Good afternoon. Today is March 26, 2026, and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission. First item on the agenda is we have the approval of the February 12th and February 26th, 2026 minutes. Both minutes have been circulated. Do we have any revisions, or if not, the floor is open for a motion. Commissioner Warren. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of both the February 12th and February 26th minutes as submitted. Thank you, Commissioner. We're a second from Mr. Forrester. Okay. He beat you to it, Bill. Postponements and withdrawals. Oh, sorry. We need to thank you, Ivy. We have to vote on that motion. Larry really threw me off. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. I apologize. Good afternoon. I do have two postponements, if possible. The first is a legacy trail application. It's item B2 on page 4. If we can postpone that to the May 26th public hearing date, we are waiting on the developer to determine what they and a potential buyer want to do going forward. I am told this will be the last postponement or request on this project. Okay. May 26th? Is that correct? May 28th. 28th? All right. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion to May 28th. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of legacy trail, PLNMAR 25-17 legacy trail LLC until May the 28th. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second. Second for Mr. Forrester. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Okay. That also carries unanimously. Thank you. The next one I have is the EDZOTA item C1 on page 10 for CalGuild. If we can postpone that until April 23rd. We have met with Fayette Alliance to discuss its concerns. We've made revisions based on those discussions and we are submitted that revised language and the supplemental justification letter to planning staff. Brayden will be at the committee meetings next week on this one to discuss it so we can go forward for April 23rd. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant on that request to postpone to April 23rd? Okay. If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to motion for the postponement of PLNZOTA. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Do we have a second? Second. For Mr. Wilson. Okay. We will take that to a vote if there's no discussion. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you, Lauren. Thank you. Have a great afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes Incorporated. This is on page two of your agenda, item number one, PLNMAR25-15. I'm here to live up to my promise to Commissioner Owens that this is going to be for an indefinite postponement. If you can, please let him know that I lived up to my word. It's on the record. Okay. We need to postpone one more month to tell him. All right. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson? This is an indefinite postponement on item number one. If not, Commissioner Worth. Mr. Chair, I move for indefinite postponement of PLNMAR25-15, Ball Homes Inc., as requested by the applicant, post-indefinite. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Forrester, thank you. This motion is for indefinite postponement. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote, please. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you all. Thank you, Nick. Okay. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals today? Seeing none, our first item on the agenda should be on page seven. Bill Point, LLC, Map Amendment Request and White Farm Development Plan. Good afternoon. I'm Jeremy Young from Planning Staff. This is PLNMAR26-2, it's Hill Point, LLC. They're requesting a zone map amendment from agricultural urban to R4 for roughly 39 acres. It's requesting enhanced neighborhood, as well as medium density residential, in order to construct a development with 480 multifamily units and 118 single family townhouse units. The applicant did hold a public engagement meeting, and there was only one person from the public who attended. And they didn't ask any questions, they were just there for informational purposes. So this kind of gives you a layout of the area. You can see the subject property there in the center, just adjacent to it. You've got Lakeside Golf Course here, which then turns into Jacobson Park further to the south. You've got Richmond Road along this side here, and Man o' War. And importantly, this development would provide an important connection between two existing neighborhoods, here and here, between Palumbo and Dabney Drive. And the adjacent properties, the zoning in brown there is R4. The orange you see up there in the corner is the edge of the Maple Leaf Commercial Development, that's B6P. The green is Agricultural Urban, and the blue is Professional Office. And you can see, excuse me, from the aerial here, the connection that would be provided. And Chris will get into the details of that when he presents the development plan. It would connect these two areas here and provide an essential connection between those two neighborhoods. And the applicant has supplied some renderings to give an idea of what they're proposing to build. Showing the different articulation and materials that they're proposing for this project. And this is the multifamily section. And these are the townhomes that are proposed along the north side of the property. And as I mentioned before, they've indicated an enhanced neighborhood, medium density residential, and R4 zoning. Those are recommended development types and zone in that place type. And so, back in the zoning committee, staff had a number of concerns and questions about the original plan. One was to improve traffic operation strategies, traffic calming, and safety. The applicant has submitted a revised development plan as well as supplemental justifications that do address many of these concerns. They have provided sort of a neck down there in the middle of the proposed extension of Dabney Drive, which is designed to slow traffic. And they've also shortened the block to enhance walkability and again, to help slow traffic. Another item of concern was multimodal in that area. They've mentioned that this is designed to be a workforce housing. So any type of multimodal opportunities that we can take advantage of for that type of housing would always be a good idea. And also, the connection between Dabney Drive and Palumbo, like I said, is an important connection for vehicles and pedestrians. We would have liked to have seen perhaps some bicycle facilities in that as well. The latest edition of the development plan does not appear to have any type of facilities for bicycles. And the policies that we initially had concerns with were the street patterns and the walkable blocks. Like I said, they've addressed those with the shortened blocks as well as the traffic calming measures. We requested more information about how it complies with the multifamily design standards. They submitted a set of plans as well as renderings, which I've shared with you all some of the examples of what they plan to build that demonstrate good compliance with those standards. And additionally, design policy number nine, I have to admit that when our first analysis, I flagged this as a noncompliance, but I didn't take into account Maple Leaf Park, which is less than 1,000 feet to the north, so that was my mistake on that. So disregard that comment there. And then sustainability policy number four, reduce and mitigate negative environmental impacts of impervious services. Staff has raised concerns that we feel that it's perhaps somewhat over parked. And any kind of reno reduction in impervious surface and unnecessary parking would also be advantageous. Development criteria, stub streets should be connected. The original plan, the connection between Palumbo and the Dabney Drive extension did not have a stub into the adjacent property. The new plan does show that stub. The streets should be designed with shorter block lengths and narrower widths, traffic calming features. Those have been added to the new plan. And again, it mentions the parking and impervious surfaces that staff are concerned with. And so, this sort of gives you a rundown of what has been changed on the revised development plan. They've added a stub street, they've revised the Dabney Drive cross section. They've altered the Dabney Drive block length to shorten it to enhance walkability. They've added road terminuses on both sides of the Dabney Drive extension for the private streets. They've added bump outs at that location to help slow traffic. They've reoriented the dumpsters and widened the townhome access drives to 27 feet. And they've added a utility strip along the townhomes. And staff does recommend approval. We feel that it does meet the goals and objectives. It meets the demand for housing in Lexington. The request also increases residential density on an underutilized parcel. I think these parcels have been located within the urban service area since well before the 1969 comprehensive rezoning of the entire county. So they've been, I wouldn't say overdue, but it's been an area that has been ripe for development. The proposed pedestrian connections and open space also meet the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The plan meets the policies of increasing density. The surrounding context, it's sensitive to the neighboring properties. There is some multifamily, there's some single family residential, and there are some other townhome developments in the area. So I think this blends well with the existing development pattern. It's obviously going to provide a number of additional housing units. And they're intending these to be at a variety of income levels. And it also meets the development criteria, that it's a compact development that increases density. It meets the criteria for transportation and connectivity. It obviously provides the connection that I spoke of before between two existing neighborhoods. It does not negatively affect any environmentally sensitive area. It meets the criteria for site design and building form. It meets the multifamily design standards. And like I said, it's within the context and scale of the existing structure or development pattern and structures. And it minimizes significant contrasts in scale. And this recommendation of approval is subject to the approval of the PLN MJDP 2612 White Farm Development Plan. And if you all have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions on the zone change at this time? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you, Jeremy. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, Planning Staff. Development plan associated with this is MJDP 2612 for the White Farm. Excuse me. The applicant did submit a revised plan on March 24th, and you should have a kind of like purple sheet in your packet with that revised staff report. And as Jeremy said, the purpose of the plan is to depict the development of 16 multifamily buildings, 117 townhomes, parking, circulation, and a public street in support of the requested zone change. Sorry, it's already there. So on the development plan, the townhomes are grouped to the plan north. And true north is sort of where this top right corner of the property is. So the corners of the property are kind of the compass points. This northwestern portion is where the townhomes are grouped. And then the larger portion to the southeast is the multifamily. This is the intersection of Yorkshire and Palumbo, where that curve is. And the Dabney is, well, I believe this will be Palumbo to this point here. Comes off of that curve and then connects to Dabney, which connects here. And currently Dabney ends basically at the property boundary. And there is no connection here at this time. So they're proposing to connect Dabney through the development and stub into the remainder of the white farm, and then Palumbo will extend to that. That point they are making with this configuration, a three point intersection. From the previous plan, the initial submittal, they did revise the layout and provided these private streets that come in and terminate in a roundabout, sorry, not a roundabout, cul-de-sac. There was a concern early on that this would exceed the 1,000 foot block length limit. So they created these short street sections to break up that block length. But then they also needed a proper termination of a street. So that's where the change came, one of the major changes with the revised development plan. So previously, the plan would have been approvable with waivers only, as it was initially depicted, and with the changes at this time, there's no waivers necessary. So what we have under requirements not met, there's a few cleanup items. There's no waivers necessary at this time. Under design considerations, there's a couple questions about parking layout. They still need to provide street names for the streets within the townhomes for addressing to approve. And then there's some questions about sanitary sewer capacity that'll be worked out through the sign off process. The other thing, there's a proposed future connection potentially to the golf course. There are internal walkways associated with, and sidewalks with the parking areas and the proposed streets. So there's internal connectivity for pedestrians. But as Jeremy mentioned, there's nothing that's specifically dedicated for bicycles. And then ultimately, we recommend approval with the standard sign offs, provided that the urban county council approves the zone change, urban county engineer sign off, traffic engineering, urban forester, open space, Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. We can strike the number seven, provided the planning commission grants the requested waiver for street cross section block length and termination of the street, that's no longer necessary. And then finally, number eight, correct, all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. That all. All righty, thank you Mr. Chaney. Do we have any questions on the development plan? Mr. Mickler? Yeah, my question is just in relation to that. Connectivity to the part of the property towards Richmond Road that says Future Park Sidewalk Connection. And then also, I guess the property owned by LFUCG right now. Which is where that sidewalk is. Correct. The Intersection of that sort of ties into the question about the block length as well. Would we normally have expected to see that road pulled all the way down to the edge of the property? Talking about here? No, where those cul-de-sacs are. Would we normally have expected those public roads to be pulled through the property? If they were proposing them as public streets, I think so. But I think they're proposing everything to be private. Access easements except for those, I believe. Yeah, can I add, if it were a vacant tract owned by a private property owner, I think we would have expected also basically a stub street to be touching that property. But because it is an LFUCG park and currently operating as an active golf course, there's not really a reason to stub to it with a public street. Now, as you move further down, that may be closer to Richmond Road. That may be possible or may be desired where it adjoins a neighborhood as opposed to the golf course. Within our existing guidelines, if that under normal circumstances, we would have expected that to be pulled down. Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Mickler. Do we have any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Cheney. All right. We do have a presentation by Mr. Mills. He's on his way up. I was about to say, I don't know if I can do it completely from memory. James Mills, Transportation Planning. I'll be presenting the traffic impact study for this development. First, when we look at the traffic impact study, we look at the existing conditions of the average annual daily traffic in the area. All which is either slightly down or down across Richmond Road, Manowar Boulevard, Yorkshire Boulevard, Plumbo Drive, Maple Leaf Drive, Dabney Drive, Blazer Parkway, and we also look at both the transit service in the area and the bike pad facilities. X-TRAN has Route 1, Route 11, Route 18, and Route 51 that serve the area, with some of the stops featuring benches and trash receptacles. And there is some non-motorized mobility options with sidewalks and bike lanes along Richmond Road. Then we take what the development's proposing and through the ITE trip generation manual 12th edition. Take the codes that represent this development. So ITE 220 and 215, multifamily housing low rise and single family attached housing to generate our number of daily trips from this development. And then we take that and also have to make assumptions on the distribution of these trips. Because they're proposing to create a new connection between two existing roadways, there are some assumptions that are regarding trip distribution that must be made. Including, so what they made was about UK and downtown being a significant portion, as well as access to I-75, Blazer Parkway, and Manowar Boulevard. And then also access to the adjoining neighborhoods in Richmond Road. Added into the trip generation and distribution assumptions was a background growth rate of 0% for the nearby developments with approximately 646 units. Turning movement counts 15% and an assumption of a 15% diversion of traffic through this new connection. And these trips were compared between no build and build year 2025. We take that and find our level of service analysis. The existing street network is expected to experience low traffic impacts from this development. Most intersections currently have a level of service of D or better during the weekday peak hours. The number one intersection that was potentially going to be impacted was Richmond Road and Yorkshire Boulevard. The study found a 15% a 15 second increase in the AM peak from level of service C to D. And seven second in the PM peak but remaining level of service E. However, this finding could be substantially impacted by the construction of a new restricted crossing U-turn. Our cut intersection in June of 2026, the existing travel lanes can handle the traffic from this planned development. And this kind of just summarizes those findings at this intersection where it is showing that decrease. But again, the R cut will likely change that. Additionally, we looked at the crashes in the area adjoining this development and in the study area. There's about 1,094 collisions, 220 total injuries, and three fatalities over a five year review of crashes. Particularly near the curve of Yorkshire and Palumbo Drive, there was 27 collisions and five total injuries over the same period. Two of these collisions with one resulting in an injury occurred this month. So our main findings are the existing roadway system is sufficient to accommodate traffic from the proposed land use. A new R cut at the intersection of Richmond Road and Yorkshire Boulevard could alter the findings within this study. As noted previously, improvements to increase automobile capacity along the roadway and or at the intersections are not required or recommended. Turn lane warrants were evaluated and were not recommended. Staff does recommend the inclusion of traffic calming elements like ball bouts along Dabney Drive. At intersections, mid block crossings where possible. Such improvements would facilitate cypher, biking, and walking conditions and could help prevent crashes and collisions. Lastly, one finding we did disagree with in the traffic impact study was that a roundabout would not be possible with the space available. Particularly as this site is a blank slate. Even with their proposed development layout, a mini roundabout or compact roundabout would be able to fit in the available right away at the proposed intersection of Yorkshire Boulevard and Palumbo Drive. And with that, any questions? Commissioner Mills, Commissioner O'Rourke. One, just a question of timing of the completion of the R cut in the development. Can you talk a little bit about, are those going to be timed so that they coordinate? I think it's supposed to be completed in June 2026 according to KYTC. I don't know how much coordination they have with the development though, but yeah. It'll be completed in, it's slated to be completed in June 2026. Okay, do we have any other questions, Mr. Mills, on the traffic study? Okay, thank you, James. Good afternoon again. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Hillpoint. We are in complete agreement with the staff with regards to their recommendations. But since Hillpoint is kind of new to Lexington and we anticipate that you will be seeing more plans from Hillpoint for this type of workforce housing. I thought it would be best that you kind of meet the Hillpoint team and kind of understand kind of more about who they are and kind of what they're bringing to Lexington. So, Ms. Thompson, do you want to come up here? Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Pamela Thompson. I'm the Director of External Affairs for Hillpoint, and I just want to take a few moments to introduce our company to you. Hillpoint is the number one developer of workforce housing in the country right now. We are fully integrated and we create essential workforce housing across the southern United States. Our mission, our purpose, and why we exist is to deliver critically needed attainable housing to positively impact our essential workforce that are burdened by the affordability crisis today. Who we do it for, that missing middle, the essential workers, your nurses, your teachers, your first responders, and young professionals. How we're doing it, our main product is a two bedroom, three story garden style walk up. These are class A apartments with luxury amenities, and we do try to attain that workforce housing rate of 80 to 120% AMI. We've developed and managed more than 10,000 rental units across almost 40 communities. We have a track record, and one thing that makes us special and unique is that we actually own and manage the property. So we will become your neighbor, and we will maintain the quality of our community. We are devoted to workforce housing. That's why we're looking forward to becoming a part of Lexington. And these are some of our amenities. We do try to make sure that we're providing quality living for our essential workers. You may have already seen this in the application packet. This is a rendering of our typical community. This is the layout of our two bedroom, two bath, dual master style apartment. And again, we are excited to be able to partner with Lexington and bring workforce housing much needed to the community. And we look forward to your positive consideration of our project. And we'll be available if you have any questions for us. Thank you, Ms. Thompson. Do we have any questions for her at this time? Thank you again. Mr. Thompson. This is a copy of the presentation for the record. I meant to start the presentation off with that. I'm not going to really get into kind of any details with regards to compliance with the comprehensive plan or anything since we are kind of in complete agreement and I thought Mr. Young did an excellent job kind of providing that justification. I did want to touch on a couple of the topics, mostly the multimodal. We originally had been proposing Dabney Drive extension to be a narrower road with a ten foot basically multimodal kind of aspect to it. In working with traffic engineering, that was going to require a waiver during the zone change proceeding. And since everything was going kind of well, we basically are going to hit pause on that kind of decision. My guess is we're going to come back with a waiver at the final development plan stage orders show a cross section that is slightly different than what is in the sub regs but does add in that multimodal kind of component, but what is important, the plan that we show today is a full collector that does have the ability to have kind of bike lanes that are added to it. And we're happy to kind of continue to work through that, because we do think it is quite important. With that, I'll answer any questions that you all may have. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Do we have any questions? Okay. Thank you, New York. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular map amendment or final development or plan today? If you would, just please approach the podium and just state your name. And it is the policy of the planning commission that everyone receives three minutes for speaking and there is no borrowing or lending of time. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Harsha Vijayshree. I'm a licensed civil engineer. I back this committee. We live at, a few of our neighbors are here. We live in Andover Estates. Personally, I'm pro for the development. We need housing in Lexington. There are a couple of concerns that I personally have. One is a connection of Dabney Road. Dabney Road connects Maple Leaf. Right now, during the peak of a traffic in the morning, lunchtime, and in the evenings, usually you have to sit through three or four cycles to get through the light. So I would highly encourage LFU City Engineering to take a closer look how that light is performing, how it's going to perform when this development is built. Secondly, there are two regional detention basins proposed for the site. One of the regional basins drain into the Gulf Coast basin, and there's no outlet on that basin. There's a little eight inch pipe, and that flows into a 24 inch pipe right in between the houses. And that's a concern, because when you design a regional basin, you need to have emergency outflow. And at the end of the day, all you have is a 24 inch pipe. If the pipe cannot carry that capacity, it's going to flood our basements, essentially. I would request LFU City Engineering to do an elaborate drainage study, not only on the property itself, but also the basin on the Gulf Coast as well, to analyze the whole thing together. Thirdly, it would be good, I think as part of the proposed development, a park is shown at the back of the property. Just wondering if that could be left as a natural green space area, if the planning commission would consider that. That's all I have. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this application? If not, do we have any commissioner discussion items or questions? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion on the zone map amendment. Mr. Forster. We have two action items. Yes, that's my understanding. Is that correct? Mm-hm. So I'd like to make a motion for the approval of PLNMAR 26-2 based on the staff supplemental report. Thank you, Mr. Forster. And is, okay, all right. Yes, I see. Okay, and we have a second from Commissioner Nickel. Is there any discussion to that motion? Okay, seeing none, we will take that to a vote. And this is for the zoning map amendment. Okay, that carries unanimously. Okay, and then next, a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 26-12 based on the staff revised recommendations. And deleting the condition number seven. All right, Commissioner, do we have a second to that? Or, I'm sorry, Judy. Finish the thing and then I'll make it, I want to make a comment. Okay, do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Nickel, thank you. Okay, Judy. Just a comment to the gentleman who spoke last. In the process after this one today, you have people in the room from traffic and from water engineering. They've heard what you've said. So, it doesn't necessarily have to go into this motion, but somebody was listening to you. That's a very good point. Thank you, Judy. Okay, any discussion? Yes, Mr. McClure. I'm going to support this motion, but I would like to say, I do hope to see that waiver request. It would be nice to see. Thanks. Okay. If there's no further discussion on this motion, this is for the development plan. We will take a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, members of the public who spoke. Moving on to our next agenda item. That would be on page 9, 4184 Todd's LLC map amendment request. We have a zoning request and an accompanying development plan. Thank you. Jeremy Young for planning staff again. This is a request for, it's a split zone parcel. It is 2.33 net acres and roughly three-tenths of that are zoned EAR1 currently and the remaining two acres is zoned agricultural rural. Kind of an interesting parcel. It's a portion of it, the three-tenths of an acre was brought in in the 96 expansionary master plan. The remaining two acres was not. And subsequently in 2024, the adjacent property was brought in under the urban growth master plan. And this one is sort of lying in between those two. So, an interesting and difficult piece of property to develop. But the applicant is wanting to change the EAR1 portion to EAR2 and the agricultural rural part to an R4 to build 20 single family townhomes in an enhanced neighborhood in their medium density development site. And you can see here, it currently is adjacent to the urban service area. They're shown in red in the subsequent picture here. The little, I guess you'd call it the flag here, is the portion that is currently EAR1 and they're requesting EAR2 for it, and the remaining is zoned agricultural rural. The adjacent properties, they're in yellow, that's zoned EAR1, and the green is agricultural rural currently. And you can see here on the overhead, the Crossroads Church there with the large parking lot and then an adjacent multifamily development as well. And then this portion here, which you'll see on the upcoming slide, was brought in in 2024 inside the urban service area. And so this is from the 1996 expansionary master plan. You can see down there the box sort of highlighting the area that we're discussing for this proposal. As well as the most recent, the 2024 urban growth master plan, which shows quite a bit of property adjacent to that brought in to the urban service area to be developed. And as I mentioned, it's an enhanced neighborhood and the medium density residential development type and the R4 zoning are recommended in that place type. And initially, staff had a couple of concerns. One was with the lot size, a few of the lots exceeded the maximum size allowed for the R4 zone. The applicant has submitted a revised development plan that corrects that. And all the parcels shown on the most recent development plan do comply with the regulations. And we also ask for some more detail on how this development met the 1996 expansionary master plan. And they've submitted supplemental justifications that do to speak to those requirements. Staff recommends approval for the requested zone change. Feel that it meets the 1996 expansionary master plan by providing additional variety in housing in the area. It expands the network of interconnected residential uses. And also, the original plan suggests EAR1 in the area. We feel the change to EAR2 is warranted because it no longer is at the border of the urban service area. Due to the recent expansion in 2024. And we feel that it meets the goals and objectives. It will meet the increased demand for housing and variety of housing. It's going to increase the density on an underutilized parcel. Increase pedestrian connection between the existing development and the proposed future development of the recently added parcels to the urban service area. And then it will be in character with the adjacent properties and other developments in the area. And it meets the policies that it is increasing the residential density and still being sensitive to the context of the area. That should be, there's not a parking structure on this, so please disregard the parking structure that should say parking internally and internal parking areas. And it enhances walkability and bikeability of the area by locating those internally. And it does increase the housing options for this area. Many of the developments, especially on the other side of Todd's Road, are almost exclusively single family. So this does provide additional choices in this area. And it meets the development plan criteria that it increases the residential density in a relatively compact development. It's not, they're packing a lot in on a two acre parcel essentially, so it's an efficient use of this property. It does provide an additional connection that could be used for pedestrians to connect to the adjacent parcels once they do develop. It doesn't impact any environmentally sensitive areas. I think they're meeting the requirements for tree canopy. And pedestrian connectivity in the area as well. So it's not going to have any sort of negative environmental impacts. It's scaled to respect the neighboring properties, and it minimizes the contrast in scale to adjacent developments. And if you all have any questions on the zoning portion, I can answer those at this time. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions on the zone change question? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickle. Yeah, the logic of the change context makes sense. This is a question a little bit about the intersection of the preliminary plan with the zone change request. This, it seems, I mean, it's unusual to see, I guess, an R4 zone change request with a preliminary plan for townhomes. Was there some discussion on that, or? There was. I think there was a trying to blend the existing EAR zoning with the density that they were trying to achieve. It might be slightly less dense than what an R4 would suggest. But I think that the R4 zoning provided slightly different lot sizes and setbacks that helped facilitate this design. Thank you. Okay, any other questions on the zone change? Seeing none, thank you, Jeremy. Good afternoon. You will see revised conditions that we received revised plans on March 16th. So you'll see on a blue sheet, we have a list of revised conditions. This is MJDP 26-7 Crossroads Christian Church, lot three. Up here at the top, this will be your Todd's Road. And as Jeremy explained, this is the driveway that leads into the apartment complex adjacent to the property. They will be sharing the access point off of Todd's Road to come in to create their access into their plan layout for the 20 townhomes. With the revisions, what we have left is addition of street cross sections for proposed access easement across the development, provide an open space exhibit that includes open space for group residential and include space requirements in the site statistics. They have changed the idea of the layout, and now they have single family. They're proposing each townhome on its own lot, and then having a common open space throughout the rest of this. Therefore, the open space requirements have changed, so I believe we can delete that. Label the proposed access easement for the access of the townhome properties. Addition of missing information on adjacent property. The development plan that they have submitted has a lot of the information for the apartment complex missing, and we always like to carry all information forwards. Design considerations, comments for the Division of Engineering, the Garden Gate Estate pump station that they will most likely use as a private. Plan concerns, sanitary sewer taps for each lot, proposed storm water management area. Then it says discuss place builder criteria. That can be removed because we've already discussed it. The staff recommendations include the Urban County Council's approval of the zone change, engineering, traffic, urban forester, open space, and the Department of Environmental Quality. And then to meet all the requirements by meeting all the deficiencies listed above. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Ms. Galt. Do we have any questions on the development plan? Okay, thank you, Cheryl. After. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, good afternoon. My name is Wes Harned, I'm counsel for the applicant 4184 Todd's LLC. On the zone change request from EAR1 to EAR2 for that smaller portion. And then the AR2, R4 for the larger portion, as Mr. Young described. Also present with me in the chamber is Mr. Rory Caley of VA Partners, who can address. And I think will address a couple of items on the preliminary development plan that were included in the revised report. But I want to start by thanking the staff for the time and effort they put into this. This is a We met with the staff twice before we filed this application, and we had a good dialogue with them about how to most appropriately develop this somewhat unique but certainly underutilized parcel of land. And in particular, I want to thank them for the amended recommendation of approval of the zone change request. We agree with it. We think it's a good plan. We think it's a proposal that will add 20 housing units to this, again, underutilized piece of land. And it's certainly, we think, in agreement with the comprehensive plan and its goals and objectives. As Mr. Young stated, there were, in the original staff report, there was a recommendation of postponement, and that was, I think, based on three issues for discussion. We submitted the supplemental justification, and Mr. Young touched on each of those, but I think the main one was the community design element under the 1996 expansion area master plan. And we submitted supplemental information largely surrounding the varied housing type that this is going to offer in this general area. There's 91 apartment units next door to this. And across Todd's Road and down Polo Club, it's, I know all of you drive that probably from time to time, and it's largely single family detached residential. And this offers another, again, varied housing type for families in the community and attainable housing for those families. And Mr. Kaley will, I think, speak to the development plan items, but we did submit a revised plan that shows buildable lots that conform to the maximum lot size. And then we, I think we addressed the orientation of the building lots, but that was one of the issues. And I think based upon that supplementation, then we've got the recommendation of approval, which we agree with, and we thank, again, thank the staff for doing that. And we would request that you vote to approve the zone change request and also the preliminary development plan. I'll turn it over to Rory, Mr. Kaley, for him to address a few of those issues in the development plan. Good afternoon. Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. Really it was just item two on the revised staff report. As we discussed in these committees, the reason the open space plan portion of this was not a requirement is the type of development and the number of units. If you have single family lots, which these are individual lots for sale, and you have less than 25 of them, then you're not required to provide the common open space. If you're doing single family homes, then the vegetative open space and the usable open space are also not in the requirements. So I just wanted to let you know why number two was not needed. And I'll answer any questions you might have. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. I have a question. I'm somewhat curious. You all had an applicant. It says the applicant had a community engagement. It says that you met with the neighborhood and got feedback. What feedback did you get? We sent letters out to all the surrounding neighbors, and Crossroads Church was kind enough to let us have a room to hold that meeting. I was there, and representatives of the applicant, the landowner, were there. The only attendee was a representative of Crossroads Christian to understand what the plan was. And that was the only person who showed, and the only feedback we've received so far from those neighbors. Thank you. Mr. McClure. I just have a question on the orientation of the townhouses as they engage with Todd's Road. Typically on an urban street, when you would do it like a townhouse, we would see a connection to the public street or indication that the house faces the public street. I guess I'm wondering if there was dialogues. As Todd's Road essentially goes from a rural road to an urban street, there's no indication that those orient towards that. And so I just was wondering if you could speak to that. Yeah, the orientation is internal to the shared parking area. This is where the mailbox kiosk will be. This is where the trash receptacle will be. This is where the visitors will park. These units have no direct access to Todd's Road. Everything's coming off of an existing access easement shared with the apartment building. So in that facet, it's very much an interior development and site. And I think it will be orienting this this way is going to be better for the residents. Essentially, that's what we're after. Thank you. I have a follow-up sort of question for staff as we interpret that as well. I don't know if now's the time or I'll follow up on that. The only thing I'd add to that is, and it's really just a take on what Mr. Haley said, which is, you know, there's some certainly without access to Todd's Road and the only access we have, there's like with everything under the comprehensive plan, there's trade-offs and weighing different objectives and things you can and can't accomplish. And when we talk about sense of place and the place type and sense of community under the 96 expansionary master plan, I think what Mr. Haley was saying was, I agree with it, which is this is the way to create the community and the neighborhood for the people who are going to live there, as well as when their neighbors to the west in that apartment complex, the development that's intended to the east occurs and there's that, you know, the access and the open flow of neighbors through there. To us, that was the, as he said, the best orientation for those residents and creates that neighborhood that I think the 96 plan and the comprehensive plan are after. Sure. My follow-up, and this can be addressed later for staff, would just be, you know, the applicants, your logic makes sense for this lot. The question is how we as a community, if we sort of interpret this lot after lot this way, we'll end up developing out these streets that are all internal facing and so you'll go down the road as a whole and we won't have that sort of feeling that I think our goals call for in the comprehensive plan. And so I think the question that I'm asking is related to this development, but more broadly as we go into the expansion area and develop along these rural roads, are we going to leave them facing like backyard fences all the way down? Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Worth. Not a question. Just a comment. And now that I know that you are an arborist, I'm going to make a comment about the trees. I was looking at the tree inventory map and I'm seeing that .7 tenths of an acre is required canopy, one-tenth of an acre is required to remain, and six-tenths prepped. I have no idea what's there. It may be second growth. They may not be desirable trees. This is just a statement of request. If it's possible to retain more of those trees to the extent that they're desirable in a place where they can be preserved, that would be my request. All right. I just got to clarify, I'm not an arborist. Someone who's licensed that way would be offended. It's mostly scrub and pine trees that were used as the screening wands. Urban Forester will have to sign off on this. This is just an ongoing issue where we see plants and a lot of trees are cut and this is just a statement of druthers if we can do it. All right. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? If not, thank you very much. Do we have anyone wishing to speak on this item today? If not, the floor is open for commissioner comment, question, or a motion on the zone and then the development plan. I would like to hear staff's comment in regards to the orientation to the public street. Sorry, Robin. I jumped ahead. So, half of the townhouses that are shown on the plan have frontage on a public street and that's Todd's Road. The back half do not. The applicant is proposing that those be accessed and front onto a shared access easement. That's an approach that has been used for quite a while here in Lexington, especially for townhouses that are intended to be, I guess, sold for fee simple and has been accepted as a design solution to allow those to not have to have a public street. Typically there are a small number of townhouses. The implication there is that those townhouse owners are paying to maintain that space, whether it's a public street or an access easement. If it's a public street, they don't pay, but when it's an access easement, they do. So there's some cost associated with that long term beyond today. The Planning Commission does have to specifically act to acknowledge that a public street is not a good solution here and that an access easement can serve in lieu of a public street. I think in this case the situation where there's already an access easement into the apartments and they're sharing that because of access management to Todd's Road is probably a good reason to continue the access easement situation. I would say that along our corridors, I think the staff is in agreement that residential facing the corridor is positive as opposed to the backyards of housing. Not every single family home wants to face onto an arterial road, and that may be true for townhouses as well. Especially multifamily. So when we see multifamily, I think a lot of times it has two sides and both sides can sort of face the street and the parking lot at the same time without there really being a need to fence the right-of-way. I really think it is kind of a commission decision about that on a case-by-case basis. We push for residential to not have the back of the unit to the public street, but it happens quite often. Thank you for the clarification. I mean in regards to this application today with this lot and the existing connection and the lack of access to Todd's Road, I certainly understand and appreciate the logic of the reason that the orientation is being chosen here. I do think that it is one of those things where that logic will also apply to a lot of these other lots going down. And if we don't maybe discuss and clarify this as a commission, then we will end up with sort of all of these corridors developing out as potentially backyard. So I'm not necessarily, I don't personally need to request a change to this development today, but I do think that I would like to hear from staff further in regards to that criteria as we look at these expansion areas. So question to you, are you suggesting perhaps that this be added to a work session agenda? I think it could be, because I don't, and I don't think it necessarily would need to be a huge long presentation or a giant research project from staff, but I think I would like to hear maybe, or maybe get some guidance on how we could look at this as we get these applications in the future. Okay, I think that's a good suggestion, and we'll look at the calendar and see where that can fall. Do we have any other questions or comment? If not, the floor is open for a motion on the zone first. So Matt Mamet. Just one correction. Are you a landscape architect? And I am. Okay. All right. Okay. Sure. All right. Mr. Wilson. Okay. Mr. Chairman. I move for a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. I+. E. A. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Etc. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thanks very much. Amen. Is there a motion? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you gentlemen. Okay. Our next and final item on the agenda today is under commissioned items. We have a presentation from Mr. Bailey on Lexington's preservation and growth management program. Yes. Thank you very much for having me here today. In 2023, during the adoption of the goals and objectives, there were two elements that were added by the Urban County Council within the goals and objectives that required... Sorry to interrupt you, Hal. That's all right. Do we need to pause for two minutes? We just lost our quorum, so... I can stand here for as long as you need me to. There he is. Oh there he is. We needed a quorum. Thank you very much. So in 2023, with the adoption of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the Urban County Council required two dated elements for the division of planning, the planning commission, and the Urban County Council to complete. The first was the expansion of the urban service area. This was completed in 2024 with the adoption of the urban growth master plan. The second was outlined in Theme E, Goal 4, which was to develop a process to review the expansion or the modification of our urban service area periodically and to have it be a data-driven resource. So over the past year, the planning staff has been working under the direction of the Urban County Council to craft a ordinance that met all of the criteria. To this date, the staff and the planning commission and the Urban County Council have completed Objectives A through D. This leaves us with our last portion of this, which is to incorporate the Urban County Council input and adopt the process as an amendment to the elements of the comprehensive plan by August 1, 2026, and establish a mechanism to immediately implement the process. This presentation is a review of the ordinance that was adopted by the Council and will push us on to that next step of implementing the program or the Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program. This presentation will go over briefly the different sections of that, and then we will be able to take any questions that you might have. As to just reiterate why this process or program is very necessary, the comprehensive plan has long been marred in the conversation of should we or should we not expand our urban service area. Much of those conversations have not been focused on the specific data of whether or not we need land to meet our residential or commercial needs, but more associated with different perspectives of do we want to do this now or should we hold the line. By separating this out and creating a data-driven process, it allows for the comprehensive plan to breathe in a greater way, for us to describe the different elements of the comprehensive plan, like addressing the design of our community, the impacts of development on our environment, necessary urban facilities, and more, in a greater focused way. This also codifies a longstanding practice that has been done every time we expand our urban service area, but puts it into an ordinance so that future staff understand how and why we are reviewing the different materials that we are reviewing and the determinations that are made from the information and data resources. It also establishes a transparent data-driven approach, which is reflected in the Imagine Lexington Analytic Research Center. This is a website that we are currently adding information to and will be the basis of the Growth Trends Report, which will be key to any recommendation that the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council make about land use decisions. Finally, this does provide review by each level of decision makers within our community, making sure that we are getting public hearings at each of those stages and that we are involving public comment. This framework really falls into a five-step process with a six separated out. This is just the general flow of the entire program. It really does start with the five-year Growth Trends Report. The Growth Trends Report will be done the year following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. It will look at the specific residential need. We do have a calculation within the Growth Trends Report that is being called upon for vacant land and how that impacts the residential need within our community, as it is outlined on the right-hand side of your slide in front of you. From this Growth Trends Report, we will also be working with the Planning Commission to create policies to better utilize the land that we currently have in the urban service area and make sure that we are pushing progressive and new planning recommendations so that we can continue to maintain our urban service area so that we are socially, financially, and environmentally sustainable for our future. All those recommendations, despite whether there is a need or no need identified, will be forwarded to the Urban County Council for review. If there is no residential need identified, then the Urban County Council will review the policy recommendations and regulatory recommendations that the Planning Commission puts forth in the Growth Trends Report and implement different policies and regulatory changes so that, again, we are utilizing the land we have to the greatest extent possible. If there is a residential need identified, that is the first opportunity for the door to open for any modification of the urban service area, but does not require it. If there is a residential need, with all of the recommendations that the Planning Commission is making, the Council must review other policy and regulatory elements before considering an expansion or modification of the urban service area. If the urban service area is recommended for an expansion by the Urban County Council, it will follow up with a Planning Commission review of the vacant land that we currently have, specifically looking at those lands along the fringes of our urban service area to ask landowners and potential developers why those lands are not developing. It does allow for the removal of property along our edges if property owners are not interested in utilizing that for future development in the future. That land would be then added back into the residential need, and we would move forward to looking at the land applications or those applications for development for our urban fringes that would be included into our urban service area. This is very similar to a lot of the work that we did with our 2024 Urban Service Expansion. It is where individuals who are ready to develop, that have a plan to develop, would come to you, describe that, and then ultimately there would be a decision made on where our community would like to master plan for future residential land uses within our community. Then we get into the part in which we are very good at what we do, which is step five in the master planning process, which allows us to go ahead, plan out, do a fair amount of public outreach, make sure that we are trying to get the amount of residential density that our community needs to be both socially, fiscally, and environmentally sustainable, and then lead to future zone change processes. Outside of the residential need, there is a need to allow for review of transformative economic projects that might occur within our community. The special economic development need is a second process that would be reviewed by the Urban County Council or the Mayor. They would be able to bring this to the Urban County Council and say this is a project that could be transformative for our community. It necessitates a fair amount of review of what the type of development is, how they were trying to develop those sites, where the specific properties would be located, and then it would require a super majority of the Urban County Council to vote to move that forward. That would lead to a development plan review zone change process for the property, which would have the Planning Commission's review and input, and then ultimately lead to a modification of the urban service area with that process. Whenever we are looking at our urban service area, we are looking to make sure that it is done in a clear and transparent way. The Sustainable Growth Task Force and the Goal 4 Work Group all sought to get to a situation in which we were talking about a data-driven process by which we review our urban service area. However, those were only the most recent two reviews of this. This conversation has been going in full force since 1994. What the Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program represents is the first iteration of what this process would look like. It does not mean that it is the final iteration. I anticipate that as time goes on, with all of our ordinances, we will look to streamline those different processes and programs. Additionally, as we come to you for review of the Growth Trends Report, we will be adding information, making sure that data is the primary function, and ensuring that any policy recommendations that come out of our comprehensive plan and that are built on from the continual review of the Growth Trends Report are implementable and able to utilize the land that we have in the most responsible way possible. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. You do have the resolution proposed within Granicus right now, as well as some more information associated with the adopted ordinance by Council. Great. Thank you, Hal. Mr. Wilson, I haven't had a chance to review this as thoroughly as I should, but let me just get to the nut bolt here. Yes, sir. Who makes the final decision on this? The final decision of the… Urban. Expansion of the urban. I understand the process of gathering information, data, and all that. Who makes the final decision? If it's the final decision as to whether or not we grow or not, the Urban County Council makes that final decision. Where we grow, how we grow, the type of development that occurs, that is a master planning process and a land use process, and that is the Planning Commission. Okay. Now, in the past, have we, as a commission, have we made that decision? You did make that decision with the 2024 Urban Growth Master Plan to expand our urban service area. That identification of the land, the quantity, was what the Council called for. That was between the 2,500 and 5,000 acres. The Urban County Planning Commission went forward and identified the land, the type of land uses, and the location of all those properties, and that is what led to the expansion of the urban service area with the adoption of the Urban Growth Master Plan in 2024. Okay. But as I understand it, the Urban County Council makes the decision and we talk about the implementation. The Urban County Council makes the decision of the quantity. You make the decision of the location and the type of development. Okay. Quantity. In other words, they'll say we need to expand by 2,000 acres, but then they'll come back to us and say, you all determine what that is. Correct. Well, I don't mean to interrupt. Isn't there a, and I know this is in front of me, isn't there a part before even what Mr. Wilson is saying? That is correct. A recommendation. This is only in the case in which there is a residential need identified that it would open the door to any type of modification or expansion of the urban service area. So there is a potential stop gap, and that is what the community was asking for. That it would be a data-driven process that we're looking at the numbers and specifically finding when we have a lack of land for residential need over a 20-year period. That is when we would first open the door for the Urban County Council to make the determination of whether or not we expand. Okay. I guess what I was trying to point out, Hal, is that in Section 2, if we get data, it does begin with the Planning Commission. Correct. It always begins with the Planning Commission with the growth trends report and the analysis of the residential need that we have. And then that recommendation would then come from us to the Urban County Council, and then if they make a determination of expansion, it comes back to us. That is correct. And in that process, there's an appointment of a subcommittee. That's what we would call an interdisciplinary. All stakeholders have to be engaged, right? The subcommittee is really aiding the Planning Commission in their review of the different parcels and properties that are going to be reviewed from a vacant land and an application standpoint. But when we're looking at the choosing of the locations of the properties and the land properties, it is the Planning Commission. So I have a similar question for the special economic need identification. Would you walk us through what the council decides, what they then send to us, what our role is in what they've sent to us, what happens if we don't agree with the location that they've proposed? So associated with this is a zone change application. If you do not agree with the Urban County Council's recommendation of a certain land or a modification of the urban service area, it is the Planning Commission's opportunity to say no during that zone change process. I'm sorry. I didn't even think I had my phone with me today. Could you back up a little bit? No, that is all right. So if there is a special economic development need, either identified by the mayor or the Urban County Council, and that supermajority moves that forward with the zone change process, what would occur is that the Planning Commission would go ahead and review that zone change process and the associated development plan or the associated plan for that site. It would serve as almost a micro small area plan. You would review that and provide a recommendation, ultimately, that would go back to the Urban County Council, and they would make the final determination on that. This is somewhat different in the review of this, but there is a heightened scrutiny for when this would go through, specifically with the supermajority that would need to pass this along and identify that a zone change would be appropriate for this location. Okay. And I'm just thinking of hypotheticals, and in particular, things like if the recommendation came from the ARs to do something in the AR zone, and ensuring that somebody, whether it's the Rural Land Management Board or other organizations that represent the surrounding areas, would have some say in reacting to that proposal. I believe there is a required public hearing associated with that. There would be public review of the application as it was coming through, and there would have to be an action by Council. So you would be seeing that the public would be notified of it. They would be informed of what the Council was looking at, and again, you would be reliant on the supermajority of that Council to pass it through. It would give ample opportunity for the public to engage with their Council members and tell them how they are feeling. Okay. I mentioned the rural area. I can't imagine that that kind of proposal would go into a residential area. Not that I don't care about them either, but it seems like it's more likely to go into the AR zone. This program is specifically set up for areas outside of the urban service area. So while there are areas outside the urban service area that are zoned, residential, or commercial, this would likely be impacting more agricultural rural areas. Okay. Okay. Do we have any other questions? Mr. Bickler. Hey, Hal. How's it going? Well, as you know, I'm not a huge fan of the formula that you have included in here. And I want to just share my continuing reservations because I think that if this formula and this proposal is left on the books for a long time in Lexington, it will cause us to drift further from our goals and not closer to our goals. And what comes to mind is another data-driven approach that we implemented here in Lexington decades ago, which was parking minimums. We took data from a professional organization that surveyed parking lots and looked at how many people were parking and took square footage and looked and took parking by square footage. And we said, well, let's use this and that way we'll ensure that we have enough parking here in Lexington. Well, it took a couple of decades before we realized that was a mistake. And then it took decades more before we actually were able to get it off the books. In the meantime, we have places all over town that could be housing, that could be businesses, that could be walkable neighborhoods. Instead, we have parking lots. So now, instead of looking forward and developing a formula that ties into a city we want to build, we design this need formula around the past, what we've been building, what the census dwelling units in our city show. And as we are developing comprehensive plans for the future and identifying a data-driven approach, instead of looking to the future, we look back. And when we did that with parking, the damage was not obvious quickly. The damage to using bad data and data that wasn't oriented around what we want the future of our city to look like took decades to really materialize and how badly it hurt Lexington. And I think that if this formula is left on the books as an ordinance in our city, it will badly hurt Lexington. And I know that we just expanded the area enough that this formula isn't going to engage or show a need right away. But as we look decades into the future, I think we're making the same mistake we made with parking minimums with designing this formula on current and past data. And ladies and gentlemen, I would just say that as we move forward, any type of concerns about the data that we utilize, the wonderful part of this compared to what was done with parking in the past, which was implementation into the zoning ordinance, is that you will have first review with the comprehensive plan and then have a follow-up with the growth trends report. If you see data that you would like added, if you see information that we should be analyzing, these are all things that we could review with you all during your work sessions, get it on to the analytic research center, and make sure that it is reflected in our growth trends report, which will be coming up here soon. All right. Mr. Nickel. Mr. Bailey, thank you for that presentation. I think that a data-driven approach is the exact way that we need to proceed. And the reason we do need to put together or adopt this preservation and growth management program and formalize it now is because what we saw in 2024, when we went through our expansion process, we were told, ordered by the council, to develop a certain number of acres. I believe it was 2,800, is that correct? That was the final number of 2,840. 2,800. What was the minimum that was required? 2,500. No, 2,700. It was 2,800. Sorry, 2,700. 2,700. Over 3,000, right? There was a range. Yes. 2,700 to 5,000. Okay. Wonderful. And we, you know, worked it out, and the decision was to get as close to the minimum as possible. One of the things that did occur is when that decision was made, we did some horse trading right here. And while we were making the vote, there was some horse trading that went on in order to minimize the expansion to the greatest possibility, to try to get as close to the minimum as we can without going over. And also, what we saw was that we included the blue sky development area, which was already a developed piece of property, roughly 300 acres, and we decided to include that into our expansion, which effectively reduced the total number of usable acres by the amount that was present and already developed with the blue sky. So I think that this is a great opportunity. So if we do get in this situation again, I probably won't be here. But when the decision is made and we end up in a horse trading scenario, we have the ability to remedy that situation by making land available for our community's needs. So I appreciate it, and thank you for your effort. I am going to make a comment regarding Mr. Nichols, and then back to Mr. Nichols. Part of that conversation had not to do just with horse trading. It had to do with data we had seen about how many undeveloped acres still remained from the last urban expansion, and that part of the decision, at least in my thinking and some other people's thinking, was that to expand too rapidly means we're going to ignore what's within the urban services boundary. So that was also a factor to be considered there. That said, I appreciate what you're saying. With Mr. Michler, are you somewhat satisfied with the response you got from Mr. Bailey about looking at projections and future trend reports and factoring in other things beyond just the formula? No, most definitely not, but I kind of already said my piece. Okay. Do you have an alternative to propose? I wanted to be slightly clear on this. This is an adopted ordinance. We are looking to adopt this from the ordinance. We can't modify it. What we can do is, as we develop the growth trends report, incorporate all the policy recommendations from the comprehensive plan and the guidance that the Planning Commission provides to us, as well as the policy recommendations at that time. Mr. Michler. And then Mr. Wilson. I was going to clarify. The reason that I wasn't satisfied, just to be clear, is that what Mr. Bailey is saying is that they're going to provide good information as part of the context for what this bad formula spits out. And we see that here all the time. We see that with the traffic impact reports, where this bad formula, where pedestrians are literally an obstacle, that's how it treats them, spits out Cs and Ds, and sometimes Fs, in areas we actually want to see more development. And they add context and say, oh, please ignore this bad data. We kind of saw one of those impact statements today, and that's why there's all that preamble around it. I can appreciate that staff, and I trust that staff will do that, when to give this result better context. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't do that or that that wouldn't be a good thing. But I can't support putting another formula that is not something that is based on our future objectives. That's not something that fundamentally, I guess what I'm saying is, we still are seeing the damage from those parking requirements, because people are still using them, even though we've provided context and removed them. And I think we're going down that path again with this. Mine is simple. I'd like to know if I get a copy of that process as such. I'm often reminded, this reminds me of someone who says, I want a child, and the next thing you know, you've got twins. We got the accountability, and then we've got the final decision is going to be wrestled with politicians. That bothers me more than anything. Now, I know that the lever on that would be their constituents. But that's not actually true. The lever on it is who's in the power structure, and that bothers me a little bit. At least you've got people who are not necessarily aligned with any particular political arena as such. But, with all that said, we've been discussing about accountability and transparency, and that was a big issue the last time, and I think you all have done a good job of giving us a foundation. And I think that's the first child we got, but the second child is the one that I'm still struggling with a little bit. But I appreciate everything that you've done here. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. McClure, do we have any further comment, or the floor is certainly open for a motion. And what we are doing today is passing a resolution adopting what council codified in the ordinance. We are adopting it into and as part of the comprehensive plan. And when someone is ready for a motion, I have been provided some handy suggested text. Just to clarify, our options here are voted up or voted down, right? This is an unusual circumstance because you've been directed by the comprehensive plan for this process to be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. So the process has now been identified and codified into ordinance, so I would hope your vote wouldn't be to vote it down because I'm not sure what that would look like in terms of what has been directed under the comprehensive plan. And that's been in place since 2023. It was part of the comprehensive plan adopted and the goals and objectives adopted by council that this process was going to be adopted into the comprehensive plan by the planning commission by no later than August 1st of this year, so. I understand what you're saying, Robin, and I largely agree with you. On the other hand, I'm thinking this may not be the perfect ordinance. It's got to be better than what we've gone through in the past when we got to this decision. And the other question I want to ask, and we've had this discussion before, but I want to ask it in this context. You all looked at either municipalities or regents who adopted ordinances like these. Are we going down a pathway that's similar to some places that have had success? We are starting down the pathway, I will say that. Other communities have statewide agencies or a heck of a lot more investment or history involved in this. This is the first step that Lexington has taken ever to codify a process associated with this. And to the perspective of what we want to see in the future, that definitely should be discussed during the comprehensive plan when we're talking about the types of developments that our community would like to see and should be reflected in the growth trends report going forward. Okay. If there's no other comment or questions for Hal or anybody else, if someone would like to make a motion, can we pass this down to Mr. Nickel, please? It says here, do not vote. That's what I'm looking for. Thank you. I move to adopt the resolution to add Lexington's Preservation and Growth Management Program, LPGMP, as an addendum to 2023 Comprehensive Plan, Imagine Lexington 2045. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Do we have any discussion on that motion? Okay. Seeing none, we will take that to a vote to adopt this as part of our comprehensive plan. And I was going to say, Mr. Forrester, I need your vote. But that carries with one negative and one, well, just one negative. Mr. Forrester. Okay. Before we finish up, do we have any more Commissioner items? If not, we will hear from Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll see you all again on Thursday, April 2nd, at Committees 830 Subdivision, 130 Zoning in the Phoenix Building. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Jim. And without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.