Oh, yep. Okay. So I'm just here for a very brief update and to ask if you have any questions in advance of the public hearing on this item next Thursday on the 22nd. Yes. So we went through in detail. I didn't want to print copies of these again because I think we distributed them both at the work session last month and then hopefully at the committee meeting earlier this month. Chris Taylor handled that for me. I understand he walked through the staff report and just sort of an overview of the changes that are entailed in this subdivision regulation amendment. At the work session, we walked through them a bit more page by page before. Just sort of as a reminder, there is an impact to all of the articles of the subdivision regulations in order to bring them into compliance with the Complete Streets Design Manual as well as the Urban Growth Master Plan. So Daniel's handling the zoning items from the master plan and the SRA handles the things that relate more to subdivision development. So in all, the goal was to modernize, simplify, clarify them in a bit more detail. It does talk through different changes or addresses pedestrian access easements, block standards, street types and typical cross sections, dead end streets and cul-de-sacs, stub streets and street improvement requirements, when different aspects of the street are expected to be completed per the development. And it also updates our intersection spacing and driveway access standards as well as adds traffic calming features as a requirement and some details were updated for street trees as well, requiring them on all of our streets and all of our land use contexts. So I just really wanted to provide an opportunity to answer any questions that you might have, either here today or afterwards, you can also email me. Any questions? The traffic calming, is that going to be as a recommendation of the development plan? How is that going to be formulated? So we have required on streets where we have on-street parking, which is typical, that we provide what we're calling what is called like a choker or a bump out every 250 to 300 feet. So anytime we do a retroactive traffic calming treatment, that's the spacing of the treatments to maintain the speeds. So these are horizontal, not vertical, changes to the pavement width to more visually narrow the road and to sort of nest the parking so that it doesn't look quite as wide, which leads to speeding. So we have traffic circles at intersections, we also have bulb-out intersections where we have stop controls, which also narrow, visually narrow the road, and then we have those periodic chokers. If our current block standard is 1,000 feet, although we have changed that a bit with the block perimeter, that means you'd have to have three located along the mid-block of that 1,000-foot street as part of the street construction. But you can park on both sides? Well, you can park on both sides if you provide a full width. Yeah, 34 feet is the standard for parking on both sides, but only in high-intensity uses where we expect a lot of on-street parking. So next to multifamily, next to mixed-use and commercial developments, that's where we see the highest occupancy of parking. Whereas if we expect a lower occupancy of parking in things like single-family, they'll limit that to just one side of the street, and that's a 27-foot cross-section, which mimics much like what we already have today. That can change from side to side if the parking demand changes along the street or if you want to create more of a sort of chicane-like effect to calm traffic further. I'll follow up on that and see if anybody else has anything. Just following up on one aspect of that, when you're doing retrofits on a street, there's a number of examples. You know, I'm most familiar with the one that we did behind our cafe on High Street. And it came up early in the discussions, you know, with those sort of chokers and bulb outs, that that would be best practice. It was the opinion of myself, the council members, and other people in the neighborhood that we wanted to do it now rather than when those funds for that sort of complete overhaul might be available. You know, I'd want to just make sure that we don't. There was sort of similar test cases in other instances. I think Manchester Street, excuse me. I want to be just, could you speak to maybe the ability to come in and do retrofits that don't meet these standards, at least initially? Or is that, then would that be off the table? Well, so the manual itself, the engineering manual, applies to not just new development, but anything that the city does as well. So it's kind of their guide for any type of either traffic calming intervention or just a full street rebuild. I think what you're referring to is something we call quick builds or demonstration projects where there's been an identified need. We want to act quickly and not wait for, you know, the funding to come along and full design plans and all that. So we are sort of expanding, working to expand that program right now. That's with our traffic engineering department and the complete streets coordinator that's in the mayor's office. We see value in that. It also gives us a chance to do some sort of before and after observations and evaluations to see, did the intervention actually do what we hoped that it would do? Like in High Street, I think it slowed speeds by four or five miles per hour. And in the world of transportation planning, that's actually pretty good. And it can have some very real impacts on survivability if somebody were hit by a car, for example. I'm not sure fully the nature of the question, but other than to say we are sort of... Would that project be more difficult to implement because it now doesn't meet the complete street guidelines? No. And the manual explicitly says the goal is always for incremental improvements. If you can't do... And honestly, except for new builds, we're probably not going to get the absolute ideal width for every single element of the street in an existing situation. What the complete streets manual and the Vision Zero and all that sort of puts forward is the idea that we have to really weigh those different considerations together and come up with the best solution that we think is the safest for all people who use the street. Thank you. That's the question. Okay. On Maxwell, where we're putting those student apartment houses, are we going to be able to go in and do something about parking there? Are we going to do anything about street calming? I mean, you're going to have... Not all the cars are going to be able to park off-street. I'm not sure if there's a specific plan or if it's been identified what the problem would be. I think anywhere we can do pinch points along a full row of parked cars, that's always good. And it also brings the pedestrians out to the street, so they're more easily seen by drivers coming by if they'd like to cross the street. I think there is... I'm not sure if I know the pedestrian crossing there maybe at Stone Ave. I don't want to talk about the one case that's going on right now, but I will say whenever you all have looked at the zone change applications, you've talked about the on-street parking, pedestrian activity, things like that. And I think that the complete streets manual and the subdivision regulations that we're pushing forward right now support a lot of the things that you all have been asking for to better the right-of-way. That's where I would go. Yeah. Well, I will make this one comment, even though I don't expect it to make it in the manual. But I have in other places and even here sometimes seen really great examples where alleyways are gravel. Because there's such low traffic, they end up greening up and becoming additional green space, often just with sort of tire tracks down them. And as we look to build more alleyways in new developments, especially since these alleyways are even wider than traditional ones, I do think that in this application, our aversion to gravel on roadways is misplaced and that it's an opportunity to allow more green, whereas otherwise likely just going to be pavement. I hear you. I did want to make one point regarding the alley width. So our typical alley width, as long as the property that it's serving also fronts a public street, the width of that alley can be 12 feet wide. That's our recommended minimum. If that alley, and there's a plan before you right now that is designed like this, if that alley serves as the only access to that property because the property fronts a green space or a greenway trail or something different than a public street, we do require it to be 20 feet wide because of fire and emergency access. And that was something we worked through with the fire department. They were concerned about alleys and how they would be able to navigate around them. And we did come to sort of a meeting of the minds as to letting us do a narrower section when we know we have good access at the street and a wider section where they really need it. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. I will see you next Thursday. Okay. All right. Next we'll have Daniel. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crump, Planning Staff. Let me get the mic right. All right. Very similar to Kenzie's front, for the UGMP, this is slated to move forward next Thursday. You all have the staff initiation text that we have been presenting over the past couple of months. And so really want to just take this opportunity to, I guess, answer any questions. I know we had previously during zoning committee, there had been some comments about the concurrency aspect. I mean, if that needs some tweaks or changes, I've been in communication with Commissioner Michler about some tweaks that could be made kind of on that aspect, but otherwise have not heard really any kind of larger feedback. So just wanted to take this opportunity to, if there were any outstanding questions, I know we will be also for the public hearing itself, generating some graphics that was requested by Commissioner Molly Davis about kind of what some of these things kind of look like when they're actually applied to help kind of get a better visual, I guess, you would say for that language. Still working on getting those, but those would be incorporated into the presentation next Thursday. So once again, just wanted to take this opportunity, if there was any discussion about anything that's in that text, concerns, questions, things for staff to look at. Or as always, if there's tweaks that you'd like made, feel free to reach out to the staff with kind of how to implement that into language. Anybody have any questions? Well, just about the concurrency, I think what I was trying to say at zoning and I tried giving you a call back. I'm not sure if you got my message, but we, you know, what you said in your email did not address that in my mind. I do think that making the required area larger, but still allowing it to be residential essentially doesn't address concurrency. In my opinion, I do think especially as a lot of our areas are disconnected from our city, especially on the other side of the interstate, for example, you know, this plan, so centered around this idea of these village and town centers doesn't mean much if there's not a single commercial use in the entire development. And, you know, we discussed this as part of the urban growth master plan and we listened to the developers and really scaled back that concurrency requirement all the way down to 4,000 square foot, which is basically one restaurant. And I feel like that's my final line. I don't feel like I can, I don't feel like I can support reducing it to where we say you don't even have to put one restaurant in this entire expansion area. That's kind of my two cents there. I'm not sure I understand the concept of putting residential and then down the road, tearing the residential out and putting commercial. I don't understand the need for that. You can point to the Lex over there on South Broadway. Yeah, they operate for two or three years and then the commercial worked its way in. If they'd had to take the first floor living quarters out and then put in commercial, I don't think you're going to get the commercial. Number one, it's plum difference. Number two, it's electric difference. And when you put that in, taking that out to put commercially in is going to create more problems than it's worth. So if the idea is to eventually get commercial there, why would you put residential in with the hope they'd take it out? Yeah, yeah. I think the concurrency requirements were sort of trying to meet that kind of essentially halfway. As you noted, there are, you know, even doing the retail ready units, basically the general size of a commercial or a very small commercial piece. But you're right that there's demolition, remodel utility kind of considerations with that. Essentially I think the idea on those units would be they would be rentals up and to the point that a market develops that could sustain, okay, it's worth to us to go in there, not renew those leases, make those changes and get a ground level tenant there. But once again, what we're hearing kind of from the commission so far is there would be a preference at this point, you know, to either create a portion of that or all of that that would need to be satisfied by pure commercial uses. So there's a couple of different ways to kind of address this. You could essentially say, no, we don't, you know, after consideration, we don't want to implement this retail ready and we want that 4,000 or whatever that number is. If you all think it should be higher, greater for those areas to be implemented without that concept is, is absolutely a valid path to take. We could say we could take the approach, which I tried to communicate in the email earlier that only a portion of those could be retail ready or, you know, kind of there's a lot of flexibility with how this sort of gets implemented, but they, the kind of clear voice from the commission during the master plan was we wanted to make sure that we do have that commercial in the areas. But what we're hearing now is that sort of, we don't want to give as much flexibility or we don't think that that providing that flexibility is going to be beneficial longterm because it may be difficult to meaningfully re implement commercial once that residential is in. Well, I'm concerned about these properties don't stay in the same ownership. So if it's mainly going to be residential, whether it's student or otherwise market rate or a student is more than the market rate, but let's just say it is. What is going to be the impetus if they sell that and put it in a read or whatever to put more money in that to tear those out and put commercial in there? It's going to be hard enough to rent it even if it's sitting there empty than it is. If you got to do the demolition and come back in and then rented somebody for a residential, it's just a step that if you want basically want commercial there, why would you do that? Mike, please. If you listening to all this, I'm thinking back to when we were looking at the dinner, Sanderson's property, the ED zone and the conversations we had. And I was not on the planning commission when Costco went in and housing that was supposed to be developed. The whole understandings about what was going to happen out there didn't happen. Is that right? So I guess my concern is if, if we are really trying to gun it, if we're really going to try to develop the villages and the, that we talked about, if we are getting afraid and backing off too quickly, are we just going to create car center development? We are in the reality. Is that what we're doing? Yeah. Once again, the master plan calls for these, these village and town centers to be the areas where that neighborhood serving businesses. So you're getting folks that are walking, cycling, you know, having their needs met in the immediate community. Once again, the whole concept of concurrency largely is in reaction to some of the, the missteps, I guess from the 96 plan and how that got implemented with, with respect to creating sort of these shell developments that necessarily we're never going to get built out. So the concurrency language at large, I think is designed to prevent that really. I think what we're talking about here is how much of that commercial do you all meaningfully want to kind of be required and to be established before we kind of have the release valve of letting all of the residential then come in. Cause that's sort of the, the sort of leverage if you will, to make sure that we get those, those mixed use communities is, you know, whatever the, the concurrency requirements end up being there. So yes, what we're hearing here is that there's more comfort in not applying the retail ready or using that as a way to meet that required commercial component. And if there's any thoughts on if the, once again, that that bar is currently set and it was matching what was implemented with the UGMP at 4,000 square feet. If there's a desire to tweak that number as well, that's once again, well within your all's purview. My first year on a planning commission, I'd sit next to a guy named Lyle Aiken and he's the guy that designed Hamburg, the whole concept of commercial. And I didn't know he did. And so one of my questions when I was drinking out of the fire hose was, did you really design something that you got to get in your car and go from one section to the other? And I said, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And he said, yes, I'm the architect on the whole thing. Well, excuse me. I didn't mean to go there, but the point is, we don't want to repeat that. So, and I don't think we are with this, but fewer, more and more people don't want to drive very far. Do what the commercial, I'm astonished at the people that buy groceries at the quick pick. You know, any of those gas stations, because it's just ridiculous what that stuff costs. But they either don't have the means, or the gas is too expensive, or something, and they're just trying to, you know, fill the void. So, I, I firmly believe that you don't, you don't set up a situation where somebody has to tear something down in order to get what you want. I'd rather stay empty for a couple of years, if the place fills up and the need comes in, then the market will take care of it. Sorry, spider. Well, I was just curious. I was thinking about the comments that have been made around the table. I philosophically have always agreed with the walkability, the, you know, trying to get people in the school systems have had this issue on the table a long, long time ago, as it relates to getting kids to schools. The optimal way is to give people a chance to walk to school. Practically speaking, that ain't possible. You know, it's just not reasonable to think. In fact, 90% of the kids have to ride some kind of bus, whether it's a school bus or a city bus or a van of some kind to get to school. I sort of see some of this as being a part here a little bit. I like the idea, but that that ticklish balance is something we're going to always have to struggle with. That's all. Mr. can I just add one thing to your point of the practical ability to walk to school or to provide enough people that they would take a little bit of the onus off of the bus system. I think that what we've experienced and what we're trying not to do with the urban growth master plan is to not have enough density or diversity of housing type that there isn't an opportunity for a school to be built and be servicing a larger amount of population where people are. Our development pattern from the 1950s onward was really focused on the single family household that was separated in a more suburbanized that force people to get in their cars, much like we're talking about and what we are envisioning with the urban growth master plan. And a lot of the things that we put into the comprehensive plan over the past several years is a focus on trying to be a little bit denser, a little bit more diverse in our housing types to allow for the amount of population that could walk to those schools and then working with the schools to fit a more urbanized kind of context. And the schools have been interested in trying to do some of those things, but I, that's a plug for a long range planning side of things as well as some of the things that you'll hear over the next couple of years with zone changes, things like that. But a need to continue to think about, well, if we want to allow for walkable communities and things like that, how are we integrating residential and the commercial commercial into residential? And the master plan did present this as an opportunity to tie in some commercial where the plan was almost exclusively residential in nature, because that was what the council told us to work on. So I think we are as, and what you're hearing from Daniel, we're willing to work with you all on some changes that you might want to incorporate to add more of a commercial side of things, but definitely from the residential and some of the community facilities that we put into this plan, the density is there to allow people to walk to places more often. I'm going to hit. Well, I think just to be clear. I think that in this case, well, correct me if I'm wrong here, but in this case, the urban growth master plan really had two separate concepts. One concept was this idea that of concurrency, and that ended up getting set at this 4,000 square feet. And then the other idea was that these buildings in the town center would be built with the ground floor is retail ready. And so I guess what, when this came forward, what surprised me is that that got conflated with the, is that that got conflated together. And I guess, you know, what I would basically be, you know, one approach I think we, we could take would just be to leave them separate. So that the ground floors in the town centers are retail ready, but we have a requirement after so many units are built a 4,000 square foot of commercial regardless. I did have one other item that I wanted to bring up cause we discussed this in the zoning committee and I wouldn't would like you to maybe just touch on it again, but you sort of brought up at the zoning committee, this idea of standardizing the buffers around the urban service area to make the areas in the urban growth master plan match. And that we discussed, does that mean we go back to the urban growth master plan or does the urban growth master plan just have a different recommended buffer than the zoning ordinance? And I was wondering if you could sort of speak to this group on that and, and you're all thoughts on that. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really good point and I think that's a really good point. And I was wondering if you could sort of speak to this group on that and, and you're all thoughts on that. Yeah. So this is, this is an interesting process because it's got kind of three core different pieces kind of moving in concert. You've got what's going into the zoning ordinance to the text amendment in front of you, the pieces of the subdivision regulations that are then being implemented by Kenzie or through that process. And then once again, that outstanding master plan. So as far as staff is, has sort of constructed this, the subdivision amendments and the zoning ordinance text amendments are what we're going through now. It's sort of a discussion, a chance to tweak and modify based on the outcoming, you know, sort of the outcomes and the projected language that, that you all as a body are most kind of comfortable with actually implementing. We will use that as we kind of reflect. And we do anticipate revisiting the urban growth master plan through a process. Once again, involved with you all to make sure to kind of clean up any inconsistencies that pop up. So for instance, the, if there is a change to that buffer, that's something that we would kind of come in on the backend and tweak and kind of clean up in the plan as needed to make sure that there's not any conflicts moving forward where the applicant is being told by the plan to do one thing and the zoning ordinance, the kind of actual adopted rules that they have to meet telling them to do opposite. So the scope of that is going to be determined by the kind of changes that you all make here. And then we will kind of keep you all abreast of how to kind of, how those processes are going to move forward. But, but just to be clear, this is not a, let's open the master plan up kind of in full. We are still trying to keep that same focus, those same intents, just kind of removing some of those inconsistencies to make sure that all the documents are kind of cohesive together. So specifically, and correct me if my numbers are wrong, because they probably are off a little bit, but the urban growth master plan called for a 100 foot buffer between the area outside the urban service area and the new expansion area. And our existing subdivision regulation had like a 20 foot buffer and we're calling for it to be 25 feet along the whole boundary. Is that correct? So we would be. We would be. Basically keeping the buffer the same where it's not the urban growth areas and reducing the buffer where it is the urban growth areas. So there's, there's a couple of different pieces here that are interplayed the effectively due to basically the provisions of the required landscape buffers, but also the requirement in the zoning ordinance to match more intense buffers where they exist. Even though the, the current ordinance lays out, you know, based on the context, either a 15 foot buffer or something to that effect, it always in effect had to be 25 feet because when you're joining an ag zone, that's the side yard that you had to do. So essentially what this text would do is bring all those numbers together and hey, it really in effect has always been 25. We need to kind of stop confusing folks about how far those buffers need to be. So that being the cohesive across the board, look at kind of how we should treat the urban service boundary that would, once again, so you would be looking at a change from the full 100 recommended by the plan as that buffer to a 25 foot, which has sort of been the practical consideration for current development for some time now. I'm just concerned about the fencing requirements. I am the buffer because 25 feet, if depending on what the other use is, have you changed the, the fencing requirements? This, this is strictly looking at the width, the widths involved. So that would just bring the 15 feet to 25 feet, not changing any of the required landscaping or the plantings or the fence requirements. It would just make those, those buffers a little bit larger. Well, you need to go out there and look where a mill ridge joins on to the subdivisions. Look at the fence, look at the barber on top and look how high it is. And the reason for that is yard waste. Because people on the other side of that want to get rid of the yard waste and throw it over the fence. Well, that puts it in the field with the animals. So before you talk about 25 feet, 100 feet, I understand that. I mean, that's just wasted land. You got to mow. And what happens is trees grow up and it just becomes a mess. But the key to that is you've got to decide what the use is on the other side and prevent people from doing it. They'll take a pitchfork and just throw it over. Well, I mean, molded grass is a death fire for a horse. They eat molded grass, they're going to die. Because their gut won't handle it. They're not like cattle, they got three stomachs. They just got one stomach. What goes in has to come out the back door. So maybe that's a little too crude for Mr. Wilson, but it's the truth. So it depends on the use as to how you handle that. And with the expansion we've got, there's a whole lot of land out there that's raised animals, not crops. Especially, you know, I'd say majority of it is. So we need to think about that because we don't want to do waivers and, you know, exemptions and fight over all that. Just consider what's, what it buffers. Okay. Do we have any other questions? All right. Thank you, Dan. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dan. Okay. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon. I have gotten out of the habit because Daniel says his name all the time, but I'm Tracy Wade. So just in case you forgot, I've been here 20 years, so hopefully not, but, ah, who did this? Daniel, did you do that? No. I have arthritis. It's at a happy medium now. Okay. What I handed out was our draft meeting and filing schedule, so this includes everything that is coming to the planning commission in terms of subdivision plans, development plans, those are at the top, zoning items, so those are zone changes and text amendments, and then we do have a separate section for ND1 overlays, which are fairly infrequent, and then at the bottom are commission work sessions. So this lays out your schedule for 2027, and just a note, we're continuing to meet on Thursdays at 1.30 for most of our meetings, and then the locations and everything are in the back here, including what abbreviations mean at the bottom, so DPO is Division of Planning Office, CC, Council Chambers, and PB is Phoenix Building. There really aren't any changes from last year in terms of how we're going to continue to proceed in terms of meeting. We meet, again, in the public realm twice a month in the Council Chambers and then in this room twice a month, one for committees and one for work sessions. On our months where we have five Thursdays, we'll continue to schedule a work session on that fifth Thursday, and I think that looks like there's three times that happens in 2027, April, July, and September, and then in November, December, we never meet on the fourth Thursday of the month, so those get bumped a week, and we miss out on work sessions in November and December, so I just want you to have that, and we'll have it on the agenda next week for approval. Let me know if you have any questions. My idea this year was working with strategic and outreach to create a more graphic version of this that we can share on our website with the public that looks a little bit more like a calendar as opposed to just a stream of consciousness, like this is just all a bunch of numbers and letters for most people that has more of an actual calendar look to it, so we'll share that when that's ready. Yes, and it would include not just Planning Commission meetings, but also the Board of Adjustment meeting on there, so again, more of a full picture and potentially even historic preservation items, too, since they're part of our department now. Okay. That will be great. Thank you. Okay. Any questions? All right. Place builder. Okay, and I'll say my name, Hal Bailey. Daniel's got it right. He's doing it the right way. He's supposed to be doing that. Hal Bailey, Manager of the Long Range. So over the past nine years, we have been essentially utilizing the place builder as our primary document for implementing the comp plan during zone changes. During that time, I will say that the staff has changed significantly. When I first came here, I was a heck of a lot younger, a lot less gray hair, and in a vastly different position, but it was when we were first trying to implement this. We have a significant amount of new team members that you hear from either weekly or monthly, but one of the things that we wanted to ensure was that you had the greatest amount of information possible, not only from the week-to-week support that you get from planning services, but a little bit more training from the long-range side as well. As we talk about these different elements of the comprehensive plan and bring them up, we also know that a refresher is not a bad thing when we go through this as well, and I'll also say that with our newest staff, when we did this training initially, it was done with the people that wrote the place builder, the people that worked with you as the planning commission to come up with the ideas that led to this element of our comprehensive plan that was meant to guide change within our community. The people that wrote that, many of them have retired or may be elected to office sometime soon or have been doing some other things, but this gave us a good opportunity to work with our current staff to generate a brand new presentation and work through how we would talk to the public about this in 2026 and 2027 as we move forward. So we wanted to bring this to you just to not only give you a refresher, but to go over some of the new content that we'll be presenting in the future to members of the public. So this is the place builder from policy to place. Now that's always a really important thing to highlight is policy, because we as a community made some decisions about how we wanted to talk about zone changes in our community and how we wanted to talk about growth and change. So by the end of this presentation, we are really hoping that, and I know that you should be able to do many of these things, but maybe enlighten you a little bit more on some of them. You should be able to talk about the place builder as to how you can explain it. What is the place builder? Why are we in Lexington doing something a little bit different in how we utilize it? And what is it not? A lot of the conversation that we hit with the place builder is, well, it's telling me that I have to do this or I have to do that, and that's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to guide change, have a conversation. Then you should be able to navigate through it, through the site context of where development is occurring, place type, development type, the criteria, and then ultimately the zone that we get to. And then applying it when we're evaluating those proposals, when we are looking at what should apply at certain locations, and then explain how the proposal responds to our comprehensive plan in a fullness of the actual document. This is meant to be a shared language for everyone to utilize. When we talk about zone changes, you are hearing not only from us, but from the land use attorneys or the applicants that are submitting applications, from the public, and then from other special interests, things like that. We should be using the same language to come to the same determination when we look at our comprehensive plan. So this is meant to guide that discussion and give people the same kind of language to utilize so that you can make the best decisions possible. The traditional perspective of land use changes within a comprehensive plan really does fall into a land use map, a color shown on a map that tells you what something should be in the future. We as a community shifted that. We made a real decision that was supposed to be not about the color on a map or a decision that we make every five years, but a discussion of the specific context of that area and then the policies that are rooted throughout the comprehensive plan. It is meant to utilize development criteria, which are those distillation of the policies and goals and objectives, to get to a better understanding of what a site is, what a site needs, and what the future of that site can be. I know that, Frank, you haven't seen this in a little while, but this is the old land use map. We made a decision in 2013 that we were going to move away from this. Now why did we make that change? There are a whole host of reasons why we should make that change, but for Lexington specifically, in 2013 we said, we're going to shift away from this type of map because it does not allow us to do infill and redevelopment in a real way. The map was limiting in how we were doing development, and we as a community from 1958 onward said that we are an infill and redevelopment community. We are going to focus on trying to utilize the land that we have to the greatest way possible. What we see here are a lot of restrictions on what would be allowed within an infill context because it is saying it should be just this one specific land use. That really limits our ability to do a whole host of other things within the comprehensive plan that we were hearing about in the early 2000s as well, which was aging in place, having a more walkable community, having different types of housing within different areas, getting to the point in which students could walk to school or to a business or different things like that. The diversification of our land uses that allows for us to infill in our community in a more contextual sense that gets to all the other policies within our comprehensive plan. So in 2013, we moved away from this land use map to the policy-based plan. It was meant to be more flexible for our community to add those new land uses. Now one of the things that we heard after 2013 was we were a little too flexible. We didn't provide the planning commission enough guidance in how we were going to go through the process of determining what land use was appropriate for different areas and to provide a little bit more contextual situation of what a development was going to do in that place and space. So in 2018, we came up with the place builder element, and what that place builder element was supposed to do was provide that framework, a little bit more focus for the zone change application. It was a compilation of the best practices while also a way to look at the policy aspects of our comprehensive plan and put it into a site-level perspective. It was also meant to be that shared language, that transparency for applicants and the public to discuss with the planning commission and the council about what they would like to see on a site, how they are achieving agreement with the comprehensive plan. And then finally, it gave a structure to those conversations and a real structure to some of the staff presentation and our staff report. And in 2018, we did change over our, I'm sorry, 2019, we changed over our perspective of what the staff report was going to do. We still have those different things laid out, but that was really guided by the process in which we review the zone changes through the place builder. Now what is it not? It's definitely not that future land use map. This is meant to be flexible. It is meant to be a little bit more infill and redevelopment focused. It also is not a substitute for the zoning ordinance. A lot of the critiques of land use maps in the past were, oh, you see a color on the map, you go to that zone. It was matching rather than allowing for flexibility of new things. And then it is not a promise that the listed zone is automatically appropriate. It is meant to be a major contextual conversation in which we go from place-type, development-type zone. That's the order in which we want these. And ultimately, not all the development criteria that are applied to these sites are necessary or applicable to each site. We want to make sure that we're trying to cover everything, but we want to give flexibility. It's not a checklist, and we heard this a lot in the past. It's not a straitjacket. It's not saying that you have to do all of these things. We want to make sure that you're doing the things that comply with the, or are agreement with the comprehensive plan, but also work with the site that you're proposing. And then finally, it's not a replacement of our small area plans, master plans, other documents. I really want to highlight that with the small areas master plans, because you all have done a tremendous amount of work over the past four years. Whether it's the Urban Growth Master Plan, Preservation and Growth Management Plan, the Downtown Area Master Plan, the Blue Sky Small Area Master Plan, the Winchester Road Corridor Study, or any of the Zoning Ordinance Tax Amendments or Subdivision Regulation Amendments, you all have had a lot of work going on. Those support, those other documents support what you're trying to do with the comprehensive plan. They aren't overridden by the comprehensive plan. So it is really meant to be a six-step workflow within this. We think of it as a funnel of going from the broad all the way down to the more specific. So starting with engagement. Yes sir. I don't mean to interrupt your flow. This is really good. Can we get this slide presentation some other way in addition, because I see my colleague here taking pictures of them and all that stuff. Yes sir. We will be putting this on the website, and we can email this out to you all so that you can use it. Okay. Yes sir, go right ahead. It is your work session. I'm here to answer. Tell me what happened to form-based. Form-based. In that whole conversation we've gone through. You remember the time we had all the form-based stuff? Did mixed use get into that? In my mind, I can't separate form-based from place builder, and I know it's a wide range. It is a wide range. Let me get through this presentation, and then I'll jump back to form-based. We can answer a couple of conversations about where that fits, where that doesn't fit. We definitely do not have a form-based zoning ordinance. I can talk about that a little bit more further along. Oh, no, no, no. I think actually this gets into a lot of the things that would alleviate some concerns with that. Whenever we're applying the place builder, going through the zone change process, we do want to start with that engagement. Going to the place type development type, then really getting into the application that represents a lot of this. A discussion of the zoning then and a full scale review by you, the public, the planning, the planning staff and the applicant so that we can have a clear conversation. We do want to stress that the habit associated with this, especially for those who have been working in our community for a really long time, is to start with the end review. I want to, this is my goal of what I want, then the zoning and then all the rest of this stuff to fill in the backlog. We wanted to switch that perspective when we came in with the place builder, when we were talking about trying to apply the comprehensive plan in a greater way. Because it is a policy perspective now. We're no longer just looking at a map, saying it's that color, find the zone that works for me, go from there. We want to have that conversation and especially we want to have that conversation with the people that live around there. And that's why small area plans, master plans are so important. That is a more detailed conversation about things that are more locally focused so that that will lead the conversation further and further. It gives a little bit more accuracy. Yes, sir, could I ask, could you go back on that one more time? One of the maybe. Critiques is similar to what you listed as the what you're trying to get away from and I, and I'm not sure. That I see why how this addresses that and that is. In a lot of cases, because I think it is the natural, they, the owner of the property, or the potential owner, or the developer of the property has an idea for what they want to do and. Then they open up place builder and select a place type that fits. The, um, what they want to do. Similarly, to the zoning map amendments from before, which would be. They will make a case why the current. Uh, map is inappropriate and why their. Desired map is appropriate. And, um, and I guess I'm. I, I have a hard time imagining. This funnel in real life actually. Being utilized that often, I will say that a lot of what staff does when we meet with applicants or talk to them early on is to get them to re, situate their perspective. To look at the funnel a little bit of a view under the hood when we do any kind of conversation with applicants is. That our 1st conversation, especially if there is his own change necessary is have you looked at the comprehensive plan? And what's the context of your site? I would say that ultimately and I only know this because of the time that I spent doing a similar position as Tracy and Daniel is you ultimately get calls from. Hundreds of people during the year saying, hey, I want to do this at this site. And and the position of the zoning planner, Dalton, being your zoning planner right now is to 1st, say, hey, have you looked at this? And if you haven't, you should. And then call me back because people will come in and say, well, when we've dealt with this a few times. I want to be a card detailing shop, right in the middle of a neighborhood. And we'll say, sounds great that you've looked at that site for your needs and your wants. Have you looked at that site in terms of our comprehensive plan? Our goals are wants the things that our community have highlighted. And that forces them at 1st to go back to this funnel to have that conversation. I, I think it is very hard. You're right to keep. Pushing people on that direction, especially people that are not from here. But when you get the specific land use developer, or something like that, that has a different perspective on things. That is where this really works and that's generally where you guys have less of a hard time with applications. Because we've gotten an applicant that has said, I've looked at the comprehensive plan. I've looked at the things that I want to do here. And I've said that this works with this place type, this development type, and I think that with this zone, I can achieve what I would like to do for a vision. They often are also working with the community. I'm not going to drop developer names. I don't know if that's particularly important, but we have worked with 1 or 2 who we've also said. What you're trying to do is great and we want to see that and we would love to see this come through with his own change. But there are other ways to do that adaptive reuse projects. A lot of the people that are very passionate about new development in our community. Ultimately are looking at some of our industrial land and saying, I need a zone change because I want to do something different here. I want to try something else. I think that the place type for this isn't industrial. It's actually something mixed use or something along those lines. And we've been lucky enough within our zoning ordinance to save them a little bit of time and money to say, we have other avenues that you can go through and we appreciate that you want to do these things. But let's make sure that you're still doing those things within the ordinance that are also getting us things from the comprehensive plan that are in that ordinance. We're seeing it more and more as time goes on and we're fighting it. And I think you guys are experiencing this more and more when we say we disagree with the applicants place type and development type. You've heard that a couple of times over the past year. And that's where I think some of this training is so important. Us going back out and continuing to do the reeducation so that we can get with developer groups to switch them to go to the back to this funnel a little bit more. We did a lot of work in 2018-19 on this. We've kept on trying to train individuals, but having more and newer documents to do that, I think will hopefully again switch people to back to thinking of it this way. How, let me say a word also, Mr. Mickler, we rarely see an applicant making the case that the zoning is inappropriate because that's actually a to check process. They have to say, not only is the zoning inappropriate, but the comprehensive plan didn't contemplate this and that's, that's a very high bar to me. So, most everything you all see comes through this process. So, I totally understand that the funnel is hard to flip because people really do start from the end and go to the beginning. But we're working on that and that's part of this process. I can keep going. I don't want to keep you here until five, but I will. This is my time though, right? One of the things I think that we, because I was chairing the board at the time that this place builder went into effect, and one of the small things that we did that caused a little bit of feedback and my telephone to ring a little bit more than normal, we put into the zoning should. We, maybe we didn't put should, we put shall. And we put shall into the comprehensive plan. That's right. And people reacted to that more than anything else, irrespective of what it meant. They just don't like, they got that with the Ten Commandments, but nothing else. So, we had to go back somewhere along the line and revamp that to should, because what you're seeing here is really crucial. This was a negotiated piece, but it didn't sound like that at the beginning. And that's where we, I think we had a little, had a little pushback and I don't know how many people are still around that remember that. But I think this is a wonderful refresher course. I don't want to interrupt you anymore, Mr. Bailey. No, we did, we did start from a perspective of shall. And shall, again, that gets into what people like to call a straight jacket, what you have to do, and a comprehensive plan is not a what you have to do. And to Mr. Duncan's point, you have to try. That's what we're asking. You have to try to meet the comprehensive plan. That's the first step. If you can't, then you get to go on to the other justifications. And that's where we are really trying to push to the, you should be engaging. And that's something that you all ask about quite often. To follow up on Bill's point, what it does, it makes them have to say why they can't. Yep. See what I'm saying? I mean, it's not the fact, it puts, it shifts the blame to them telling you why they can't rather than you telling them why they have to. Absolutely. And that conversation point is very, very important as we go along. So just from that perspective of why you should do something, and then that comes into the engagement aspect. And we talked about meaningful engagement during the setup of the place builder. And we didn't quite know what meaningful engagement was for Lexington. But we wanted to have that conversation. And that led to the generation of the public engagement toolkit, which we kind of brought into as a major component of our comprehensive plan. We adopted that as something that we wanted to see. It's on imaginelexington.com. And we still refer people back to it. The engagement toolkit was that we adopted our comprehensive plan, telling people they should engage. Now let's tell them how. What are some best practices? What are the best ways to do some of these things? And we've had some good experience with individuals who have said, yeah, we can do these types of things. We've had some experiences in which people do minimal amounts. But that engagement does come on two different sides as well. It encourages the developers to talk to the community, but we hope that the community is also willing to talk with developers. And I think you all have heard it at times that sometimes the engagement doesn't go well. And that's part of the process too. We want people to, but we can't tell them they shall do these things, both from a developer perspective and from a community perspective. I'm sorry, I don't want to delay this. I think the community engagement piece is something I look at every time we go with a plan as such. But there's a mistaken, I think, a little bit of a mistaking thought there that the community is going to tell them what to do. And it's really a guide piece. It's nothing more than just that. But somehow or another, either the community side, because I've had people call me say, well, we told them what to do, and then they ignore. No. And I try to explain, your piece was an advisory activity and was nothing to do with the actual way that we function. And I had to go in and explain what KRS-100 will allow us to do. Well, and that gets into the difference between listening and hearing. You can listen to someone and you can hear them out on some things, but that doesn't mean that you have to do it or that you're going to agree on certain things. But that is ultimately why you all are here, to deliberate where the community has provided some perspective, to balance those perspectives that are laid out in the place builder and to move forward from there. So, when we talk about community engagement, we really would like individuals to start to talk to the community earlier. We're going to continue to push this. We ask them every single pre-application meeting, what have you done thus far? Are you going to do something if you haven't done it yet? And it is an element of your staff report. That was something that was really important to the Planning Commission when we adopted that last comprehensive plan to say, okay, we just want to hear what has been done. Not to say that there's a shame element if someone hasn't done anything, but sometimes there might be a shame element. We would like to see people go ahead and actually answer these questions and be in agreement with a comprehensive plan. So, what are the things that development can do to help? What are things that the development or the site constraints? A lot of the times we hear this from neighborhoods all the time. I know little things about my neighborhood that they don't know about. What are the things that we want to highlight throughout the neighborhood? And then understanding the context of the area, talking about mobility gaps, highlighting community anchors within communities, and then respecting some of that open space and environmental assets that we might see. And then engagement should influence the proposal, but not simply document what has occurred. Next, we go from that engagement to that next step down the line, which is the place type. And I will say that Boyd has been the one that's been really focused on the development of this presentation. But I love this line, but that a place type is meant to answer not just what a place is, but what it could or should become. When we're talking about a zone change, we want to talk about the appropriateness of things. And what's that context? What is that location? What is the feel? Is it a downtown place? Is it an enhancement of a neighborhood? All of these things lead to some great conversation and have great descriptions within each of these layers that are meant to guide a developer and provide some greater information. And we talk about how to figure this out. What is that place type? You need to read the site. Let's look at the existing development patterns. Let's look at the infrastructure that's in place and the adjacent intensity. We are meant to look at some of the historical context of things and environmental features, highlighting some of those things and building upon them. And then we push people to look at, are there already adopted small area plans, master plans, corridor studies? Are there other priorities that are laid out within the description of the place type? And then looking at, is it just fitting the current context or is it building upon that or expanding that context for the future? Cities change. They meld over time. We have different aspects of everything. And we want to make sure that that's being done in alignment with what people have been asking for for our community. The place type is contextual. It's not simply the just current perspective. It can be a little bit more. It can add to. After that, we identify our development type. This is where we start to get into the blend of that place and what the developer or the applicant might ultimately want. Looking at what type of intensity, density, what type of land use we might be doing. And we really separate this in 3 categories. They're just a purely residential, a mixed use or commercial. And then into the industrial. And for our perspective, that industrial stands on its own. It is unique. It is outside of everything. So that residential and commercial, it can really blend into each other. And that's where we've been going with our zoning ordinance as well. We've made it infinitely easier to have residential in every single zone, except for a few. The ones that we don't think it's appropriate to have housing, like our warehousing and industrial zones. But we also have integrated a little bit of commercial into our residential. Our R4 conditional uses. That's an element that someone can apply for. So what is the form, the intensity, and the mix of development that's being proposed? How does it fit? Test whether that requested zone and the appropriate tool goes to for the place type and development type. So we are looking at that place type or your enhanced neighborhood, your development type, your medium density residential, adding a little bit there. And then looking at the applicable development criteria, meaning those areas that we are guiding people through the comprehensive plan. The plan states that other zones might be applicable within some of these areas. So this is getting in towards the end of this, but it must be within proper justification with these other elements. So finally, we're getting into some of the aspects of the end result. So we've looked first, what's our place type? What's our development type? Does it fit this proposal? Are we meeting our development criteria to get that success? And then is the zoning district appropriate to implement that outcome? And then looking at that long term as well. So again, starting with I want zone X inverts the logic. It shifts the perspective of what we are trying to get out of a policy based plan. So just a little bit of a primer on decoding our development criteria. These are the distillation of all the policies within our comprehensive plan. So we have five themes. And then we go from our themes to our policy designations and then into our criteria. So Boyd came up with this wonderful graphic on our 2023. So this is the typical designation that you'll see on the comprehensive plan for the development criteria. But this ADS 1-1, that's theme A, design policy number one, criteria number one. So it gives you a way to go back to the initial policy that this was created in and understand it in a greater way, get a little bit more context. It's not just that one line, do this type of thing so that we get better design or better road connectivity. But it goes back to that policy to tell you why we're asking for that. So again, highlighting that the place builder and the development criteria are tied to the whole of the comprehensive plan. It is meant to be flexible in the sense that we're looking at things, but really focused in on trying to achieve all of the elements of the comprehensive plan. So the rule that this is not a checklist, we ask, we do provide a list of the development criteria based off that place type and development type. And then we ask them to address those things. Is it addressed on the plan? We typically highlight it in green. Is it in the letter of justification and they're trying to meet it? That's in yellow. And then it's not applicable. That's in red. The biggest aspect of all of these things with our development types and our development criteria is that we want them to address all of them. It might not be applicable. It might say we need to provide school facilities in this area and they can't provide a school facility on a 500 square foot house site or something like that. But it is meant to be addressed. This is not applicable because this isn't the type of area that could fit a school or something along those lines. So we really want people to actually get back into looking at these things, highlighting what they're doing so that you all can make the best decisions possible. And our planning staff don't have to keep on asking for postponements or something like that because they didn't do the work on the front end to address the development criteria. Weak justification. The development meets ADS 1-2 because transit's nearby. That's a weak one. Even weaker, this will be addressed on the final development plan. You see that one all the time. This is a bad justification. We are asking people to come in and provide information that will give you evidence, that will give you findings to say this application is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. Pushing it off to the final development plan is not a justification for you to use to make findings to say that this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And we see this more and more. Stronger answer would be the site is served by transit on the corridor. The development plan provides a continuous accessible pedestrian route from the principal entrance to the transit stop and reserve space for stop amenities directly addressing the criteria. This is specifically getting into those things. It takes a little bit of extra effort. But for Lexington, we said we want to actually take this time to take the effort and put it into each of the site design, not push it off to a final development plan. So we're taking that criteria, putting it into the site condition, responding to the plan, and then providing evidence either on the development plan or in the letter of justification. And then we can get into a little bit more of our focused areas. So what are the other adopted guidance that applies to an exact site? We have a whole host of other things that we highlight within our comprehensive plan, that are elements of our comprehensive plan that people should be looking at. So we have a whole bunch of standards and design considerations, but all of our master plans as well that are really important for individuals to look at. Now, it is on us as staff to ensure that they know that those things are out there, so that we can get greater focus on those areas and provide greater guidance. So we are working on that. We do have a plan library online that looks at old plans and new, but also we have different sections of ImagineLexington.com that highlight the different things that people need to be looking for. We have a map that someone can zoom in on, click on their property and know, oh, well, this is in the East End Small Area Plan. Oh, this is in the Downtown Area Master Plan. Oh, this is along the Nicholasville Road Corridor Study. All of those are really important factors that get to more robust conversation about what people wanted for those areas and provide you with greater evidence to provide better findings. I also do want to highlight, we have moved away from a land use map, but we do make place-based recommendations with land use recommendations within certain small area plan and master plans, specifically the Urban Growth Master Plan. What you can see on here is our wonderful map of Area 3. If you don't know that's Area 3, you're going to be hearing about a lot for the next couple of years. But in there, we have a place-based recommendation with a density recommendation. That is a land use map in a sense, but we're guiding people on how they should meet it. That also leads them back to the recommendations that Daniel was talking about here. These are in the master plan that highlights some of the things that people should do. To Mr. Michler's point before, we're going to have to take a look at some of these things. Because once it's law, then we don't need to do those things. Now we just have to focus on some of the other things that we really want to highlight, like are we meeting the residential densities in these areas? So what are the common things to avoid? Starting with the zone. We will keep harping on that, but that should be the last thing that we consider. Looking at that zone and saying, this is what I need to achieve my project, rather than this is the project and then getting to an ultimate recommended zone of what we need, based off of the context of the site. Treating criteria as a yes-no, I'll deal with it later, is also not a great way of doing it. So ignoring the context, not a great situation to move forward with a zone change in Lexington. And then generic statements. Just copying and pasting from the last thing you did and moving it on. We want things that are focused on the site development. This gets you, the community, and the applicant the best type of development. And then forgetting other plans. We really do want to make sure that we're highlighting that. And I will say, that is still on staff to highlight that for applicants, especially if they don't know or have not seen it. So taking the community voice and making sure that everything is working through, really comes through from, again, we're keeping on going with this funneling theme, and I like it. You don't need to start from a planner perspective. You don't need to have a master's or AICP to go through this process. The comprehensive plan, specifically the place builder, is supposed to be that common language, that shared language that we can utilize to talk about zone changes and implementing the comprehensive plan in Lexington. It is meant to start with that community input that goes through the entirety of the process. The development proposal, which is meant to show what they're doing, and bringing that back to the place builder. So if we're looking at this in a sense, those are your three tiers that are presented to you. You have your community, you have your developer, your applicant, and then you have your staff, and we're representing you and the comprehensive plan during this process. Then we get into the conversation of where do we agree, where do we differ? We can highlight those shared perspectives, those shared priorities. We can resolve those concerns. We can talk about discrete things that are within that shared language. And then that can ultimately be a better informed design or decision that you can justify through a zone change application. And that gets to the how did the community provide some of that input? Is there input that's being resolved in that? And then going from there. So ultimately, in one sentence, the place builder is meant to blend site and context with the place type, development type, criteria, and then into the zone. It moves Lexington's vision to design a complete community, and it provides a better justification of an individual development proposal so that we're trying to get to the best representative document for zone change that meets our comprehensive plan. On that, that was a very long conversation. Madam Chair, let's let Hal catch his breath for half a second. Oh, no. I'll warn him while he's hot. I'll warn him. Let him get a little water. Boyd and Hal put this presentation together, and when they shared it with me, it also included an exercise where you all were going to break into small groups and you were going to go through the place builder process. And we thought, well, we also knew that there were going to be quite a few absences today, so we decided we wouldn't do that. But if you see value in this, we'd like to come back to you at a future work session and have that little group exercise so that you all can walk through that process and just kind of see for yourselves what the applicants go through, what the staff goes through when they review these. That would be good. Well, first of all, I applaud. I think this was an absolutely superb, that's personal, but I think it's a superb presentation. The question I had is, we're going to have probably six new council members coming up? Yes, sir. And I hope that you all are able to give them some orientation because, quite frankly, when people don't agree with us, they always run to the council. Well, the council needs to understand what you all are going through and what the roles are as such. So I hope you all have put into your plans a meeting with the council as a part of that orientation. The second part of that is, are the lawyers that, you know, a lot of these plans, a lot of these lawyers that come and we have to postpone because they didn't do this, didn't do that. I don't know how much information they think they have or whatever, but it's disconcerting to me as an attorney that you don't keep up with this kind of stuff so that you don't have to have the applicant who's paying your bill to keep postponing things as such. In effect, you shouldn't even come until you've answered the staff. You don't even put it out, put it on the table. So that becomes, in my mind's eye, a bit political because what they're saying is, well, the staff's got it, but the ultimate decision makers are the council, are the commissioners as such. I don't like that playing off, but that's a personal thing as such. But I applaud you for the work you've done and thank you for this. Yes, sir, and I'll say we are trying to amend this language as we go along so that we're not just presenting to the knowledgeable people that we have on a planning commission, that we can take this to the council, new council members, as well as the public. That is one of the elements that our outreach and strategic planning section, they're constantly dealing with, is not only educating people of who we are and what we do, but how they can integrate into the process. May I say, Madam Chairman, one quick thing, one more. I promise this is it. The most important thing on that sheet that I saw was when you get ready to start something, come talk to us and then you can walk them through because I guarantee you most of the public won't care all about all this, you know, charts and all that kind of stuff up and down. But if you've got people that sit down and can talk with them and guide them through it, I think that will help. Absolutely. So I've jumped into my training and development hat here. In the presentation, we hit a point where we were at a fairly high level of extraction and you jumped in and said, for example, so I'm wondering if there's a possibility of a case study that we could pair with this. I don't know if Turner Commons fits this or some other development that we've gone through that actually pretty much follows this model that could be shared. And that's where that exercise that Mr. Duncan mentioned is going to be really important when we bring this to people who have never gone through this. Boyd has done a significant amount of upfront work on that to try to set that up. I'll also highlight for those that were here in 2018 and 2019, we did an example of this for the land use attorneys. We went out and we said, well, this is a community. If someone came in, this is how we would do this process. It was meant to be a development plan that was not Lexington so that we didn't run into some of those issues that we might be highlighting someone that did it good versus someone that did it bad. And we wanted to make sure that that was outside of it. Now, there was a little bit of controversy with that, but ultimately that procedure went well. I think we highlighted some of the elements that were good about this process that allows for it to go faster. We also highlighted that if you do the work on the front end, if you do the engagement as well as the fullness of an application and answer all those development criteria, all of the concerns of, oh, it takes forever to get through a zone change or we're getting postponed, start to fall away because the conversations have been held. And that is something that we are trying to push again is we're trying to make sure that those conversations, if you have them on the front end, if you submit an application that is actually complete, that is an easier way to go through a process than something that is not complete, has not been discussed, has not reviewed the context and the perspective of the comprehensive plan that we want. So do we have a case study where somebody, who is who, a real case that we've seen? We're going to try to keep it away from a real case that we have seen. I'm just asking you. Oh, yes. Do we have a development that has actually gone through this process that demonstrates what we're saying here? Oh, yes. We've had many. Any site that you have gotten to an approval, I would say that we have gone through the process of it. Now, whether it was the grade A plus process. Yeah, the early on process. Yeah. So we do have some great examples of zone changes that have come through that have met that engaged. We've worked through these things, got to the very end. We have several of those. We have some that met the minimum responsibilities through zone change, and that's part of the zone change process. We try to move people along, but ultimately we do make a decision. So. I'm focusing here on the power of storytelling. Yes, ma'am. And it can be a fictional story. It doesn't have to be a true story or it could be a lightly edited story, but that's a powerful way to communicate. Absolutely. So. All right. Well, you mentioned you did this training a while back with the land use attorneys. I haven't actually kept count, but it seems pretty rare that we have a zone change that isn't represented. How often does an applicant go through this process themselves without representation, or is this really often their representation that's going through this process and then translating that back to them? I would say that with zone changes and the way that zone changes have gone, not just in Lexington, but within the United States, all too often people get representation. But we also, when we developed this training, provided example staff reports, or I'm sorry, example applications or justifications so that people didn't have to hire an attorney. We have a few examples in which the ones that I can think of specifically, Habitat for Humanity, came through with a total of three zone changes over the past eight years. And each time they represented themselves. The leadership for the organization wrote, actually their construction manager, I'll give them the credit here, wrote the letter of justification, did the outreach, did the entire application, and did not hire a land use attorney. So it is achievable. I think that with how controversial some of those zone changes can be, a lot of people are hesitant to do them by themselves. I'll also say we had an applicant off of Old Hickney Mill Road that came through and it took him three or four years to get through, and two different zoning planners to get through a zone change, but ultimately he got there. Yes, you do. So we ultimately got there though. Before I forget it, the thing we've lost is the intent of the zone. And the more I look at this, whatever zone it is, in doing what we've done, we've done pretty much changed the intent of the zone. And was that on purpose? Was that a result of what we did? Or was that just what happened? So in 2018, we had a recommendation, an action item that was to update the intents of all of our zoning. That was pushed through with the zoning ordinance text amendment, I believe in 2021. Around 2021, 2022, around there. And we updated all those because we had made so many changes over time to our different zones that those intents started not to match up. So we made that change. And with that change, we've been seeing a little bit more of a shift of what that means for our community. And that is more representative of some of the things that people wanted in the comprehensive plan of mixed use development, diversity of housing types, things like that. Well, the mixed use with what we're just talking about with the commercial versus residential, we're changing the mixed use. We have changed the mixed use. Is that because mixed use wasn't working? Is it just a trend? Oh, no. I think what we've heard was that, and what we heard within our conversations about the zoning ordinance text amendments and the comprehensive plan was that residential should be wherever we can put residential that's appropriate. And that goes into why we've included residential as a principal land use in the B3 zone. So a B3 zone or commercial corridor zone was really meant to just be, I need to get in my car. I need to drive to the grocery store or something like that to go get something. I'm coming back. Now we've made it so that that B3 zone is I can live on the quarter where we want the densest housing types, our multifamily. I can leave my multifamily and walk down the street to go to do that or something along those lines. Now that also helps with our transit perspectives. I'll also say that on the reverse side of that, we found that within our most recent developments before we allowed for a little bit of a mixture of zones and a mixture of land uses within zones was that if you have the biggest residential neighborhood that gets developed around the 90s and 2000s and you don't include much commercial or any opportunity for commercial to occur, you end up at a period of time in which you're waiting until the 2020s to get it. I'm specifically calling out Masterson Station, our biggest residential neighborhood within our community. And it isn't until the past five to 10 years that we started to get that commercial along that corridor. Now the developers held those spaces. They really did not develop those spaces because they knew that at some point in time, this is going to be more of a location for commercial rather than residential. Well, let me follow you up. Is that the same reason we're doing residential in the development areas that don't have any jobs but we're still building residential like Dennis Anderson's property out on Midtown Pike? I think when it gets into that, it gets a little harder to get the job. So what we'll say with industrial, industrial, ED, all those kinds of things that are meant to be jobs producing, those land uses are some of the hardest to fill, especially when you have competition from other subsidizing groups, things like that. But they're really important for us to protect. So we've made a decision in our community that industrial or jobs producing lands in certain places shouldn't shift dramatically to residential because we need to have that opportunity as residential occurs to hold those spaces for some of the land uses that produce the most jobs. Yeah, but that's not true with Dennis. That change was a zoning ordinance text amendment that was kind of done over a period of years under guidance of the council that led to the inclusion of some residential, not complete residential. We still held off on saying it can be all townhomes or multifamily. We still held some of that land for commercial development. I understand that. But here's the confusion that I'm hearing from outside is that if you want to build residential, you can build it about anywhere. Yes. Including development land. So the question becomes, it's not a question that you're going to work there. It's a question you're going to live there hoping you're going to get a job for every building. So that goes against everything we've tried to say. Except for our industrial land. I would say that, yes, we do have a set amount of ED land or economic development land. We have not included residential in our industrial or I-1 or I-2 land. And you all made a very clear statement with the adoption of the Blue Sky Small Area Plan and your recommendation on the changes to the industrial zones that those aren't the places that we want residential to occur. Those are the places that we want to preserve for jobs. The updates that you made to that are really focused on, well, how do we modernize those zones so that we can attract new jobs and different jobs to those areas? Because I will say, based off of what we've seen with the vacant land study, we do have a good amount of industrial land out there. It's just making sure that we can allow for people to come in and build those new jobs and advertise for those new jobs for people to come in. But we're not taking in the fact that you can go over the county line and the land's missing half. I mean, we're painting a picture here that's not real. And the real thing is that the jobs aren't coming in there because the land's twice as expensive as it is five miles down the road. And that's what we're doing right now for our business. Legacy Business Center has been so important because that offsets some of the costs. And I know that Commerce Lexington with their business park for a long time did a lot of that work as well. Enticing those jobs to come into our community is very important. I'll also say what we're seeing from a national standpoint is while it is probably less expensive to develop in certain areas in adjacent counties, if you don't have the access to the infrastructure that's necessary, then it's harder to develop those types of things. And I'll say when it comes to jobs, highly qualified candidates, that's infrastructure. That is really important. And Lexington comes with a lot of highly qualified individuals that can fill those jobs. We just need to make sure that if they're going to be working here, they also have that opportunity to live here. Well, I always thought housing followed jobs, but now I think jobs follow housing. It's highs and lows with that, right? Yeah. I mean, in the world of Lexington. Absolutely, absolutely. But it's kind of disheartening to see the city develop 200 acres and price it the same thing Dennis Anders has been pricing it history. That's kind of disheartening because the city was given the land. They traded the land. They put the infrastructure in and they're willing to invest $250,000 in it. I'm sorry this is on tape, but it's the truth. Now, form-based. Ah, form-based. All right. Before you get there, does anybody else have any other questions? Okay. And Mr. Michler and I talk about form-based quite often as well. So form-based zoning is a very interesting category that moves away from a perspective of the land uses itself and gets closer and closer to a perspective of if my building looks like this, if it's this high, if it's this setback, most of the land uses that are within there can be anything, whether it's residential, commercial, or something else. I don't think any community truly gets to that utopian perspective of form-based. If you look at Louisville, they have a form-based code. However, they still have land use restrictions within that form-based code. We, as a community, have been really focused on updating our zoning ordinance as we get new small area plans, master plans, comprehensive plans in. And our community has kind of discussed that, well, we're not going to go to a pure form-based design, but we want to integrate a little bit more flexibility to allow for different forms to occur within there. That flexibility is key and what a lot of development groups like. When it is a form-based project, generally, there are very stringent rules that you have to meet that say, okay, it's not a wide range, it's a fairly specific set of criteria that you have to hit. Check those boxes and you can move on. It is a utilized metric. We utilize it for our form-based B1 zoning. So if someone came in and provided you as the planning commission with this is the form of the area, I want to meet that similar form and try to change the landscape, I can try to do that. I actually think you might see a little bit of that fallout now that we've allowed for greater flexibility and modernized our zoning ordinance. But I think Mr. McClure has proposed some changes to the downtown, which I don't want to get into too far, that get into a little bit of a conversation of form-based as well. So it is something that can be integrated into our zoning ordinance, but I don't think that has been the primary focus. And I know that that was a big conversation in 2018 specifically. I don't think we're making that jump into that as this point forward. Well, it takes, I will say, it takes a lot to go through a form-based code. They can be pretty dense, but it is very directive. I'll say that. All right, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. All right, do we have anything? Madam Chair, just to let everyone know, we have a full agenda next Thursday. We have right now nine distinct items for you all to consider. And it's quite possible that we will need to split our location. We will definitely start in the council chambers at 1.30. But if we're not finished by about 5.45, we'll need to relocate to the third floor here and we'll have this set up for that. So just everybody come be prepared. Can I ask a question? Coming down the pike, when are we getting from council what we're going to have to work on in terms of a tax amendment for data centers? When does that come to us? Well, to update you all, you all know the council has extended the more or has at least, yes, they've taken final action on extending the moratorium for data centers through October 31st of 2027. So we've got another full year before that paused. And they essentially set aside the ZOTA that you all sent them for data centers. All they really did to advance that was go back in and just strike the word data processing center from it. And so everything else that you all did as far as size and energy use and all that is not included in the ZOTA that's advancing on that. But they did also then say they want to create a new zoning category for data centers. And we were very clear to them that if that's what you want to do, then you need to be, you council need to be a part of that work group and tell us what you want. Because we put all this together for you and it wasn't what you wanted. So you need to tell us what to do. So I don't think anything's going to happen in the next two weeks, Commissioner. But I do believe after the election, maybe even after the new council is seated, they will start to see that. And I believe they will want to put maybe together a little work group and certainly planning will be a part of that. But yes, that will come to you just like an ordinary ZOTA. Ultimately, once the council decides what they want to do with that new zone, that will come to you and then we'll go through the ordinary paces from there. Well, it's still on hold. No, no. Yes. All right. Commissioner Wilson, do you have anything else? All right. Well, that's it. Meeting adjourned. You ain't seen nothing like me. There ain't nothing that I would do. Go to the ends of the earth for you. Make you happy. Make your dreams come true. To make you feel my love. To make you feel my love.