Urban Growth Management Master Plan - Advisory Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban Growth Management Advisory Committee convened on August 22, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. in the Phoenix Building at 101 E. Vine Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed two primary agenda items during this session, both focused on informational presentations and discussions related to urban development planning. The meeting featured a presentation on developable areas and included discussion on study areas, providing committee members with important data and analysis for future decision-making processes. One formal vote was taken during the proceedings, while no public comments were received during the designated public comment period.

Attendance

The following members were present at the meeting on August 22, 2023:

• Larry Forester
• James Brown
• Todd Clark
• Chuck Ellinger
• Andi Johnson
• Todd Johnson
• PG Peeples
• John Phillips
• Kathy Plomin
• William Wilson
• Zach Worsham
• Judy Worth
• Dan Wu

Absent: Alison Davis

No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 13 members were present out of 14 total members.

Votes and Decisions

The meeting included one formal vote during the session.

Approval of Previous Meeting Summary 0:00 Dan Wu made a motion to approve the previous meeting's summary, which was seconded by Judy Worth. The motion passed unanimously with no opposition or abstentions recorded.

Presentation on Developable Areas

0:00 Division of Planning Director Jim Duncan delivered a presentation on developable areas within the jurisdiction. The presentation analyzed various factors that influence development potential, including flood plains, existing parks, and inputs from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism (PDR) department.

Duncan's analysis included scoring systems for different areas under consideration for potential development. The presentation examined how natural constraints such as flood-prone areas limit development opportunities, while also considering the location and impact of existing recreational facilities and parkland.

The presentation addressed considerations for potential expansion of developable areas, though specific details about the scoring methodology or which areas received particular scores were not detailed in the available information. The analysis appears to have been comprehensive, incorporating multiple municipal departments' input to provide a holistic view of development constraints and opportunities.

This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required from the governing body. The presentation served to provide officials with data-driven insights into where future development might be most feasible while respecting environmental constraints and existing community assets.

Discussion on Study Areas

0:00

The committee engaged in a discussion regarding various study areas under consideration, with key participation from Jim Duncan and Charlie Martin. The conversation centered on evaluating potential areas for urban service area expansion based on multiple criteria.

The discussion focused on several key factors used to assess the study areas:

• Sewerability - The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of extending sewer infrastructure to different areas
• Transportation corridors - Access to existing and planned transportation networks
• Agricultural integrity - The impact on agricultural lands and preservation priorities

Committee members reviewed areas that had received the highest scores in their evaluation process, indicating these locations showed the most promise for potential urban service area expansion. The scoring system appeared to weigh the various factors to identify areas that would be most suitable for development while minimizing negative impacts on agricultural operations and infrastructure costs.

Jim Duncan and Charlie Martin led much of the discussion, though the specific details of their individual contributions and positions were not detailed in the available materials. The conversation appeared to be analytical in nature, focusing on the technical aspects of the evaluation criteria rather than advocating for specific outcomes.

This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal decisions or votes taken during the discussion. The committee used this time to review and discuss the methodology and results of their study area analysis, which will likely inform future decision-making regarding urban service area boundaries and expansion priorities.

The discussion provided committee members with an opportunity to understand the evaluation process and consider the various factors that influence urban development planning in relation to existing agricultural and infrastructure constraints.