Lexington Preservation & Growth Management Program Draft

Focuses on industrial but could integrate housing to support workforce via mixed-use, missing density synergies. Add to 3.b.i) requirement for "Integrated Housing Component: Include plans for 20% residential at 20 DU/acre if job creation exceeds 500, to house employees." This creates live-work communities, adding 200 units in economic zones, retaining talent, increasing supply, and cutting commutes.

When land supply meets 20-year needs, recommendations focus on "efficiency" but don't specify density-enhancing tools like form-based codes, risking vague outcomes that maintain status quo low densities. Add to 1) specific options: "c) Density Incentives such as upzoning corridors to 15-20 DU/acre, reducing minimum lot sizes, or allowing ADUs citywide." This directly promotes compact growth, potentially adding more units via infill without new land, supporting housing supply to stabilize rents.

Calculation is backward-looking and excludes incentives for higher densities, potentially locking in low averages that inflate land needs and discourage vertical or mixed-use housing. Revise 3.e.ii) to weight the average with a "Density Bonus Factor" for projects exceeding baselines (e.g., +20% for including affordable units or transit-oriented design), and mandate annual reports propose zoning overlays for 12-15 DU/acre in transit corridors. This incentivizes denser builds, cutting projected land needs by promoting multifamily towers that house 50+ units on lots formerly for 10 homes, easing affordability pressures.

Lacks analysis of housing typologies or barriers to density like zoning restrictions, leading to reports that don't identify opportunities for denser, affordable infill. Expand 2.a.ii) Housing Activity to require breakdown of units by type (single-family, multifamily, accessory units) and density achieved; add vi) Density Barriers Assessment reviewing zoning caps, and lot size requirements that limit units per acre. This highlights underperforming areas, enabling targeted upzonings that could double multifamily permits in urban cores, accommodating thousands more units without expansion.

The formula assumes uniform density based on a historical five-year average, which may perpetuate low-density sprawl if past development was suburban-style single-family homes, underutilizing land and increasing infrastructure costs per unit. Amend the formula in 2.b.iii) to use an adjustable density target: replace "Five-year residential density average" with "Target Density Multiplier," derived from comprehensive plan objectives rather than solely historical data. This ensures projections incorporate policy-driven higher densities, reducing total acres needed by 20-30% through compact development that clusters housing near services, lowering per-unit costs and freeing land for mixed uses.

Auto-zoning to I-1/I-2 limits flexibility for mixed-use economic hubs blending office/retail with industry.

Allow zoning to "Economic Development (ED) zone" permitting flexible uses with job commitments. Flexible zoning attracts diverse businesses (e.g., tech campuses with 1,000 jobs), speeding approvals and enhancing competitiveness.

Requires jobs/wages but not broader metrics like supply chain effects or retention bonuses.

Expand 3.a.iii) to include "multiplier effects (e.g., 2x indirect jobs) and incentives ROI analysis." Comprehensive assessments justify expansions by proving net economic gains, ensuring taxpayer value and pro-jobs accountability.

The 250-acre cap for special needs is too low for transformative projects like data centers or EV factories requiring more acreage. Increase to "no more than 500 acres, scalable with job impact (e.g., +100 acres per 500 jobs projected)." Raising the threshold accommodates large employers, capturing opportunities like a $1B investment creating 1,500 high-wage jobs, boosting GDP by 2-3%.

Adoption per KRS 100.197 is procedural, but master plans lack requirements for economic elements like job targets or business mix. Add requirement that master plans include "Economic Development Overlay" mandating 30% of new acreage for commercial/industrial uses with job density goals. This integrates pro-jobs zoning from the start, ensuring plans generate employment (e.g., 2,000 jobs per 500 acres), leveraging growth for tax base expansion.

Criteria emphasize adjacency and infrastructure but ignore economic viability factors like proximity to workforce or supply chains, potentially selecting suboptimal sites for business. Add "Demonstrated economic alignment, including proximity to labor markets, interstates, or airports, with projected job yield of at least 10 jobs/acre." Prioritizing high-economic-return sites attracts employers, maximizing ROI on expansions (e.g., logistics parks near I-75 creating jobs), aligning growth with business needs.

The subcommittee stakeholder composition lacks direct business representation, risking recommendations that undervalue economic stakeholders and focus on removal over addition.

Amend 2) to require "d) Commerce Lexington, Industrial Authority Board, Economic Development Board/Committee or similar economic development organization appoint 2 members representing business interests." Including business voices ensures balanced reviews, advocating for land retention/addition that supports job centers, preventing removals that could cost hundreds of potential jobs in industrial zones.

Policy/regulatory reviews happen before expansions, but without mandatory economic lens, they may favor preservation over development, delaying job creation.

Add requirement in 2.a) and 2.b) for all recommendations to include an "Economic Impact Review" quantifying jobs, wages, and tax revenues from proposed changes. Mandating fiscal analysis ensures decisions prioritize pro-growth outcomes, such as deregulating for faster business startups, potentially adding more jobs annually through efficient land use.

The 30-year supply cap on USA expansions is arbitrary and caps growth at a level that may deter large-scale economic projects needing buffer land for future phases, limiting proactive business recruitment.

Revise to "No expansion shall exceed a 40-year supply, with waivers for projects demonstrating 500+ jobs and $50M+ capital investment." Extending the cap allows flexibility for mega-projects (e.g., advanced manufacturing hubs, battery plants, data centers, etc.), preventing lost opportunities like a 1,000-job factory relocation, while maintaining controlled growth tied to verifiable economic benefits.

When land supply is adequate or inadequate, recommendations prioritize "sustainable development" and policy/regulatory changes but lack explicit pro-business options like tax incentives or streamlined permitting, risking anti-growth biases in efficiency improvements.

In 1) and 2), expand recommendations to explicitly include "c) Economic Incentives (e.g., TIF districts, expedited reviews for job-creating projects)" for adequate supply, and "d) Priority Expansions for High-Impact Sectors" for inadequate supply. This embeds pro-business tools, ensuring recommendations facilitate 5-10% annual job growth by reducing barriers and attracting employers, directly linking land use to economic output like $500M in new investments.

The density metric is residential-only and excludes commercial permits unless in residential zones, ignoring how mixed-use or commercial densities drive economic efficiency and job density (e.g., office parks at 20-50 employees/acre). Add Five-Year Non-Residential Density Average, calculated similarly but using commercial/industrial permits: (Total New Jobs from Permits ÷ Developable Acres). Make public annually alongside residential. This metric highlights opportunities for high-density economic hubs, encouraging policies that cluster businesses for synergy, job growth (e.g., aiming for 30 jobs/acre in tech corridors), and reduced infrastructure costs per job.

Reliance on state data excluding group quarters is fine, but vacant land criteria overly restrict buildable inventory by exempting agricultural zones with conditional uses or public lands, potentially inflating perceived shortages and ignoring infill opportunities for business parks or mixed-use developments.

Amend Requirements for Vacant Land to include partially underutilized commercial/industrial parcels (e.g., brownfields or low-density sites) as "developable" if rezoning could yield 50%+ economic output increase per acre. Broadening vacant land definitions unlocks sites for business reuse, reducing sprawl while accelerating job-intensive redevelopment (e.g., converting 100 acres of underused industrial land could add 1,000 jobs), supporting pro-economic goals without premature USA expansion.

Subsections like Employment Activity and Vacant Land Review are listed but lack explicit requirements to analyze job sectors, business retention/attraction trends, or economic multipliers, leading to a demographically skewed report that overlooks pro-business insights.
Expand Employment Activity to require analysis of job growth by sector (e.g., manufacturing, tech, logistics), wage trends, and business vacancy rates; add v) Economic Impact Assessment reviewing GDP contributions and fiscal impacts of growth. Justification: Incorporating employment and economic metrics strengthens pro-growth planning by quantifying how land availability supports high-wage job creation (e.g., targeting 10,000 new jobs over 20 years), attracting investments, and boosting local revenues for infrastructure.

The formula focuses narrowly on residential land needs based on population growth and dwelling units, ignoring commercial, industrial, and mixed-use development required for job creation, business attraction, and economic vitality. This residential-only projection underestimates total land demand, potentially stifling economic growth by not accounting for employment-driven land uses. Add a new subsection to include a parallel formula for non-residential land needs: "(Projected 20-Year Job Growth × Average Acres per Job in Key Sectors) = Total Non-Residential Acres Needed," using data from local economic development reports (e.g., Commerce Lexington) on sector-specific land intensities (e.g., 5-10 acres per 100 manufacturing jobs). Justification: This ensures the report captures economic development demands, promoting job creation and business expansion by aligning land supply with employment projections, which drive tax revenue and population influx.

As LFUCG is discovering with Legacy Park, it takes 5-10 years of work creating a Jobs Park before you'll get your first employer to announce it is moving to the Park. Requiring the identification of a specific employer as opposed to detailing the potential economic opportunity will prevent the Council from ever invoking this provision. This is especially true if it is a publicly traded company. Public companies will not disclose their involvement in a jobs park project until the site has been zoned and they have been approved to build. We often will have to use code names to describe the project without being allowed to reference the actual end user. Again, if the 'shall' is switched to 'may' in Section 4(a), this concern is alleviated.

I made this comment at the Public Hearing, but to reiterate the "shall" in this provision will make the special need impossible to achieve. I'd recommend using the more standard "may" when providing a list of potential reasons the Council may find.

Recommendations for "improving efficiency" are vague and do not guarantee faster development timelines for specific projects. ADD A MANDATE: If the vacant land inventory meets the 20-year supply, the resulting regulatory change must include establishing a "High-Efficiency Infill & Redevelopment Green Track" that guarantees 90-day maximum review time for projects meeting objective criteria (e.g., density 50% above zoning minimum, 25% of units designated affordable, mixed-use).
Incentivizes private investment to solve the housing crisis quickly by offering certainty. A clear, objective benefit drives market behavior more effectively than general subjective policy.

The criteria for prioritizing proposals are not explicit, potentially leading to subjective decisions. ADD AS PRIORITY CRITERIA: The Subcommittee's prioritized recommendation must heavily weigh proposals that: (a) Commit to a higher Dwelling Units Per Acre (DU/A) than the average calculated in Section 1.3.e, and (b) Include a fully funded, clear schedule for the extension of major infrastructure provided by the applicant (e.g., private utility agreement).

This Rewards applicants offering the most efficient use of land and the lowest burden on public funds, aligning development with the stated goals of sustainable growth.

Include a provision allowing the Planning Commission to accept a Master Plan funded by the property owner(s), provided it meets objective standards set by the Division of Planning, and accelerate the review process (e.g., reduce the review time in Section 6.2 from ∼6 months to 90 days).

Allows projects with high commitment and readiness to bypass bureaucratic delays, speeding up the final adoption of the USB expansion.

ADD A DEFINITION: Define "Significant Employment Opportunity" using objective metrics: "A proposal must exceed 300 (X) full-time jobs with an average wage exceeding 150% (X%) of the current LFUCG median wage."
Provides investors with a clear, objective bar to meet. This moves the decision away from political debate and toward defined economic benefits, accelerating the Council's review process.

A 60-day window for property owners to submit proposals following a finding of need is too short for large, complex developments that require substantial upfront engineering and site analysis. EXTEND: Extend the proposal submission period in Section 5.1.a from 60 days to a minimum of 90 days.
Provides property owners and developers adequate time for due diligence, site planning, and forming necessary financial partnerships to submit a viable, high-quality application.

Consecutive 90-day reviews by the Planning Commission and Council (for a total of up to 180 days) are excessive for making recommendations. SHORTEN: Reduce the review periods in Section 2.3 and Section 3.1/3.2 from 90 days to 60 days.
Cutting two months from the initial review adds predictability and sends a message that the Council is serious about addressing housing/job needs quickly.

The current criteria for "vacant" land do not consider cost or zoning barriers, which deter investors from developing infill sites.
ADD: Require the Vacant Land Review to estimate the average time and cost (per unit) for infill development projects compared to new expansion area development. This highlights the regulatory drag.
Provides data to support the argument that the regulatory process is the primary inhibitor to infill, prompting necessary reform.

The mandatory policy/regulatory review is too vague. It should commit to specific, high-impact changes to facilitate infill immediately.
ADD A MANDATE: If the Growth Trends Report shows insufficient supply, the immediate policy recommendation must include initiating a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to allow Missing Middle housing types (duplexes, triplexes) on all residential lots county-wide.
Simplifies development, lowers construction costs, and immediately increases housing capacity without expanding the USB. This is a crucial investor signal.

A two-thirds vote (supermajority) creates an extreme political hurdle, potentially killing time-sensitive deals.
REVISE: Change the requirement to a simple majority vote (majority of the total membership) to approve the Economic Assessment and initiate expansion.
Economic development deals are time-sensitive. Requiring a supermajority introduces too much political risk and uncertainty for employers considering locating in Lexington.

The definition focuses on a "specific employer" or "economic development focused organization," which is too narrow.
EXPAND: The definition should also include land for large-scale, regional "Employment Center" or "Research/Tech Park" master plans initiated by the City/County to attract multiple future high-wage employers.
Proactive master planning for employment centers is a key economic development tool to ensure sites are shovel-ready when opportunities arise.

The 250-acre cap is arbitrary and severely limits the city's ability to compete for large-scale advanced manufacturing, logistics, or corporate campuses.
DELETE the "no more than 250 acres" cap. REPLACE with: "Acreage shall be determined by the specific land requirements of the prospective employer, provided the project is certified to meet a minimum threshold of 500 (X) new high-wage jobs or $150 Million ($X) in capital investment."

The cap of "No expansion... that exceeds 30 years supply" is an excessive upper limit that does not account for economic certainty.
REVISE: The cap should be reviewed and potentially set at a lower, but still robust, level (e.g., 25 years) to ensure fiscal sustainability, but the minimum acreage addition must meet a 20-year need.

This cap should be carefully evaluated. An excessive cap can lead to inefficient land use; however, setting the minimum at the 20-year need provides necessary certainty for investors.

The requirement to first consider and potentially adopt policy/regulatory changes before addressing the need for acreage can delay a critical expansion by years.
AMEND: Change the language to allow the Urban County Council to consider both Policy/Regulatory changes AND Additional Acreage (Section 2.c / 3.b) simultaneously.

Policy changes are essential, but the process must not be stalled. Simultaneous review maintains forward momentum and provides flexibility to address the need quickly.

The formula is too focused on residential-only density, potentially lowering the average.
CLARIFY/ADD: Ensure that the average density calculation aggressively includes mixed-use developments by counting the residential acreage portion as the total parcel acreage to accurately reflect higher USB densities.
Encourages and accurately values the high-density, mixed-use projects critical for efficient infill.

While floodplains are excluded, other severe constraints that make land financially unfeasible are not. ADD: Explicitly require the removal of documented steep slopes and grades and acreage constrained by major utility easements from the "Total vacant acres."
This directly addresses the "Net Developable Acreage" issue. Including these sites artificially inflates capacity and deters development.

The criteria only counts land zoned AG or with AG use, missing urbanized, but undevelopable, parcels that contribute to the perceived supply.
EXPAND: Criteria must also include an analysis of underutilized, non-AG zoned parcels that are functionally non-developable due to regulatory burdens, outdated zoning, or extreme costs.
The review must be an honest assessment of true infill potential, not just a count of large, undeveloped AG tracts within the USB.

The formula does not account for the current severe housing backlog and only addresses future population growth.
ADD A TERM: The formula for Total Dwelling Units Needed must include an explicit factor for "Current Housing Supply Deficit + Target Vacancy Rate Buffer" to aggressively correct the existing shortage.

Planning must address the existing crisis, not just future growth. A healthy vacancy rate (e.g., 5-7%) is essential to stabilize housing prices.

Majority vote, not 2/3

Allow Urban County Council (majority vote) l waiver if a project requires more than 250 acres

Create expedited tracks for projects that meet density, mixed-use, or affordability targets, guaranteeing a decision within a fixed, aggressive timeframe (e.g., 60-90 days). Time is money, and delays directly increase housing and business costs.

A commitment to a complete overhaul of the permitting and zoning review process is needed, not just a promise to review vacant land.

This should be changed to Net Developable Acreage. We must stop planning our growth on an illusion of acreage. The notion that simply adding a gross number of acres solves our needs is fundamentally flawed because not all land is equal. We can't build homes or create jobs in floodplains, on steep slopes, or in areas required for mandated open space and ag buffers. If the program continues to rely on gross numbers, it will inevitably overestimate our capacity and fail to meet our housing goals, forcing us to go through the painful expansion process again sooner than expected. We need the program to be a responsible steward of our future by instituting a transparent, data-driven mandate for calculating Net Developable Acreage instead of Total Acres.

I don't entirely understand why there's a formula for determining 'acres needed' in this section, especially when this is ultimately a decision about whether to build densely or sprawl. The presentation of this as a formula, and the word 'needed,' makes it seem like an objective and unbiased number. Would it be possible to determine total dwelling units needed based on a formula, and then move the determination of land needed into the policy and regulatory recommendations section with numbers based on different potential policy recommendations? Otherwise it seems like this really has the potential to obfuscate the values-based decisions around density and land use moving forward.

As a Lexington resident concerned with preserving our community's unique character—from horse farms to historic neighborhoods—I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the September 2025 second draft of the Preservation & Growth Management Program (LPGMP). The emphasis on a transparent process for Urban Service Area (USA) reviews is a step toward responsible land-use decisions, helping manage growth without unnecessary sprawl.However, I urge caution against embedding external influences that could steer LPGMP toward restrictive models, as seen in Los Angeles under former Mayor Eric Garcetti's sustainability-driven plans. There, C40-aligned net-zero goals (carbon neutrality by 2050) justified post-2025 wildfire rezoning that crammed development into urban cores, effectively downzoning suburbs and raising Takings Clause challenges (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 1978) for uncompensated property devaluations. Lexington's own goal of net zero by 2050 in Imagine Lexington 2045 risks a similar path if LPGMP metrics prioritize global-style "resilience" over local needs.Key concerns in the draft:Service Extensions Beyond USA (Section 4): Barring infrastructure like sewers outside boundaries could lock rural properties in limbo, preventing reasonable development and violating property rights under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)—a stealthy erosion of freedoms without due process.
Land Removal for Underutilization (Section 5): Vague efficiency thresholds may disproportionately affect pre-2024 annexed or minority-owned parcels, echoing equal protection issues if "sustainability" weights (e.g., environmental scoring) import non-local priorities.
Metric Discretion (Section 3): With Vice Mayor Wu's involvement in 2025 fellowships like Next City Vanguard (equitable urbanism focus), external ideas could tip balances toward density mandates, sidelining balanced growth for net-zero enforcement.

To protect constitutional rights and ensure LPGMP serves all residents—not just urban priorities—I recommend:Mandate Local-Only Inputs: Prohibit non-resident or external frameworks (e.g., UN/SDG echoes) in metric design; require public votes on thresholds to maintain sovereignty.
Constitutional Safeguards: Enforce pre-change impact studies with just compensation (e.g., buyout funds) for devalued lands, plus grandfathering for existing owners.
Appeals & Audits: Bolster Planning Commission processes with fast-track judicial review and independent equity checks to avoid LA-style overreach.

These measures would ground LPGMP in Lexington's values—freedom, fairness, and practical progress—while avoiding the pitfalls of top-down sustainability that burdens everyday Kentuckians. Thank you for the September 16 forum; I look forward to the December 2 GGP and am available to discuss.

Section 1
2b) ii) Rather than using present Average Household Size, use a projection based on the trend line for household size over the past twenty years .
2b) iii) Increase the five-year average to reflect the increased density supported by the present Comp Plan

Section 7 Delete this section, since such a proposal is presently allowed by the zoning regs. Or, if this remains, add some thresholds for projected number of jobs created, scale of investment, and economic impact.