial focus up front along with housing? Is that? I don't know that commercial focus is the right word. These are by and large residential developments. The key is that they are complete neighborhoods. I mean, we've been talking about complete neighborhoods in the comprehensive plan since we introduced PlaceBuilder in 2019, and a complete neighborhood has things people want in them without having to get in their car. It doesn't mean they're not going to drive. It doesn't mean they're not going to have cars. It means they're just going to have an option. And so to the planning staff, and being consistent with the comprehensive plan as this has been for the last eight years, it is having at least some attributes of a total complete neighborhood. And so I don't know that focus would be the word we would use, but having that component. But it's kind of like as you go to develop in these areas that you're looking at a complete neighborhood picture. So it really kind of means that from a development standpoint, they're thinking about it differently. Yes. I think that is a really key distinction, is that from the beginning of the development, when they're laying it out with their designers, that they are thinking about where is this element going to go? Where do we want it to go? And so at the zone change in one of these areas, the key question from staff is going to be where are you proposing in your big picture to put the commercial activity that people want to go to while you build up to whatever number of residential units that will support it? So that's the conversation I think you can expect staff to have with you through these applications is that you be thinking about it, that you tell us what your plan is, and that you show it through the development criteria where you expect that component to go and how people will interact with it. And I mean, whether it's 20% or 50%, I think it's really more a matter of how development is approached in the future, more so than the percentages. But I do like including item number three in here with regard to affordable and workforce housing not having those same constraints. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Barstow. Ms. Werth, you got something? No. Oh, okay. I'll keep moving. Do we have any further comments, questions? Mr. Mickler. Well, I just have a comment because I think I can't help but note that, you know, I think there are valid points, and I think that the I think given the level of concurrency requirements that they will not hinder development the way that Commissioner Nichols feels. But I also, you know, hear that the examples that we've been given, their relevance is a little bit light, and I think that's just one of the really hard things about being put here in a position where everything is being rushed through, because I think it's really hard, given what we were just told, to make a judgment call of square footages and percentages. It's not exactly like we just got a lot of detailed, relevant data. I do think that regardless of where we land on the exact percentage, I think having that requirement in there does do what staff just mentioned, which is it gets it on the development plan. It gets that dialogue started. Given the low square footage level, I still don't see a need for them for 50% of the residential units to have received an occupancy. I'm still comfortable with a lower level, but I'm also mostly just sort of noting that I really wish we had more information, and this feels very rushed on this one. Chris, you may have answered this already. How is workforce housing defined? In the urban growth management text amendment that wrapped up in June, 80% below is affordable. 80 to 120 is the workforce of AMI. Mr. Chair, may I offer a suggestion to you in an effort to move this forward? We have? Well, what I was going to say, we do have language before us here. Can we vote on it, and if it doesn't fly, then make an adjustment? I'm just offering a suggestion. The floor is open. When you say language before us, Mike. It's what's going on 212. Mr. Nickel? Hold on one second. Hold on one second. Are we looking for a motion? Because I'm willing to make a motion on what I'm trying to communicate to the group, and listening to everybody, taking everything into consideration, and you all, thankfully, I really appreciate you hearing what I had to say. I appreciate it, and in an effort to find some common ground with the group, I would like to make a motion to propose a change to Section 2, Development, Density, and Use, 2A, Residential and Commercial, as written here by staff, and reducing 50% to 40%. Excuse me. Okay. Do we have a motion on that? Mr. Owens? Yes. All of the other adjustments are what protects the development of affordable and workforce housing. Those are big parts of how we can build with greater density, and also looking to those in certain income levels. Is that included in Mr. Owens' revision, too? That was my question, as to how it was exactly going to read. Okay. Mr. Owens had some additions, too. Does your motion include his? I think his additions were to Section 9. Well, Mr. Micklers was to Section 9, and then Mr. Owens was to Section 1D. But I can include those in a motion as well, which would include Section 9, Zoning Districts, the recommendations offered by Mr. Mickler, and Section 1D, the rural service area setbacks recommended by Owens, or we can do this one at a time. Yeah, but just one at a time. I think that's just what we saw. Okay. If we could handle this one at a time, I would like to make a motion to amend Section 2, Development Density and Use, to a residential commercial concurrency, with the language shown here in front of us now. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay. We have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion? Mr. Pohl. I just did a quick calculation. The reason I asked the question about how many housing units would be required before the 20 percent would kick in is that, you know, there's this argument that the banks are going to have a problem with financing 4,000 square feet. And I wanted to get to whether that's a specious argument. I'm concerned that I have a lot of trust in our consultants and our staff, and I'm concerned that their work is already being cut off at the knees before we even get to a plan. And I want to understand the reality of the probability of banks having a problem financing a 4,000 square foot commercial node. So I did a quick calculation of the area that is mentioned here. It's a one-quarter mile radius circle. That's 125 acres. I find it extremely hard to believe that 20 percent of the housing that could be built within that acreage would be damaged by the need to finance a 4,000 square foot commercial facility. So I'm absolutely opposed to changing the language. Okay. Thank you. I can talk to you about that at a later date and time. But we've got regulators, too, as a bank, so some of this I can't even tell you. But all I'm going to tell you is if you stop construction, it's a problem credit. I mean, everybody's got their opinions. I appreciate it. But this ain't the time and place to really go into that, though. So the motion is on the table. We've got to — So just real quick. So the issue is not so much in financing the 4,000 as it is in not having as many residential units to support the 4,000 square feet? Is that — If the project is specifically driven by the residential units paying the loan back, but the loan is going to be stopped, the construction is going to be stopped until you can get the remaining piece done, then you're going to put a halt into your project. So a project that may have went — would take a year to build, now you may — I don't know, it can go out 18 months. Now you're taking into consideration of the environment, you're taking into consideration of inflation, you've got construction costs, and it's a risk. Construction loans are one of the most riskiest loans you can do, especially on the development side. You've got interest costs, but we don't talk about that a lot with the developers, because we think the developers have a lot of money. But the developers use a lot of the bank's money, because they don't have a lot of money. But I'm not speaking on any one of them, I'm just saying. And we like that, because we get to make a little money. But it's more to it, so I don't — I really don't have the time to — I mean, to be honest with you, Mr. Pohl's comment makes sense. I get it. I'm just giving you my perspective from my two decades of doing it. So that's all. So I'm fine. No hard feelings with me. So we've got a motion. We've got a second by Ms. Barksdale. Mr. Pohl had a couple of comments before we finish out the motion. Do we have any other comments? Just one question. I'm going to put you on the spot, Mr. Banks. But the question is — and I hear the arguments, and I understand both sides of the issue. But the question I have is, you're telling me the banks would not go along with this? I can't speak for every bank. I'm not — Okay. I'm just — from my experience, everybody talks about their own experience. I'm just telling you from my experience, if you were here during 2008, and I was in banking, the development loans was a problem in Fayette County. Okay. And along those lines, with the proposed — well, whatever the language was, do you — is that a good move? Does that make you feel comfortable? I told you I was going to put you on the spot. I'm hearing it from both sides. Okay. I mean, Lexington's unique, so I listen to a lot of my cohorts on here. I mean, Mr. Mickler, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Pohl, Ms. Wirth, all of you. So I try to take more of a pragmatic approach to it, and just pay attention to it. I'm not speaking on it in a negative stance. I'm just saying that sometimes that's the reality. But I can't speak on what's going to happen next year. Heck, I can't speak on what's going to happen next week after the election. I got you. Okay. Things are going to change. I think you're an absolutely wonderful politician, Mr. Mickler. Can I ask Mr. Taylor a question? Earlier, did you say planning staff could live with 40, 50 percent? I think, yeah, planning staff can live—I don't want to say can live—staff supports concurrency in some form that ensures we get the mixture of uses. We need this body to be comfortable administering it and supporting it going forward. So it needs to represent your all's wishes. So it's less about the number for us. The concept is very important. Having the two all. Yes. Okay. We have a—we've got a motion on the floor. I'll vote via Granicus. Okay. So it's a tie. No, it's a tie. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. No, no, no. Yes, it is happening. I'm sorry. I forgot we were missing Mr. Davis. He was supposed to be here. Okay. That motion passes. All right. Ms. Owens, you want to bring in your motion? If we're at that point, yes. Yes. In reference to Chapter 6, page 208, 1D, can you put up the language that we had up? Okay. So that would be my motion for change, where development is adjacent to agricultural zone land. And then—whoops, where's the—here come the stub streets. Stub streets, maximum of 15 feet with the area to the boundary of the urban service area dedicated for future construction. That's what I would like to add. Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have a second or further discussion to that? Can I suggest one tiny word change? Sure. Can we insert the word roadway between future and construction in light of the resistance to connectivity that we've been seeing? I want to be sure that that area is clearly designated as potential roadway, not general construction. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Polk. You want to second that, Ms. Polk? Well, question real quick. I thought we were doing one section at a time, because he did 1D and then went to 3. So why am I looking? I thought he was doing just one change. So he has a motion for his section, which is what we're looking at now. This is an additional section, right? Yes. Yes. Just a little added language is all. It's that same section. He just added to it. It's the same section. Just to define—further define stub street. Okay. I second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. All right. That passes unanimously. Hey, Mike, that's your first one, man. Surprise. You all agreed on something. We usually do. We usually do. Okay. Mr. Mickler? I've got a few here, so bear with me here. We've got the—so we've done the concurrency and we've done the buffer and stub streets, so I've kind of been keeping track. So we've got—I'd like to make a motion to specify that on the avenue, the buffered bike lane is preferred. We're going to hear from the— Not buffered. I think it's going to be the protected bike lane is the standard. So, Mr. Mickler, this would be on page 186, to amend the language to include the following sentence, which is protected bike lanes will be the default bike facility type for avenues except where design criteria per the complete streets manual stipulate otherwise. So protected is not buffered? Right. The difference between the two is buffered is basically paint in between the travel lane and the bike lane. Protected means that there's something physical in between the two. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I would like to use the language proposed here. The protected bike lanes will be the default bicycle facility for avenue except where design criteria per the complete street design manual stipulate otherwise. And, Mr. Mickler, I would recommend amending the design on page 187 to reflect this change. And the cross section on page 187 to reflect that change. Okay. We have a motion on the floor and we have a second by Mr. Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? All right. We'll vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Mr. Mickler, you got two more? Yeah. Can I ask a question related to this? Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Poe. Yeah. This comes from someone who bicycles here to every meeting and all over the place and goes back to the discussion of where the utilities are to be placed. And maybe this isn't so much of a question as a red flag. As a cyclist, what I see is utilities are almost always buried under the bike lanes. And what happens is the bike lanes become impassable during construction and they remain impassable after construction because the rebuilding of the bike lane and the quality of the surface that is put back in place is so poor that you can't ride in the bike lane and you're forced into the car lane. I experience this all over town, all the time. And so I just bring that up as something that should be considered to avoid bicyclists being forced into the drive lane when utility construction is going on or after it's complete. Thank you, Mr. Poe. We have a second. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Mr. Mickler, you've got to do yours. I'm sorry. So the next one is related to the corner stores in residential districts. The text is in front of you of the proposed, but it is to make the new text to explore amending the zoning ordinance to allow B1 or similar uses in the R2, R3, and R4 zones when the use is on or adjacent to a corner lot. And to remove the specifics of the size and scale and setbacks at this time. Okay. That's section 9A. Do we have a second? Mr. Nickel. Mr. Nickel. You seconded. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. So we have a motion and a second by Mr. Nickel. We have a discussion to that motion. Please vote via granicus. Okay. That motion passes unanimously. Mr. Nickel. Last one. And the final one is to in the infrastructure funding plan. No. I've got plus the I'm going to go to the street trees. This was added on today. So it wasn't on my original list. But to add language regarding separation of utilities, page 222, 31. Three utilities should be placed to minimize the impact of the root zone of street trees. And I'm sorry about my handwriting. That is 3I. That's 3I. Right. 3I. Okay. 3I. I. I. I. Lowercase. 3I. I. I. I. That's what it looks like to me. Is that right? Okay. All right. We have a second by Ms. Werff. Any further discussion to that motion? Mr. Poe. Go ahead. What if we added an objective of trying to separate them from bike lanes as well? For the reasons that I stated earlier. I guess it's only relevant when the bike lane is immediately adjacent to the roadway. Because then you get forced into the roadway. I think part of the earlier motion was to clarify that we're asking for the protected bike lanes, which are not the sort of shoulder roadway. Which I think would address some of the not necessarily during construction. But it might address some of the being forced into the roadway. Because it's on the immediate side. And I guess what we're considering here also changes the frequency at which we'd be building bike lanes immediately adjacent to roadways. And limit it to areas where the traffic is not so onerous. I'll just drop my suggestion. All right. We vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Do we have any? You got one more? Yeah. The one more was I'd like to remove the language about not raising taxes. As I don't think that is in the purview of what we're deciding today. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Let's vote via Granicus. All right. That motion passes. Do we have any other motions? Okay. I think Mr. Duncan at this time. Yes. I have a question. I'll make a comment. I was about to ask a question, too. It's not really a question as much as sort of back to Mr. Wilson's comment about affordable housing. And I'm thinking back to our previous session. We don't have specifics in here about affordable housing in the expansion in the urban growth management area. And I heard comments last time that if we build the housing in the growth area, it will reduce prices in the existing urban services area and affordable housing can go there. I've also heard a lot of comments previously about people who are in affordable housing typically need access to services. And it makes more sense in many cases to locate the affordable housing in the urban service boundary instead of outside. What's our thinking about that in this plan? Well, I think Mr. Duncan made it very clear back in June of last year that affordable housing, proper affordable housing through this process was not particularly attainable and achievable through the means that the planning commission has in approving a land use master plan. And as such, the consultants have delivered us what the council asked for, which is to address broad affordability through supply. I think other elements of taking that a step further will probably have to happen through the budgetary process to prioritize those things. What we have worked with the consultants to get to you is a plan that can provide the neighborhood services so that should affordable housing go out here, it is not isolated and not unavailable. We've tried to put densities in that will support trains serving it. We've tried to put concurrency requirements in that will facilitate uses that will serve residents in these areas. That's about as far as a land use master plan can go. And we feel very good about that. But it does not address, you know, dedicated affordable housing. And that doesn't mean that it won't occur because one of the first ones in the 96 expansion was an affordable housing development. It just happened that way. It may not. But it won't be because or in spite of recommendations of this plan. We have taken every effort through the land use elements to create opportunities for it. The densities to support it. The parking regulations to support it. You know, the supportive uses to support it. It's all there should an applicant be able to take advantage of it and find partners to make that happen. All right. So is this time to adopt the resolution that we have here? Mr. Owens. Since Ms. Worth started, more just comment and just get an idea from planning their thoughts on this. We're looking at expanding new land. And considering the fact that we still have a lot of land left in the EAMP area, we've kept talking about infill and redevelopment. How do we promote those areas still and not allow hopscotch and vacancy or void, however you want to say it, with that land? Well, I think there's, you know, the comprehensive plan identifies implementation tasks even as it relates to the previous 96 expansionary master plan. And there are efforts underway to address the exaction issues that sort of prohibit us from going back in at this stage to do that work. But we believe those issues will be wrapped up in the near future. And that we'll be able to talk with the planning commission and administration and council about moving forward with an attempt to address, you know, a 30-year-old master plan, to address modern needs that needs to be done. So I think there's more than ample implementation tasks in the comprehensive plan that are focused on the infill and redevelopment projects. And those are high on our priority list to do. And I think with this project behind us, you'll see us refocus on that work again, like we have been. And, Mr. Chair, Mr. Owens, I can also add, if you all were watching the council earlier this week, dedicated funding for a new update to a downtown master plan. And planning will be involved in that. And we're actually going to call that the urban core master plan. So I do believe that, Mr. Owens, that there will be some opportunities in that to rethink our urban core and its contributions to housing. And so, as Chris said, with the changing of the exaction program, with a refreshed core plan, I think there will be some new opportunities to focus on that. Okay. Thank you. So, Ms. Boxdale. Okay. So am I to just read it? Yes. Ms. Boxdale, she's going to read the resolution. Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Boxdale. Okay. So am I to just read it? Yes. Ms. Boxdale, she's going to read the resolution to adopting the urban core master plan as an element of the 2023 comprehensive plan and imagine Lexington 2045 and amending the place builder element of 2023 comprehensive plan and imagine Lexington 2045. Okay. All right. Whereas KRS 100.183 and KRS 100.197 sets forth the requirement for planning commissions to periodically review, update, and amend the adopted comprehensive plan, which shall serve as a guide for public and private actions and decisions to assure the development of public and private property in the most appropriate relationships. And whereas the urban county planning commission at its October 31st, 2024 meeting considered the adoption of the urban growth master plan as set forth in the goals and objectives, specifically theme E goal three of the 2023 comprehensive plan, imagine Lexington 2045. And whereas the urban county planning commission at the same meeting considered the adoption of amendments to the place builder element of the 2023 comprehensive plan, imagine Lexington 2045. And whereas the planning commission, its staff and the consultant team have conducted extensive public outreach, including, but not limited to certain concerned residents, public officials and civic educational and professional organizations in the development of this master plan. And whereas the planning commission, its staff and the consultant team have conducted significant research into existing conditions of the five areas of expansion and local, regional, and national trends in the development of the master plan. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, section one, that this resolution with the attached documentation and the maps adopted herein shall be referred to as the urban growth management plan and the amended place builder element as denoted. Section two, that this planning commission hereby adopts the urban growth master plan as an element of the 2023 comprehensive plan, imagine Lexington 2045 for Lexington-Fayette County as designated in the supporting text and maps presented and or modified on this date. The maps supporting documents and modified text are incorporated herein by reference. Section three, that urban growth management master plan shall serve as a guide for public and private actions and decisions to assure the development of public and private property in the most appropriate relationships and shall expand the Lexington-Fayette Urban County's urban service area by 2,840 acres as depicted within the maps and descriptions of the urban growth master plan. Section four, that this planning commission hereby adopts the amendment to the place builder element of imagine Lexington 2045, the 2023 comprehensive plan for Lexington-Fayette County as designated in the supporting text and maps presented and or modified on this date. Section five, it is the intent of this planning commission that the zoning ordinance, land subdivision regulations and the zoning map currently in effect on the date of passage of this resolution shall remain in full force in effect unless and until duly amended by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council after receipt of a recommendation by this planning commission. Section six, the director of the division of planning is directed to forward this resolution and the documents mentioned herein to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council for its information and use. Section seven, that this resolution shall become effective on the date of its passage. Mr. Chair, there's a couple of typos in here that need to be corrected. They can easily be corrected. You don't have to reread the whole thing. You just need to make note of them. Section one, it refers to management plan. It should be master plan. And section three, it says management plan. It should also be master plan. So, Ms. Barksdale, if you could just amend what you read to change management to master and then you're welcome to vote. All right. So we'll change management to master in reference to the plan. In section one and section three. Well, actually, section three should just take out management. Master was already. Yes, sorry. So we would have to have a master master plan. Okay. Okay. Thank you for that. All right. So we need to. Okay. We got a second. Mr. Wilson. Vote via Granicus. We're at this point. Excuse me. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, staff. It's been a long journey for you. Thank you, Samantha and your group. Appreciate you and what you've done, too. And all the citizens that are here, thank you, too, for the comments and the information that was bestowed upon us. So I hope everybody have a good day. If you have kids, time to trick or treat because that's where I'm going. And don't eat too much candy. Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miss on if I may one. I'm not going to repeat. In fact, hopefully the staff goes out and celebrates tonight for. Work well done, but by the same token us as a planning commission. I've often said there's 11 of us here. That's free independent thinkers. And we try and do what's best for Lexington. But there's 11 of us. And I still think that we brought something very good together. And going out of here, this is a document and a plan from the planning commission as a whole. And we should be proud of it. And I'll take credit in doing so. So thank you. Thank you for that. Duncan. Mr. Chair and to all of you. This was a project you didn't ask for. But you embraced it. When we brought it to you, you embraced it. You took it. You did not push back. But you did challenge us. And so we appreciate you sticking with us for the past year and four months or so as we got through this. To deliver on time to the urban county council an expansion of the urban service area. The first major expansion since 1996. This is something else. So thank you all for your support and your work. It continues. As you saw, there are several, a number of recommendations in this plan that we'll be looking at over the coming months. And then we have other things from the existing comprehensive plan that we want to accomplish together. So the work goes on. But for now, thank you all for all you did on this. And just one other thing, Mr. Chair. We do have a meeting again next week. Work goes on. So committee is next Thursday back in the Phoenix building. Thank you all. I thought you was giving us a week off. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.