2007 Comprehensive Plan

The 2007 Comprehensive

Plan for Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

2007 Comprehensive

Plan for Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

The elements of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan were adopted as follows:

Urban County Council

Goals and Objectives

Planning Commission

Land Use

Community Facilities

Environmental and Green Infrastructure

Historic Preservation

Military Installations

Transportation

Affordable Housing

Implementation

Final Rendering

March 9, 2006

January 22, 2007

March 15, 2007

March 29, 2007

April 16, 2007

October 11, 2007

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government

Jim Newberry, Mayor

Urban County Council Planning Commission

Jim Gray, Vice Mayor

Linda Gorton

Chuck Ellinger II

Andrea James

Tom Blues

Dick DeCamp

Julian Beard

David B. Stevens

Kevin O. Stinnett

K.C. Crosbie

George G. Myers

Jay McChord

Don Blevins

Richard P. Moloney

Randall Vaughn, Chair

Linda Godfrey, Vice Chair

Lyle Aten

K. Mike Cravens

Neill Day

Ed Holmes

James Mahan

Frank Penn

Carolyn Richardson

Lynn Roche-Phillips

Joan Whitman

Steve Kay (member during process)

Ann Ross (member during process

Ed Lane and adoption)

The following elected officials served during preparation and adoption of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives:

Teresa Isaac, Mayor

Councilmembers:

Mike Scanlon, Vice Mayor

Bill Farmer, Jr., Planning Committee Chair

George A. Brown, Jr.

Jacques Wigginton

Bill Cegelka

Sandy Shafer

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan was prepared and fully adopted under the leadership of Dallam B. Harper, Jr., Planning Commission Chair, 2004-2007

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government 200 East Main Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507 www.lexingtonky.gov

Comprehensive Plans in Kentucky serve as guides for public and private actions to ensure that all property is developed in the most appropriate relationships. Kentucky Revised Statutes enumerate the purpose, content, and process that local planning commissions must follow when creating and implementing comprehensive plans. In Fayette County, comprehensive plans have influenced growth and development for over 75 years. From the earliest days of the City-County Planning Commission through the merger of Lexington and Fayette County’s governments, citizens, officials, and professionals have worked together to create plans that embody the ideals and principles of responsible growth, environmental protection, and rural preservation. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan builds on the strengths of previous plans and embraces emerging and best practice methods of addressing critical issues.

The 2007 Plan is marked by two distinguishing characteristics: an engaging public participation process and the Planning Commission’s decision to keep the urban growth boundary at its 2001 location. A well-publicized series of public input meetings held throughout the community as well as public hearings and work sessions resulted in 64 meetings where citizens provided input and received information about the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Draft documents and other pertinent data were posted and updated on the government’s Web site and hundreds of citizen comments, both spoken and written, were catalogued and considered during the preparation of the 2007 Plan

Consideration of the urban growth boundary—the Urban Service Area—was the prevailing issue throughout the 2007 Plan process, with citizens and officials proffering a number of reasons to “hold the line.” These reasons included preservation of unique and prime agricultural land for crop, livestock, and equine farming. There were concerns that the government should focus its efforts on improving a century-old storm water and sanitary sewer system rather than adding new infrastructure. Others warned that the loss of any more rural land would threaten the matchlessness of Fayette County.

Advocates for expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary noted that the amount of vacant land was at its lowest level since the creation of the boundary in 1958, and that in less than a decade, there would be no more residential land for growth. They also stated that the existing infrastructure issues would not be affected by new construction and that without an adequate supply of land, problems of housing affordability would be exacerbated. In the end, however, the Planning Commission committed to pursue a growth strategy through infill, redevelopment, and mixed-use development and reiterated its desire for regional participation in addressing growth issues.

With a no-expansion comprehensive plan, the opportunity to pursue cutting edge and best practice techniques to accommodate growth has never been better. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan introduces Green Infrastructure to the planning process and calls for aggressive action for affordable housing. The principles of the Downtown Masterplan feature prominently in the growth and economic development plans for Lexington. The Rural Settlements are recognized for their historic significance and called to play a role in Fayette County’s future. A detailed Implementation chapter describes specific projects and assigns responsibility for completing them.

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan is comprised of text, maps, charts, diagrams, and photos. Throughout the 2007 Plan, there are references to other adopted plans, some overseen by other divisions and agencies. The 2007 Plan is available in printed and digital forms and is available on the Internet.

Goals And Objectives

Goals and Objectives

Public Hearing 2007 - Government Center

Sandersville Road at Spurr Road

Center Court rendering in South Hill

Euclid Avenue

Goals and Objectives Mission Statement

The mission of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government’s planning efforts is to provide a vision for physical development that will allow Lexington-Fayette County to grow and prosper, promoting economic development and viable job development while preserving the quality of life that makes it a desirable place to work and live and protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods, downtown, and the rural Bluegrass cultural landscape.

Vision for Lexington-Fayette County

As the urban center of the Bluegrass Region, Lexington-Fayette County’s vision is closely linked to what has been described as an ideal pattern of land use and urban design within its metropolitan regional setting. Lexington, as a compact urban center, is surrounded by a cherished and unique rural landscape and is rimmed by relatively compact smaller communities, each with its own distinctive character.

The built areas of Lexington-Fayette County are a collection of diverse neighborhoods with individual identities and characteristics encircled by general agricultural and thoroughbred horse farms. These neighborhoods are the building blocks of community throughout urban and rural areas. It is through these neighborhoods and rural settings that Lexingtonians experience an uncommon quality of life every day. Each neighborhood has value for Lexington, and all neighborhoods should be healthy, vibrant, and desirable places to live.

The challenge of planning efforts will be to sustain this extraordinary development pattern while preserving, enhancing, and allowing for redevelopment of the built environment and maintaining a high quality of life for current and future residents. The following Comprehensive Plan themes will enhance this effort:

• Promoting the myriad components that strengthen the viability of downtown, including professional and commercial uses, cultural and recreational activities, and new and existing housing.

• Implementing infill and redevelopment strategies that expand residential and commercial opportunities; are appropriate in character and design; and complement and reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood.

• Preserving horse farms, rural settlements, and rural Bluegrass landscapes by balancing agricultural and urban area needs in a manner that maintains a viable economy while retaining the strong sense of place that is Lexington and the Bluegrass.

• Enabling the creation, growth, and retention of jobs that promote a strong, progressive, and diversified urban and rural economy.

• Developing a green infrastructure system with open space, facilities, and amenities that serves all citizens and helps create a sense of community.

• Preserving, protecting, and maintaining existing residential neighborhoods in a manner that ensures stability and the highest quality of life for all residents.

• Ensuring the availability of well-designed, affordable housing in an aesthetically satisfying environment, including housing opportunities in all price ranges that meet the needs of all citizens.

• Providing infrastructure improvements to fully serve existing developments, to accommodate current growth, to plan for long-term future urban needs, and to enhance the high quality of life in Lexington.

Comprehensive Planning Process

Comprehensive planning is a systematic and continuing appraisal of the Urban County Government’s opportunities with the purpose of guiding and coordinating public and private actions to produce an improved pattern of urban development. Lexington’s comprehensive plans reflect the best thinking of the Urban County Government and its citizens about these development opportunities and overall development policies at a current point in the planning process. This process is a continuing program of study, discussion, coordination, and direct action intended to provide perspective and understanding to both long-range and short-range decision making. This is an open-ended process that must be responsive to changing conditions. As a result, this plan, which looks 20 years and beyond, is reviewed and re-evaluated every five years to assure the continuing relevance of the Goals and Objectives.

Land use planning is comprehensive in at least three ways. First, it involves both the short- and long-term time intervals. Second, though centered on physical development and guidance of physical change and impact, a comprehensive plan must give appropriate weight to social and economic factors. Third, though primarily a guide for local action, there must be careful consideration of regional implications.

While traditional comprehensive planning attempts to understand and assess Lexington-Fayette County as an urban and rural system, this plan also incorporates elements of strategic planning wherein achievable objectives over the first five years of the plan are identified in the Implementation chapter. In short, within the plan’s long-range framework, it will incorporate certain strategic planning concepts that blend the best aspects of traditional planning and strategic action-oriented planning.

Goals Statement

The vision of Lexington-Fayette County is directly related to the goals in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The goals create a vision of the physical development and quality of life the community hopes to achieve. While each goal is a worthwhile statement of purpose, all the goals are meant to be viewed holistically as a systematic approach to making Lexington-Fayette County an even better community. The goals are further clarified through a series of objectives or specific means of action to accomplish this agreed upon Lexington-Fayette County vision.

To assure that the intent of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan is followed, recommendations on proposed land use or other plan elements should be based upon this plan in its entirety, including the Goals and Objectives, Land Use, Green Infrastructure, Community Facilities, Housing and Neighborhoods, Transportation, and Implementation. Individual elements of this plan should not be consulted exclusively. Accordingly, the Goals and Objectives should be viewed comprehensively. Efforts have been made to minimize the repetition of Objectives under multiple Goals, placing the Objective only under the most relevant Goal. Use of these Goals and Objectives in future land use planning decisions should reflect the breadth of the Goals and Objectives as a whole.

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan in it entirety is the single formal document in which major development goals, objectives, and plan elements are brought together and coordinated. The following Goals and Objectives frequently refer to land use development concepts and functional planning areas for Lexington-Fayette County. Used in conjunction with other goals, objectives, and plan elements, they shape land use decision-making and guide future development. The Goals and Objectives, however, are not intended to dictate specific land uses and zoning categories.

The 2007 Comprehensive plan

Planning Process and Region

Goal 1 Provide planning processes which enable widespread citizen participation and benefit Lexington-Fayette County.

Objectives:

A. Provide an ethically sound decision-making environment for planning and zoning; ensure that the planning process is open and accessible, efficient and effective.

B. Encourage active citizen participation in planning processes from all segments of the community.

C. Use all available technology to enable dissemination of public information and enhance opportunities for citizen participation; consider alternative formats for public input and communication to ensure a well-informed public.

D. Work with citizen-based neighborhood organizations that encourage and enable neighborhood self-management and improvement.

i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Goal 2 Promote regional planning and coordination throughout the inner Bluegrass Region.

Objectives:

A. Promote cooperation among local planning commissions, local governments, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Regional Planning Council, including sharing information and data bases and increasing awareness of regional planning, environmental issues, and alternative growth management techniques.

B. Develop and adopt a regional plan with local land use policies that enhance the positive aspects of growth for the region; encourage more efficient use of land; maintain identities of individual communities; and preserve the agricultural core, the natural resources, and the cultural landscape of the Bluegrass Region.

C. Study alternative organizational structures for regional land use and transportation planning efforts.

D. Pursue intergovernmental planning processes and integrated land use, transportation, sanitary sewers, and storm water planning of potential development along each of Fayette County’s borders and the radial arterial road corridors connecting adjacent counties with Lexington.

E. Study a diverse range of transportation improvements to meet long-range, inter-county transportation needs, linking transportation proposals with growth management controls to ensure efficient traffic movement and responsible planning.

F. Encourage intergovernmental regional planning processes for the development of parks, greenspace, viewsheds, and greenways, including bikeway opportunities.

G. Pursue greater planning, cooperation, and coordination with entities of state and federal government to ensure that governmental land uses not subject to local zoning control do not unduly burden Urban County Government infrastructure or adversely impact land uses in the general vicinity.

H. Participate in planning activities related to expansion and construction projects at the Blue Grass Airport.

I. Consult with command authorities at Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County to determine the needs of the installation as they relate to installation expansion, environmental impact, installation safety, and air space usage, to include noise and air pollution and air safety, to minimize conflict between the installation and the residential population in Fayette County.

Environmental Framework

Goal 3 Promote land uses that are sensitive to the natural and built environment.

Objectives:

A. Protect and secure rural open space and scenic vistas, particularly in environmentally sensitive and physically unique areas.

B. Promote design quality, compatibility, and preservation of existing significant structures and areas.

C. Monitor and minimize air, water, visual, noise, and artificial light pollution.

D. Protect or promote proper use and maintenance of natural areas and resources and their biodiversity.

E. Preserve, protect, and maintain soils, existing trees, tree stands, and other plant life; natural drainage ways, creeks, and springs; and environmentally sensitive areas such as sinkholes and steep slopes from severe intrusion, alteration, or destruction during urban development.

F. Use available natural and built resource inventories and environmental impact analyses to help determine land use plans.

G. Ensure that the appropriate facilities and structures are used to accommodate surface drainage in a manner that recognizes their effects on underground drainage and are consistent with the desire to improve water quality.

H. Strengthen street design and current landscape regulations to enhance the visual quality, improve screening and buffering along Urban Service Area corridors, and promote compatible land use relationships.

Goal

3

Goal 4 G

Goal 4 Develop and implement a greenspace system that preserves the urban and rural identity of Fayette County and provides a framework for regional and local planning.

Objectives:

A. Use the Greenspace Plan as a basic framework for balancing development to protect and enhance Fayette County’s natural resources, biodiversity, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife corridors, historic and cultural areas, and to preserve urban and rural landscapes.

B. Create plans, programs, and regulations that recognize and manage open space and the natural environment (green infrastructure) as a comprehensive, vital system that encompasses a multitude of environmental, social, and economic functions.

C. Protect and enhance natural areas and improve biodiversity of native flora and fauna throughout Fayette County.

D. Preserve, protect, and enhance the greenspace elements that give the Bluegrass Region its unique identity, including biologically diverse natural areas, scenic vistas and corridors, places of historic and cultural significance, environmentally sensitive areas, geologic hazard areas, and riparian areas.

E. Implement the Greenway Master Plan.

F. Preserve, protect, and enhance the character of significant transportation corridors throughout Fayette County, providing for appropriate open space, setbacks, and landscaping as well as multi-purpose transportation needs.

G. Increase, preserve, and enhance open space for passive and active recreational, educational, and economic opportunities.

H. Encourage cooperation and communication throughout the Bluegrass Region in order to promote greenspace, environmental protection, and land conservation.

I. Promote sensitivity to wildlife.

J. Continue to implement the Reforest the Bluegrass program by annually identifying an appropriate stream corridor, open space, neighborhood area, or significant street, and planting a large number of trees.

Goal 5 Protect and preserve Fayette County’s significant historic and cultural heritage.

Objectives:

A. Use the Long-Range Preservation Plan as a resource to assist in balancing development and protecting and enhancing Fayette County’s historic and cultural resources.

B. Preserve, protect, and enhance the natural and cultural landscape that gives the Bluegrass Region its unique identity and image.

C. Encourage protection of significant historic resources and archeological sites by documenting and/or designating historic districts and historic landmarks.

D. Encourage renovation, restoration development, and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures.

E. Encourage the retention, protection, and compatible adaptive re-use of historic resources, sites, and structures.

F. Encourage the development of incentives for the retention, restoration, preservation, or continuation of historic uses of historic sites, historic structures, rural settlements, and urban and rural neighborhoods.

G. Encourage citizen education about the importance of Fayette County’s historic resources.

H. Encourage inter-governmental cooperation among the various units of the Urban County Government in dealing with the protection and maintenance of both private and public sites and structures.

I. Encourage continued historic and cultural contributions by and partnerships with local and regional institutions of higher learning.

J. Limit land use in rural settlements to the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan or amendments to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

Goal 5

Restored Historic Home - Woodland Park

Goal 6 Maintain and enhance the agricultural economy, horse farms, general agricultural farms, and rural character in the Rural Service Area.

Objectives:

A. Continue to fund and implement the Purchase of Development Rights program.

B. Consider the location of Purchase of Development Rights easements or other interests designed to preserve and manage agricultural, rural, and natural lands when deciding whether and where to adjust the Urban Service Area boundary.

C. Use the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan as a framework for balancing development and protecting and enhancing Fayette County’s rural resources and preserving the rural landscape.

D. Protect, preserve, and enhance the rural characteristics and agricultural productivity of agricultural land.

E. Encourage public and private investment in rural economic development through support of agricultural markets and value-added agriculture production.

F. Build upon the land capability analysis inventory portion of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan by monitoring changes in use of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance and developing appropriate enhancement and protection mechanisms.

G. Preserve adequate land for the equine industry; protect equine operations from encroachment; and promote future equine industry growth in the region.

H. Support and encourage existing horse breeding and racing operations and encourage expanded capital investment and new farm development as tools for local and international investment and economic development.

I. Buffer rural land and activities, including greenspace, from the impact of new urban development by requiring the provision of a landscape and security buffer along and inside the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Center boundaries to minimize the adverse short- and long-term effects of development on existing or potential farms and other greenspace.

J. Discourage residential development that is unrelated to agriculture in the Rural Service Area.

K. Maintain rural roads with minimal improvements in rural areas as noted in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, and manage rural growth opportunities so as to minimize negative impacts on rural roads.

L. Develop a strategy along with land use and design policies that recognize the historic significance of the rural settlements identified in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and ensure the protection and preservation of these areas from incompatible infill and redevelopment.

M. Foster compatibility between the rural settlements and adjacent agricultural land uses through the land use planning process.

Growth Management Strategies

Goal 7 Support and uphold the Urban Service Area concept and related growth management strategies.

Objectives:

A. Support development of the Urban Service Area as planned, reserving the Rural Service Area for the uses and activities outlined in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan.

B. Develop and implement land use planning principles that promote and reinforce human interaction and the formation of communities.

C. Support appropriate maintenance, development, redevelopment, and rehabilitation of housing and public facilities in accordance with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

D. Balance the need for an adequate supply of developable land to accommodate anticipated long-term growth with the need to preserve and protect existing neighborhoods, the built environment, and the Rural Service Area; use the recommendations of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and the Urban Service Area Boundary criteria (please see Appendix) whenever considering boundary modification.

E. Encourage new development to be compact and contiguous.

F. Evaluate the costs and impacts of future urban development alternatives, and propose preferred means for guiding the future development of the entire County.

G. Evaluate the latest population, housing, and employment trends and projections and establish long-term desired land use relationships to guide physical planning decisions.

H. Promote established employment areas at locations where public facilities are adequate for the anticipated uses, which are accessible to arterials and employees, which are appropriate for the uses, and which create balanced opportunities at various locations in Lexington-Fayette County.

I. Create balanced employment opportunities and higher intensity residential and non-residential uses that are compatible with existing developed areas.

J. Assure that development maximizes efficient use of existing adequate essential facilities or occurs only where essential facilities are planned and programmed to reasonably coincide with the occurrence of development.

r b a n S e r v i c e A r e a

Goal 8 I

Goal 8 Create strategies that enable and encourage appropriate infill and redevelopment of established developments and neighborhoods.

Objectives:

A. Fund and implement the core Infill and Redevelopment strategies outlined in the adopted Infill and Redevelopment community plan including: regulatory improvements, program facilitation, incentives development, neighborhood planning, and public education.

B. Continue to review and revise existing zoning and subdivision regulations on an ongoing basis to ensure they are conducive to infill and redevelopment, including streamlining the development review process.

C. Identify infill and redevelopment areas where infrastructure improvement efforts should be targeted.

D. Create and implement urban development incentives for infill and redevelopment for established developed areas that are within the defined Infill and Redevelopment area and at appropriate locations outside the area.

E. Encourage the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of all existing underutilized buildings to the greatest extent feasible.

F. Create strategies for new neighborhood centers and businesses that are compatible with and support existing residential areas.

G. Revitalize and enhance existing neighborhood centers and businesses.

H. Ensure that infill and redevelopment projects are compatible with and complementary to existing development.

I. Balance the need to accommodate infill and redevelopment in Lexington’s older areas with the need to preserve the essential character of historic districts.

J. Ensure that necessary infrastructure improvements accompany all infill and redevelopment projects.

K. Rehabilitate, maintain, and improve existing infrastructure that supports infill and redevelopment, particularly in underserved areas and projects targeted for affordable housing.

L. Encourage infill and redevelopment in locations where adequate urban services and infrastructure are in place or planned.

M. Support neighborhood planning processes that encourage active neighborhood participation and involvement in infill and redevelopment activities.

N. Design and support programs aimed at converting vacant lots into residential housing.

Goal 9 Maintain the boundaries and manage the land use in established Rural Activity Centers.

Objectives:

A. Recognize the unique characteristics and history of the four established Rural Activity Centers.

B. Create no new Rural Activity Centers.

C. Limit Rural Activity Centers to the existing boundaries, except for consideration as a part of the comprehensive plan or a small area plan process and upon consideration of issues outlined in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, including land needs, traffic, adequacy of sewers, and other pertinent factors.

D. Limit land uses in Rural Activity Centers to the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

E. Plan for future land uses of Rural Activity Centers that are consistent and compatible with Rural Service Area uses.

F. Assure that the Blue Grass Airport Rural Activity Center continues to meet the aviation needs of Central Kentucky and its service area.

G. Foster compatibility between the airport and adjacent agricultural land uses, and between the airport and the residential population, especially the maintenance of open space and established communities around the airport.

H. Protect the agricultural and scenic characteristics of the surrounding land.

I. Consult with command authorities at Bluegrass Station (also know as Avon Rural Activity Center) to determine the needs of the installation as they relate to installation expansion, environmental impact, installation safety, and air space usage, to include noise and air pollution and air safety, to minimize conflict between the installation and the residential population.

Blue Grass Airport

Goal 10 T

Employment

Goal 10 Preserve, promote, and enhance those aspects of the natural, built, and cultural environment that encourage tourism.

Objectives:

A. Recognize various types of tourism as significant and desirable components of the local economy and encourage the preservation of the cultural, historic, ecological, and agricultural resources upon which they are based.

B. Encourage and promote the vital role of the equine industry and its related industries in tourism and tourism development.

C. Provide leadership and support for the development and implementation of plans related to the 2010 World Equestrian Games.

D. Identify, protect, and encourage the development of appropriate attractions and supporting uses that promote and enhance tourism and tourism development.

E. Identify, protect, and enhance Fayette County’s role in regional tourism.

F. Promote and enhance facilities and activities in and around the Downtown area necessary to support and attract tourism.

G. Promote and enhance existing tourist attractions, including interpretive and public information facilities, historic markers, and similar systems.

H. Identify and provide for the future location of anticipated or desired potential major cultural and tourism-related uses.

I. Create an overall graphic design and street graphic system for LexingtonFayette County that complements and reinforces the unique identity and image of the region.

J. Protect and enhance rural scenic corridors from visual evidence of suburban development, providing for appropriate open space, setbacks, and landscaping both in rural areas and affected urban locations.

K. Protect and enhance urban scenic corridors.

L. Develop strategies with input from residents to promote and enhance the tourism potential of the rural settlements identified in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan

Goal 11. Provide diverse business and employment opportunities for LexingtonFayette County.

Objectives:

A. Encourage expansion of agricultural employment opportunities.

B. Create and enhance partnerships among the Urban County Government, the University of Kentucky and other post-secondary educational institutions, and the business community that encourage high wage business development, specifically technology and knowledge-based economic development opportunities.

C. Encourage retention and expansion of existing local industries and businesses.

D. Attract new job-creating capital investment to Lexington and the region.

E. Devote economic development resources equitably, assisting existing firms as well as attracting new ones.

F. Provide for workforce development by increased training and employment opportunities for those segments of the County with chronic unemployment.

G. Encourage employment opportunities that lead to full and equal employment for all citizens, including Lexington’s poor.

H. Permit only economic development activities that are consistent with and complementary to the protection of the built and the natural environment and human resources.

I. Provide essential employment areas that are compatible with residential neighborhoods and Lexington-Fayette County as a whole.

J. Encourage revitalization and/or reuse of underutilized employment centers.

K. Identify long-range strategies for economic development that reflect the comparative advantage of Lexington and the region.

L. Allow greater flexibility within commercial, office, warehouse, and industrial areas within the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers where these uses will not conflict with residential and agricultural uses.

M. Encourage economic development that will provide residents with economic opportunities that sustain adequate income and generate sufficient public revenue for equitable and adequate services and facilities.

N. Provide for additional home-based businesses in a manner compatible with the character and quality of the surrounding neighborhood.

O. Analyze manufacturing and light industrial areas for availability and appropriateness and address future land use needs for high quality manufacturing and light industrial jobs in accessible locations.

P. Encourage diverse modes and routes of transportation opportunities between employment sites and residential concentrations.

Goal

11

Goal 12 Ensure the desirability, diversity, and vitality of downtown.

Objectives:

A. Support the adoption and implementation of a downtown master plan as an element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

B. Build upon the strengths of existing businesses and solicit new uses and activities, including residential development that will improve the vitality of downtown for commerce, culture, entertainment, and neighborhoods.

C. Strengthen and enhance the relationships between downtown businesses and the public and private universities and colleges that foster cultural, entertainment, commercial, and residential activities in and around downtown.

D. Encourage the creative adaptive re-use of downtown buildings to accommodate the needs of businesses and entrepreneurial enterprises.

E. Promote sufficient hotel, retail, and office space within the downtown area to meet a significant percentage of the overall needs of the County.

F. Promote and enhance downtown as a desirable housing center through the reuse of existing structures, mixed-use development, and/or higher density development.

G. Preserve and protect the historic and cultural resources of the downtown area.

H. Foster public-private efforts to maintain, rehabilitate, and redevelop downtown.

I. Recognize and preserve significant architectural features and encourage new construction to be compatible with these significant features.

J. Implement creative efforts to enable more housing in the downtown area; encourage the creation of more downtown residential uses through new construction, restoration, adaptive re-use, and redevelopment that are compatible with surrounding land uses and design.

K. Encourage maximum use of the Downtown Transit Center site.

L. Develop more efficient and safer pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the downtown area from all directions to more effectively promote its use as a regional attraction.

M. Enhance existing downtown open spaces and improve pedestrian connections.

N. Review and consider amending the current regulations to accommodate additional bed and breakfast establishments in existing structures in the downtown area, in a manner that continues to protect existing neighborhoods and promotes preservation of historic structures.

O. Streamline the development process for downtown projects.

Communities and Neighborhoods

Goal 13. Provide housing opportunities to meet the needs of all citizens.

Objectives:

A. Offer sufficient choice of decent and safe housing for citizens of all income levels in all areas of Lexington.

B. Support Fair Housing principles and practices.

C. Provide for a wide range of lifestyles and economic opportunities for all residents, including the elderly, and do so in a manner which is affordable and cost effective.

D. Promote a variety of housing types for households with children throughout the Urban Service Area to encourage diversity in all schools.

E. Provide increased opportunities for and reduce impediments to home ownership.

F. Provide land for residential uses of all types in sufficient amount and locations within the Urban Service Area to adequately meet the projected population growth of Fayette County.

G. Encourage the rehabilitation, reuse, and adaptive reuse of structures for residential purposes in existing neighborhoods, including underutilized public and commercial buildings.

H. Encourage a variety of residential densities that respect the character of existing neighborhoods and developments, and are consistent with adopted plans.

I. Encourage infill housing opportunities where compatible with existing areas and where services and infrastructure problems will not be exacerbated.

J. Update and improve building and development codes and regulations to allow the most efficient and innovative construction methods, materials, and technology, and to comply with all applicable federal accessibility regulations.

K. Create incentives at employment centers throughout the Urban Service Area that encourage people to live near their work.

L. Consider making surplus public land that is compatible for residential development available for affordable housing.

M. Incorporate principles from the Expansion Area Master Plan throughout the Urban Service Area, including expanding incentives to promote the creative development of affordable housing consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods.

H o u s i n g O p p o r t u n i t y

Goal 14

Goal 14 Establish and promote well-designed communities that provide appropriate services to multi-neighborhood areas and encourage community interaction.

Objectives:

A. Establish incentives and/or regulatory requirements that are designed to promote better integration of a variety of housing types in close proximity.

B. Identify, plan, and locate community mixed-use centers as concentrations of mixed land uses that are compatible with surrounding areas at key locations with access to a diverse range of transportation facilities.

C. Establish design and location criteria to promote the compatibility of existing and proposed community mixed-use centers with their surroundings.

D. Improve the quality and level of essential public and community facilities and services, especially public transportation, to serve multi-neighborhood communities.

E. Evaluate public and community facilities in each community area and prioritize capital improvements to enhance each community.

F. Encourage new residential developments to exceed minimum threshold densities.

G. Promote utility-efficient facility, structure, and site design in public and private developments.

H. Re-evaluate the definitions of and criteria for various scales of retail areas and shopping centers, with particular emphasis on creating standards for small-scale mixed-use and appropriate neighborhood scale developments.

I. Develop communities and neighborhoods that are self-sustaining by enabling a range of services and activities, such as employment centers, neighborhood commercial centers, mixed residential types, schools, community centers, recreation and leisure, and worship.

Goal 15. Preserve, protect, and enhance the character and quality of existing neighborhoods.

Objectives:

A. Retain the character, identity, and appearance of vital, successful residential and nonresidential areas.

B. Develop strategies to maintain, preserve, and revitalize existing neighborhoods.

C. Develop, adopt, and periodically review small area plans as tools to address neighborhood and community enhancement issues; develop small area plans in a systematic manner, ensuring that they are thoughtful and inclusive, with broad neighborhood participation.

D. Develop design standards and/or guidelines for compatible infill and redevelopment for older, established areas that reflect the best characteristics of those areas, including the rural settlements identified in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan.

E. Plan for and promote infill and redevelopment that is appropriate in character, density, and design and serves to reinforce the fabric of the neighborhood.

F. Plan for the establishment of retail uses with a neighborhood focus and character, providing opportunities for employment and essential services closer to residents, including but not limited to corner groceries, dry cleaners, delicatessens, and barbershops.

G. Plan for the revitalization of existing neighborhood business areas (B-1 zones).

H. Encourage innovative design, planning, and development solutions that are consistent with neighborhood needs and character.

I. Implement neighborhood protection overlay zoning provisions as a tool for establishing stability and protection in existing and, especially, older neighborhoods.

J. Continue to work with universities and neighborhoods to address common concerns.

K. Promote human-scale, bicycle, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.

L. Enhance the visual quality of arterial and collector streets with street trees and with landscape buffers along neighborhood streets and backyards that border major arterials, where feasible.

M. Promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest in existing neighborhoods.

N. Review existing land use and zoning and amend the zoning map as necessary to protect neighborhoods, to encourage appropriate density and character development, and to implement the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

O. Create a system to review existing conditional uses to ensure that they are complying with conditions imposed at the time of their approval.

Goal 16 Promote well-designed new development that creates and enhances neighborhoods and communities.

Objectives:

A. Develop residential blocks or patterns that provide a well-organized and complete system of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle-friendly facilities, and have human scale architectural or urban design features and community focus of common areas.

B. Encourage creative neighborhood design with interconnecting street systems and a sense of community.

C. Develop standards to improve local and regional street connectivity.

D. Encourage medium- and high-density residential and higher intensity nonresidential uses that respect the character of existing neighborhoods and developments and are compatible with proposed development areas.

E. Plan locations of residential and commercial land uses carefully to provide appropriately sized and designed facilities that are compatible with and best serve their surrounding neighborhoods.

F. Encourage the creation of community centers in newly developing areas as outlined in the Expansion Area Master Plan and related documents.

G. Ensure the development and improvement of essential public and community facilities and services in residential and nonresidential areas.

H. Encourage provision of adequate sites for public or semi-public community amenities that contribute to community character, such as schools, places of worship, parks, or common open space within a reasonable distance of every residence in the Urban Service Area.

I. Coordinate and reconcile the need to design neighborhoods to be walkable and pedestrian-friendly with the safe and efficient provision of urban services such as refuse collection and fire protection.

Facilities and Services

Goal 17 Conserve, protect, and develop ground and surface water resources to meet the long- and short-term water supply needs.

Objectives:

A. Coordinate 2007 Comprehensive Plan analyses and recommendations with water supply and infrastructure needs and issues addressed in the Fayette County 20-Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan.

B. Protect and enhance the overall quality of the stream and river corridors and aquifer recharge areas in both urban and rural areas.

C. Preserve natural water storage and retention systems.

D. Work closely with organizations and agencies that address water quality and supply, as well as surrounding communities, to ensure responsible regional solutions to the future water supply, including contingencies during droughts.

E. Ensure there is a continual source of potable groundwater from the Royal Spring water system for Scott and Fayette County residents.

F. Reduce water usage through the implementation of long-term conservation measures.

G. Improve coordination and planning between the private and public sectors to provide an adequate and effective water supply.

Goal 17 G r o u n d w a t e r R e s o u r c e s

Manchester Branch of South Elkhorn Creek, western Fayette Co.

Goal 18 Provide and maintain essential public services and facilities.

Objectives:

A. Ensure public services and facilities are adequate and equitably distributed.

B. Plan and program land acquisition and the installation of all essential public facilities, including but not limited to roadway needs, to reasonably coincide with the occurrence of development.

C. Maintain existing infrastructure and levels of service, and establish standards for timely maintenance, repair, and replacement needed for expansion.

D. Balance capital improvement expenditures between existing and new developments.

E. Make adequate the essential public facilities serving existing neighborhoods, underutilized employment centers, and economic development sites to more fully realize the potential of these areas.

F. Work as a partner with the University of Kentucky to ensure the provision of adequate infrastructure and other public services as UK implements its Top 20 Business Plan.

G. Maintain a supportive relationship, open communication, and close coordination with Fayette County Public Schools regarding their facility and infrastructure needs.

H. Develop mechanisms that facilitate site acquisition and school construction that best meet the needs of Lexington-Fayette County and the requirements of the Kentucky statutes and regulations.

I. Provide sanitary sewer service to the entire Urban Service Area through public and private cooperative efforts in financing, easement acquisition,

West High Street entrance to Lexington Center

Goal 19 Provide and maintain a comprehensive transportation system.

Objectives:

A. Use the transportation and land use planning and development process to continuously monitor, update, and implement the Transportation Plan and to coordinate all aspects with other 2007 Comprehensive Plan elements.

B. Encourage a more efficient and interconnected system of streets and highways and promote traffic patterns that provide alternatives to corridor travel.

C. Build collector road systems as planned.

D. Promote a safe and efficient transportation network within and between neighborhoods by incorporating traffic calming design and enhancements with interconnectivity of local streets.

E. Comply with the Clean Air Act of 1990.

F. Comply with all applicable federal accessibility regulations.

G. Provide a balanced and coordinated multi-modal transportation system; encourage the use of all viable modes of transportation.

H. Promote integrated land use and transportation planning.

I. Encourage and enhance mass transit development and use, including such related infrastructure as transfer facilities, bus shelters, street graphics, and pull-off and acceleration lanes.

J. Encourage and enhance alternatives to motorized modes of transportation, including biking and walking.

K. Ensure equitable distribution of transportation facilities and resources for low-income and minority populations, and minimize the inequitable impacts.

L. Ensure new transportation improvements minimize disruption of neighborhoods and farming operations.

M. Reduce the demand for single-occupancy vehicles on the highways by the use of transportation demand measures, such as flextime, telecommuting, land use management, and parking controls.

N. Enhance the visual character of all major transportation routes.

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S y s t e m

Goal 20. Provide and maintain a range of community facilities and services.

Objectives:

A. Provide each neighborhood with adequate public safety and government service facilities that enhance the character of the existing built environment.

B. Promote local and regional cultural facilities and activities.

C. Promote, support, and encourage public art, including adequate funding from both the public and private sectors.

D. Encourage an adequate and equitable distribution of safe and appropriately located child and adult daycare facilities and group residential care facilities and services throughout the Urban Service Area.

E. Plan for increased public safety service, including police, fire, and emergency medical services, throughout Fayette County as needed to meet the growing population and changing demographics.

F. Increase the level of human and social services provided to those citizens who are in need.

G. Plan for educational facilities to meet the changing needs and capabilities of Lexington-Fayette County through quality academic and vocational programs that will increase the professional or job skill abilities of all citizens.

H. Coordinate public facility development with other public and private agencies.

I. Encourage stronger cooperation between the Fayette County Public Schools and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Division of Parks and Recreation, including the use and location of park land, greenspace, greenways, playgrounds, and outdoor classrooms.

J. Assess the impact of new development or redevelopment on community facilities.

K. Use the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the 2007 Comprehensive Plan elements during the land development process to secure adequate passive and active recreation land and facilities to meet the needs of local neighborhoods and Fayette County as a whole.

L. Develop and implement plans for permanent preservation of floodplains and other environmentally sensitive sites, which can be evaluated as appropriate for active and passive recreation areas.

Goal 20 Objectivies continued

M. Develop stronger incentives for private dedication and public acquisition of park land.

N. Encourage park funding mechanisms to benefit neighborhoods, developers, and Fayette County.

O. Provide a full range of recreational programs, including the development of interpretive facilities.

P. Provide adequate opportunities for private nonresidential facilities to satisfy needs, including schools, parks and recreational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, social service facilities, and churches which serve the public but are privately owned, developed, and maintained.

Q. Provide street lights in the Urban Service Area to improve safety.

R. Encourage the development and installation of technology-based infrastructure, including but not limited to: fiber optics, wireless Internet connections, and similar facilities.

S. Provide all residents, including residents living downtown and in existing neighborhoods, with safe and convenient parks for recreation.

Goal 20

Duncan Park, North Limestone

Implementation

Goal 21. Develop strategies to effectively implement the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and other adopted community plans.

Objectives:

A. Ensure regulatory procedures are equitable and sensible.

B. Encourage implementation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plan recommendations by the Urban County Council through plan administration, capital improvement budgeting and programming, federal and state funds leveraging, and other strategies.

C. Provide growth opportunities consistent with a sound and balanced governmental fiscal budget.

D. Develop an ongoing monitoring and review process for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, small area plans, the Expansion Area Master Plan, and other plans related to land use.

E. Develop a GIS-based program to track all phases of land development.

F. Update land use information and monitor the adequacy of Urban Service Area land suitable for supplying the needs for long-term community development.

G. Evaluate proposals to expand the Urban Service Area using all long-range plans and programs, such as the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, the Rural Service Area Sanitary Sewer Capability Study, the Purchase of Development Rights program, and long-range transportation plans.

H. Develop mechanisms to ensure implementation of the proposed road network indicated on the future land use maps and local through-street recommendations.

I. Plan for adequate revenue sources to fund facilities and services that are articulated in plans.

J. Evaluate whether the development regulations in the Expansion Area can be implemented throughout the Urban Service Area to provide more flexibility in design and create more opportunities for affordable housing, employment, public facilities, and green infrastructure.

K. Develop a proactive approach that promotes the stringent and systematic enforcement of all locally adopted codes, including but not limited to, zoning, building, and other codes.

Land use

Courthouse Plaza, Limestone and Short

Reservoir #3 inside New Circle Road

New Residential, E. Sixth Street

Wolf Run Creek at Beacon Hill Road

Land Use Introduction

The Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan is, for most intents and purposes, the key element that bridges the vision embodied in the adopted Goals and Objectives and the various implementation efforts, including development regulations, zoning, subdivision, and proactive public actions. Distilled to its essence, the expressed community vision is to continue a long-standing community tradition and value system of a well-planned, compact, contiguous urban area surrounded by a world class agricultural area that is one of the defining components of our community and is acknowledged world-wide. The various components of this chapter are designed to continue the evolution and refinement of this vision and to further each of them to the benefit of the whole. They include geographic elements such as land use plans, maps, and small area plans. They also include strategic efforts that largely transcend specific location, such as efforts to add residential density to existing areas in a context-sensitive manner, infill/redevelopment, and similar plan objectives.

The Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan builds on the planning efforts and decisions made for the 2001 Plan Update, small area plans that were adopted subsequent to the 2001 Update, special projects such as infill and redevelopment, the Downtown Development Authority’s Downtown Masterplan process, a three-year rural settlements study, and other planning initiatives that have occurred since adoption of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. Most of the changes to the Land Use Map align the land use to current zoning, actual use, or density where those characteristics are expected to exist far into the future. Other changes indicate citizen proposals that were considered for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan; and other recommendations point to the need for a small area plan, in particular, for the Central Sector area generally north of Main Street and inside New Circle Road between Georgetown Street and Winchester Road.

As for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the issue that received the greatest amount of public attention and comment was whether a need existed to expand the Urban Service Area. While data indicated that vacant land supply is the lowest in the nearly 50-year history of the Urban Service Area, the Planning Commission determined that an expansion will not be a part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The Commission felt that continuing efforts of permanent rural preservation, sustained support for infill/redevelopment, and systematic repair of inadequate community infrastructure (in particular, storm and sanitary sewer systems) within existing neighborhoods should take priority at this time.

The Land Use Chapter includes land use plans, maps, and small area plans. It also includes strategic efforts that transcend specific location. The seminal decision by the Planning Commission for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan was to not expand the Urban Service Area.

The Planning Commission reviewed over 80 citizen proposals to change land uses, with most of the proposals to expand the Urban Service Area.

Citizen Proposals

In late 2005, the Planning Commission offered citizens the opportunity to submit a brief written proposal to change their land use. The Planning Commission received over 80 citizen proposals to change existing land uses in the urban and rural areas, including proposals to expand the Urban Service Area and the Blue Sky and Blue Grass Airport Rural Activity Centers. These proposals were considered in the context of the land use needs for the entire Urban Service Area and for the vicinity of the specific proposal. A map and list of the citizen proposals were posted on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Web page and the map was published in the Lexington HeraldLeader.

The Planning staff presented the citizen proposals to the Planning Commission over several work sessions. Through a series of four public comment meetings with the Planning Commission and five public outreach meetings held in the community, citizens were able to comment on the proposals. Many citizens submitted written or email comments as well, all of which were presented to the Planning Commission. Most of the comments were made in opposition to expanding the Urban Service Area. The Planning Commission considered all the public comments as they addressed the individual citizen proposals.

There were 30 citizen proposals to change existing urban land uses. Many of the urban proposals reflected concern over existing medium- and high-density residential land use and the attendant high-density zoning in the South Hill area of downtown. Another group of proposals sought to change land uses, most of them existing residential, at the north and south ends of Nicholasville Road. There were several proposals to remove the scenic overlay requirements in the eastern portion of Expansion Area 2B. There were also proposals to expand the types of uses in the Economic Development areas of the Expansion Area. The remainder of the urban proposals sought to eliminate or reduce the existing residential land use in favor of commercial, office, or mixed uses.

There were 54 citizen proposals in the Rural Service Area that proposed a variety of changes to the Land Use Map. While most of the proposals sought to be included in the Urban Service Area, there were also proposals to change rural land use from Core Agricultural and Rural Land (CARL) to Buffer, which would enable a property owner to subdivide a parcel into 10-acre tracts rather than the minimum 40-acre size stipulated for CARL. There were also proposals to change land uses and add property to the Blue Sky and Blue Grass Airport Rural Activity Centers. Map 1 depicts the general location of the citizen proposals.

Four changes` to the Land Use Map are a result of the citizen proposals, as described below:

Location 2001 Land Use

Southwest corner, Versailles Road and Mason Headley Road

West Main Street and Buchanan Street

North Limestone and Rosemary Avenue

Liberty Road and Wilderness Lane

Low- and High-Density Residential

Medium-Density Residential

Medium-Density Residential

New 2007 Land Use

Professional Services and related retail fronting Versailles Road; Low-Density Residential on the south side of the parcel. Preserve existing historic house.

Industrial Mixed Use, from the cemetery to the existing OPU.

Mixed Use with office and limited neighborhood retail. (Medium-Density residential will continue to be shown on the map; future redevelopment, however, should be as described.)

New Small Area Plans

Proposed:

Central Sector

Nicholasville Road (North)

Nicholasville Road (South)

Medium-Density Residential

Proposed Study Areas

Professional Office along Liberty Road from Wilderness Lane to Fayette County Public School property; Medium-Density Residential along south side of property.

The following three study areas were identified for Small Area Plans or other similar review and consideration as a result of citizen proposals.

• Central Sector

The Central Sector is an area roughly bounded by Georgetown Road, New Circle Road, Winchester Road, and Third Street, as described by representatives of several neighborhood associations within this area. The Central Sector Coalition identified numerous issues of concern to the residents, including density, land use, zoning, commercial and residential compatibility, public safety, traffic, transit, schools, community facilities, infill, and infrastructure. Given the scope and complexity of these issues, the Planning Commission set aside the Central Sector as an area that should be studied in detail.

• Nicholasville Road Corridor North

(between Waller Avenue and Southland Drive)

The Planning Commission considered several citizen proposals to change existing low- and medium-density residential land uses to mixed uses within this corridor. At the same time, Central Baptist Hospital stated its intention to build a new facility on a larger campus elsewhere. This area is a major traffic corridor into the University of Kentucky and downtown with high volumes of traffic in both directions. Most of the land uses fronting Nicholasville Road in this area are residential. Because of the issues surrounding traffic, road access, established neighborhoods, and the potential changes at the Central Baptist site, the Planning Commission defined a corridor study area for more in-depth consideration.

• Nicholasville Road Corridor South

(between Tiverton Way and the County line)

Citizen proposals were submitted to change the land uses at the northeast corner of Man o’ War Boulevard and Nicholasville Road and the property south of Waveland Museum Lane. The Man o’ War property is designated for medium- and high-density residential use while the Waveland Museum Lane property is slated for warehouse and wholesale uses. Both proposals sought retail uses. These properties are underdeveloped but highly visible and the Planning Commission expressed concern that they had not developed. This is an area of intense commercial uses and heavy traffic volumes, especially from outside Fayette County. Access to both properties was a concern as was the impact on existing residential development for the Man o’ War property. Because of the complexities of traffic, access, and impact, the Planning Commission defined a corridor study area for more in-depth consideration.

Land Use Relationships

The Land Use Chapter is the crucial part of any comprehensive plan. As much consideration is given to this element as to all of the other elements combined. The Land Use Chapter represents the culmination of efforts on the other elements and particularly, as required by state law, is built upon the legislatively adopted Goals and Objectives.

When devising the Land Use Chapter, it is necessary to understand the various principles that are used to shape that plan. A critical element of these principles is the concept of intensity. The intensity of a land use is the amount of impact that the land use would have on surrounding land uses, transportation network, and supporting community facilities. Most agricultural uses have minimal impact on surrounding uses, while heavy industry generally has significant impacts on surrounding uses.

The following land uses have been arranged in order of intensity from least to greatest. This is not a guide to compatibility, but intensity only. Rural Activity Centers (RAC) and Other Public Uses (OPU) are not listed and should be considered based upon the uses within such areas.

• Natural areas (NAT) and Core Agricultural and Rural Lands (CARL)

• Buffer areas (BUF); Conservation (CON); Semi-Public (SP)

• Low-density residential, (RS, ERR, EAR-1, LD)

• Medium-density residential (EAR-2,MD)

• High-density residential (EAR-3, HD, VHD, TA)

• Office, industry and research parks (ORP, ED)

• Warehousing and wholesaling (WW, OW)

• Professional services (PS)

• Retail trade (RT, RO, RT/HD, CC)

• Highway-oriented commercial (HC)

• Downtown Master Plan (DTMP)

• Light industry (LI)

• Heavy industry (HI)

Density and, therefore, intensity of land uses may be altered by the application of overlays such as Special Design Areas and Scenic Resource Areas, which impact residential areas in the Expansion Area, or Greenways which can be applied over any other land use in Fayette County.

The intensity of a land use is the amount of impact that the land use has on surrounding land uses, the transportation network, and supporting community facilities.

Density and intensity of the land uses may be altered by the application of overlays such as Special Design Areas, Scenic Resource Areas, and Greenways.

How land uses relate to each other, to public and semi-public uses, to the transportation network, and to the environment must be considered when developing a land use plan. Because of the many variables involved, the process of developing a plan that maximizes these relationships and minimizes the potential conflicts is complex. Many combinations of land uses may be considered for a given piece of land during development of the plan. The Land Use Chapter represents the preferred development pattern for the community to implement the long-term goals of the community. It is built upon the Goals and Objectives, plan concepts, sound land use principles and other factors. Basic land use principles used to formulate this plan include the following:

• Maintain the integrity of Urban Service Area/Rural Activity Center/Rural Service Area Land Management Plan concepts.

• Use efficiently existing land resources within the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers.

• Cluster like intensity land uses. Generally, high intensity uses should be located adjacent to each other and not adjacent to or adjoining low intensity uses (unless the distance across a street is very wide), and vice versa; however, the compatibility of the specific uses should be considered. Equivalent intensity levels do not necessarily equate to compatibility (horse farms, for example, are generally not compatible with residential uses).

• Relate intensity of the land use to the street functional classification (i.e., higher intensity uses should be located adjacent to expressways; lesser intensity uses should be located adjacent to arterials and collectors, and low intensity uses should be located on local streets).

• Use the arterial roads, public transportation routes, and pedestrian ways and bikeways effectively by strategically locating higher intensity uses along these corridors and by designing transportation and land use relationships to effectively link employment and housing.

• Design collector roads, access points, and related features in a manner which does not impede traffic flow and efficiency.

• Transition effectively or buffer between different intensities of adjacent land uses.

• Plan for a variety of land use intensities and densities throughout the Urban Service Area with uses in major activity centers, particularly the downtown core, being more intense, and uses near the edge of the Urban Service Area being generally less intense or dense.

• Ensure that proposed commercial, industrial, and other higher intensity land uses are appropriately sized by considering the impact the proposed development would have on the surrounding existing land uses and street network and on the proposed land uses and transportation improvements for the area.

• Plan for the adaptive reuse of old shopping centers through redevelopment as mixed-use centers, with a street network interconnecting with the existing surrounding neighborhood and providing for residential redevelopment on the site.

• Protect view sheds and the rural character along rural road corridors within or adjacent to the Urban Service Area by limiting development density and intensity near the road.

• Locate employment areas and residential areas to obtain a geographic balance and to effectively and efficiently use the street network.

• Designate land for compatible medium- and higher-density residential development throughout the Urban Service Area to provide a wide range of housing opportunities.

• Plan for limited development and ensure land use compatibility and sensitivity in environmentally sensitive and geologic hazard areas in accordance with each site's unique characteristics, with particular attention to the Royal Spring aquifer recharge area.

• Consider potential long-term plans for interconnected greenway systems in land use decisions.

• Ensure that infill and redevelopment is compatible with surrounding land uses and neighborhoods.

• Provide convenient and adequate access to commercial and employment sites; provide for neighborhood commercial areas within walking distance of most residents.

• Provide interconnectivity of neighborhood streets.

• Provide convenient pedestrian and vehicular access to community facilities, such as schools, parks, and libraries from multiple directions.

• Enhance community aesthetics of local and collector road networks by minimizing the development of structures where the service or delivery entrances or the backside of the building is oriented towards the road.

Intense land uses are generally surrounded by less intense land uses with a continuing step-down of intensity until the land use becomes agricultural. This process is not as pure in practice as in policy; therefore, significant physical features should be selected to form firm boundaries and edges wherever possible. The greater the difference among intensities, the more significant the boundary features must be. Often two features, such as a road adjacent to a greenway or private open space, can provide the best boundary, as well as an appropriate buffer between uses.

The Urban County Council added Infill and Redevelopment as a Goal for the 2007 Plan and as part of the development strategy for Lexington. Land use changes in the Rural Service Area show boundary adjustments for some of the Rural Settlements. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan merges the two Industrial Mixed Use land uses into one category. IMU was introduced as a land use in the January 2003 Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan.

Updated Land Use Map

The Land Use Map serves as a guide to the relationships between land uses and as an input to how new development should occur. The Land Use Map for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan builds on the planning efforts and decisions that were made for previous land use maps. Using GIS technology, the Planning staff’s cartographer precisely depicted distinctions in land use, many of them along property lines. This technology enabled the staff to present various mapping scenarios throughout the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process for review by the Planning Commission and the citizens. The Land Use Map is available on the LFUCG Website and in printed form, and will be updated if the Planning Commission amends the 2007 Comprehensive Plan or Map

There are over 40 land use categories and overlays depicted on the 2007 Land Use Map, along with notations about additional development details. One new land use category - Industrial Mixed Use - originated with the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan

Most of the 2007 Land Use Map designations are carried forward from the 2001 Land Use Map. Notable changes to the 2007 Map include an expanded Downtown land use, new land uses for the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor, and land use changes as a result of citizen proposals.

There were no land use changes initiated by the Planning Commission or staff. The Planning staff, however, reviewed recent zoning map amendments, decisions about areas planned for redevelopment, preliminary subdivision plans, and development plans to determine which projects would have an impact on the Land Use Map. Notable zone changes in the Georgetown Road area outside New Circle Road moved several hundred acres from industrial to residential zoning. Build-out of new subdivisions in the Masterson Station area showed the need to adjust land use densities. Subdivision approvals in Hamburg recast some of the nonresidential land uses. The 2007 Land Use Map reflects these changes.

The Land Use Map indicates concentration areas that have been identified and studied for redevelopment. The areas inside New Circle Road include the Downtown and the Infill and Redevelopment area. These study areas have separate plans, programs, and initiatives to enable and encourage redevelopment in the urban core. The Urban County Council added Infill and Redevelopment as a goal for the 2007 Plan and as part of the development strategy for Lexington.

In the Rural Service Area, the Land Use Map shows several adjustments to rural boundaries and land uses. Land use changes in the Rural Service Area indicate boundary adjustments for some of the Rural Settlements, as identified in the Rural Settlement Study completed in 2006. Briar Hill Park is shown as Public Recreation along with the new boundary for Raven Run Nature Sanctuary, expanded in 2006. The Land Use Map shows for the first time the property boundaries for the Kentucky Horse Park.

Mapping of Land Uses

The land uses are indicated on maps using colors, lines, and symbols. Complete land use information is available in GIS and in a variety of scales on the land use maps, available in the Division of Planning offices.

Acreage Calculations

Gross acreage calculations for properties along most roadways are to the centerline of the adjacent road. Exceptions to this are for roads otherwise described in this section as being included in or affected by the circulation or greenspace calculations.

Land Use Chapter Categories Overview

The land use definitions for the Urban Service Area, the Rural Activity Centers, and the Rural Service Area are described in this text. Unlike the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update where Infill land uses and Expansion Area land uses were grouped separately, land use categories for mixed-use land uses inside New Circle Road and land use categories from the Expansion Area Master Plan (EAMP), adopted July 1996, have been grouped with the remaining land uses within the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers. For more information about the origins of the Expansion Area land uses, please see the EAMP. For the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, all of these Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Center land uses have been organized into four major categories: Residential, Commercial, Employment, and Public and Semi-Public. In January 2003, the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan was adopted as an amendment to the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, introducing two new mixed-use land uses, Industrial Mixed Use-1 (IMU-1) and Industrial Mixed Use-2 (IMU-2). The 2007 Comprehensive Plan merges these land uses into one, Industrial Mixed Use (IMU), which is listed with the Employment uses. These definitions are reflected in the legend for the 2007 Land Use Map.

Definitions for Residential Land Uses in the Urban Service Area

Low Density Residential (ld)

The maximum overall density of any residential development in this category shall be four units per gross acre. Post development, or where gross acreage does not equal net acreage, net residential density shall not exceed five units per acre. Housing types found under this category include single-family detached and may include townhouse and duplex, based on density.

Medium Density Residential (md)

This category allows a range of housing units from zero units per gross acre to a maximum of eight units per gross acre. Post development, or where gross acreage does not equal net acreage, net residential density may range from five units per acre to 10 units per acre. Housing types found under this category include single-family detached, townhouse, duplex, and apartment

High Density Residential (hd)

This category allows a range of housing unit densities, from a minimum of six units per gross acre to a maximum of 20 units per gross acre. Post development, or where gross acreage does not equal net acreage, net residential density may range from 10 units per acre to 25 units per acre. Housing types found under this category include townhouse, apartment, dormitories, residential care facilities, and assisted living quarters, based on density.

Very High Density (vhd)

This category allows a range of housing units from a minimum of 16 units per gross acre to a maximum of 32 units per gross acre. Post development, or where gross acreage does not equal net acreage, net residential density may range from 25 units per acre to 40 units per acre. Housing types found under this category include apartments, dormitories, residential care facilities, and assisted living quarters, based on density.

Woodspoint Road, Ashland Park

Expansion Area Residential-1 (ear-1)

This land use category identifies where low-density residential uses of all types and sizes may develop within the Expansion Area, up to a maximum density of three units per gross acre

Expansion Area Residential-2 (ear-2)

This land use category indicates where medium density residential uses of all types and sizes may develop within the Expansion Area at a minimum density of three dwelling units per gross acre, up to a maximum density of six units per gross acre without the use of transferable development rights. With transferable development rights, EAR-2 areas may be developed up to a maximum of nine units per gross acre. Incentives exist related to affordable housing in the EAR-2 category, permitting potentially higher density.

Expansion Area Residential-3 (ear-3)

This land use category indicates where high density residential uses of all types and sizes may develop within the Expansion Area at a minimum density of six dwelling units per gross acre, up to a maximum density of 18 units per gross acre without the use of transferable development rights. With transferable development rights, EAR-3 areas may be developed up to a maximum of 24 units per gross acre. Incentives exist related to affordable housing in the EAR-3 category

Scenic Resource Area Overlay (sra)

This category applies to lands along scenic roads that are sensitive to the density of on-site development and the design and location of structures. As further specified in the EAMP, in Scenic Resource Areas, development is limited to one to three dwelling units per five acres, and all buildings must be clustered so that 80 percent of the land area of the Scenic Resource Area is common open space. Access to rural scenic roads must be limited to protect the rural scenic character of the area. No non-residential development is permitted to be located within the area designated as scenic, but the land area can be used to calculate floor area ratio. No buildings or structures other than driveways, transparent fences, or stone fences are permitted within 200 feet of the right-of-way of specified roads.

Special Design Area Overlay (sda)

This category applies to areas along specific public roads that are sensitive to the design and location of structures. As further specified in the EAMP, in the Special Design Areas, the maximum permitted density is allowed to occur only if the development is clustered so that 60 percent of the land area of the parcel proposed for development is common open space, and provided that no structure other than transparent or dry stone fences are located within 200 feet of specified roads in Expansion Area 2C.

Definitions for Residential Land Uses in the Expansion Area

Definitions for Commercial

Land Uses

Highway Commercial/Interstate Commercial (hc)

This land use category has two definitions depending on location criteria:

1. When not located at a limited access highway interchange area, this category includes establishments for retail sale of goods and services which appeal to the motorist, such as hotels, and establishments which display, rent, sell, and service motor vehicles, boats, and other related equipment. Retail trade, personal services, and professional service activities may also take place in these areas. When Highway Commercial land use occupies 75 percent or more of the total land area (three out of four parcels) in a concentrated area, the land use will be designated Highway Commercial.

2. When located at a limited access highway interchange area, this category permits the establishment of limited commercial facilities so that the traveling public is conveniently provided with needed services without endangering the movement along, as well as to and from, limited access highways. Hotels, motels, gas stations, restaurants, and a very limited variety and amount of other retail activities may take place in this area. This land use category is combined with the Highway Commercial land use category for purposes of depiction on the published Land Use Map.

Retail, Trade and Personal Services (rt)

This category includes establishments for the retail sale of goods, prepared foods and drinks, or the provision of certain personal services. The intent of this category is to group together all establishments that operate in a store or store-like environment. These include hardware stores, general merchandise and food stores, gasoline service stations, eating and drinking places, beauty or barbershops, and shoe repair stores, etc. Professional service activities, such as branch banks, may also take place in these areas.

Professional Service/Office (ps)

This category includes services that are provided within the confines of an office. The following are major uses of this category: financial and credit institutions, security and commodity brokers, holding and investment companies, architectural and engineering firms, legal and medical services, insurance, and real estate agents and other related professional services.

Downtown Master Plan (dtmp)

This land use is depicted within the boundary of the Lexington Downtown Development Authority’s study area for which the Downtown Lexington Masterplan was created. Redevelopment recommendations for this land use are found in the Masterplan. If the Masterplan is not implemented, the Planning Commission should consider the recommendations of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update as well as other relevant current information to guide redevelopment decisions. Please refer to the Downtown Lexington Masterplan for the land use relationships and design concepts.

Commercial Residential Mixed Use (mu) (Formerly Retail/Office Mixture ro)

This is a mixed-use category that encourages combinations of office and neighborhood retail with residential above, or adjacent to, the retail and office. The intent of this category is to encourage redevelopment of selected older commercial areas by mixing uses and reducing parking requirements. Accessory or adjacent residential uses are a critical part of proposed uses in this mixture. The title of this category was changed in 2007 from RO to MU to better depict the intent of the category. The description is the same as the one in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update.

Retail Trade/High Density Mixture (rt/hd)

This is a mixed-use category that encourages combinations of high density residential and neighborhood retail. Mixture is encouraged both horizontally (adjacent uses) and vertically (different floors). The intent of this category is to encourage appropriate mixed-use redevelopment of selected older areas which already have mixed-use characteristics, including mixtures of commercial, residential, office, and semi-public uses. Reduced parking requirements should be explored in the designated areas. Accessory or adjacent residential uses are a critical part of proposed uses in this mixture.

Retail Trade/Professional Service (rt/ps)

This is a mixed-use category that encourages combinations of a variety of professional office and retail uses. Mixture is encouraged both horizontally (adjacent uses) and vertically (different floors). The intent of this category is to encourage redevelopment of selected older industrial/commercial-mix areas. Shared parking provisions should be permitted to encourage the mixed uses.

Community Center (cc)

This Expansion Area land use category includes such mixed uses as retail, office, residential, and civic; cultural and religious institutions vertically and/or horizontally integrated around public spaces; and transition areas with the Expansion Area.

Definitions for Commercial Land Uses

West Main Street skyline

Office, Industry, and Research Park (orp)

This category is for the location of compatible offices, research facilities, and light industrial uses to provide jobs in a high quality, park-like setting.

Light Industrial (li)

This land use category includes those establishments that assemble finished or nished materials, food preparation, publishing, communication, construction materials, or any establishment or repair services which may present a moderate nuisance to adjacent properties. The activities included in this category are: light manufacturing, depots and terminals, communications, automotive repair shops, welding repair, animal services (other than veterinarians), construction materials and equipment yards, industrial laundries, etc. Also included are areas of significant outdoor storage, particularly automobiles, where retail sales is not a common activity.

Heavy Industrial (hi)

This lan semi-fin material nuisance manufac equi outdoor Heavy This cat

This category includes establishments that engage in manufacturing involving the transformation of a material from its raw form to a finished or semi-finished product, and establishments with high potential nuisance factors, such as noise, odor, vibrations, etc. These activities include heavy manufacturing, fuel and power production, waste disposal, meatpacking and slaughterhouses, lumber milling, chemical and petroleum storage and bulk sales, material salvage yards, and mining.

Warehouse and Wholesale (ww)

This land use category includes establishments that are engaged in the following activities: bulk storage, wholesale or bulk sale, shipment, and trans-shipment or related activities; some retailers of goods which do not depend on walk-in business; some retailers of goods which are extremely large, noisy, or inappropriate to other business zones. The activities shown in the category are: truck dealers, airplane dealers, ship/boat dealers, non-store retailers, wholesalers, linen services, solid fuel, and ice dealers.

Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, Man o’ War Blvd.

Office/Warehouse (ow)

This designation reflects an anticipated and desired mixture of uses permitted in the Professional Service/Office (PS) land use category and the Warehouse and Wholesale (WW) category. This land use category allows businesses to combine their entire operation within one building. It also provides flexible space for redevelopment of older districts. Only light industrial and warehouse uses that are compatible with offices are considered.

Industrial Mixed Use (imu)*

A mix of residential, retail, professional offices, and light industrial uses would be permitted in this category. A minimum of 20 percent of the floor area should be residential, and no more than 40 percent of the ground floor should be retail, except by special review. This is intended to limit the amount of retail uses adjacent to residential neighborhoods and to focus on services that would cater to nearby residents. However, some situations exist where a greater percentage of commercial use would be appropriate, depending upon the context. For example, the adaptive reuse of some of the older warehouse type buildings located along Manchester Street may be well suited for a greater percentage of commercial uses.

Economic Development (ed)

This land use category includes proposed uses such as industrial, warehousing, and office uses (“flex space”) within the Expansion Area.

*The Newtown Pike Corridor Extension Plan called for both IMU-1 and IMU-2 land uses, where IMU-2 prohibited retail uses. The zoning text for IMU does not make the retail distinction. For the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the IMU-2 has been eliminated and all IMU-2 designations are shown on the Land Use Map as IMU. Retail, therefore, would be permitted, according to the zoning text.

Definitions for Public and Semi-Public Land Uses

Utilities (u)

This category includes non-office facilities of utility providers such as treatment plants, substations, and towers.

Semi-Public Facilities (sp)

This land use category includes facilities that benefit the public but are not publicly owned. Such land uses may be large and distinctive facilities that are service-oriented; however, it also includes facilities that contribute to the general welfare of the entire community. Semi-Public Facilities include places of worship, cemeteries, private educational institutions, and private recreation. In previous Land Use Chapters, this land use category may have included such uses as dormitories, nursing homes, and other residential care or assisted living facilities. These uses are now identified as high- or very high-density residential uses. Existing Semi-Public uses are shown as Semi-Public on the Land Use Map to indicate the desire for their continued existence and contribution to the community. If redevelopment becomes an issue, the Planning Commission should consider the recommendations of the previous comprehensive plans and plan amendments for these sites, as well as other relevant current information when making a land use and zoning recommendation for each site.

Other Public Uses (opu)

This land use category includes prominent facilities that benefit the public. Such land uses are characteristically large and distinctive facilities that are service oriented.

Masterson Station Park

Public Education (pe)

This land use category includes all public school facilities, including the Central Offices and accessory facilities for public elementary, middle, and high schools.

Public Recreation (pr)

This land use category includes all publicly owned parkland and facilities. For more information, please see the Parks and Recreation section in the Community Facilities chapter.

Circulation (cir)

This category is primarily comprised of lands with predominant automobile and rail circulation facilities and parking uses. The land use category of circulation includes the actual pavement dimension for all state maintained minor arterials and higher road classifications, plus Man o’ War Boulevard, and all locally maintained major arterials. Note that while all streets are indicated on the Land Use Map, only those roads discussed here have pavement dimensions included in the circulation calculations. For properties adjacent to roads indicated as circulation, the land use category goes to the edge of the pavement or, in the case of freeways, expressways, and interchanges, to the edge of the right-of-way.

Greenway Overlay (grwy)

Definitions

Definitions for the Rural Service Area Land Uses

Introduction

In April 1999, the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan (RLMP) was adopted as an amendment to the 1996 Comprehensive Plan to provide a more detailed land management strategy for the 128,267 acres in the Rural Service Area. In preparation for the RLMP, key physical features and conditions of Fayette County’s rural landscape were mapped and categorized. A complex set of values was then applied to the identified existing rural land features, conditions, and uses and composite maps were created for the purpose of evaluating the character of the land. This effort provided the basis for a planning effort to define rural land categories to serve as management units for strategies to achieve specific goals of protection, preservation, and enhancement of the Rural Service Area. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan identifies six land use categories for the purpose of managing land in the Rural Service Area. Details related to the management strategies proposed for each land use category can be obtained in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. While one of the six rural land management categories is the Rural Activity Centers category, land use designations within the Rural Activity Centers parallel the urban land uses. The six rural land use categories are as follows:

Core Agricultural and Rural Lands (carl) (see rlmp, p. III-5)

This land use category is the primary category for rural land associated with agriculture in Fayette County. It is characterized by its predominance of use for agriculture. The area consists primarily of core equine lands that have a high improvement-to-land-value ratio, and lands classified as prime agricultural land of at least 50 percent prime soils or 75 percent prime and secondary soils.

Horse Farm, southwest Fayette Co.

Natural Areas (nat) (see rlmp, p. III-7)

This land use category is designed to encompass areas that are physically unique from other portions of Fayette County. These areas are generally not important agricultural lands; however, they are important for preservation. This land use category is found primarily in the southeastern portion of the County and contains lands associated with the Kentucky River, its tributaries, and palisades.

Rural Settlements (rs) (see rlmp, p. III-11)

This land use identifies the small, clustered residential communities with historic origins originally located in the Rural Service Area that were identified in the Study of Fayette County’s Small Rural Communities. Typical characteristics include: compact development patterns; small, narrow lots; generally of pre-twentieth century origin; and the existence of a community church, lodge, and/or commercial buildings.

Buffer Areas (buf) (see rlmp, p. III-14)

Land in this land use category has been identified as areas that can serve as buffers between urban and rural uses and/or land in other jurisdictions. Areas which are essentially fully developed in ten-acre tracts immediately adjoining the Urban Service Area boundary are included in this category, as well as land along the east side of

Definitions for the Rural Service Area

Land Uses

This land use category includes residential areas within the Rural Service Area, which are not associated with historic rural settlements. They are predominately post-WW

Four existing employment centers located outside the Urban Service Area have been identified as Rural Activity Centers in Lexington-Fayette County’s land use plans since 1980. These include Blue Sky, Avon, Spindletop, and the Blue Grass Airport, for a total of 1,600 acres. Details related to the urban land uses in the Rural Activity

Land Use Recommendations

Residential

Over 33,300 acres (61 percent) of the 2007 land use is designated for all types of residential development including single- and multi-family residential types from low- to very high-densities. Based on the absorption of land since 2000, the greatest demand for vacant land has been residential, with over 600 acres per year removed from the vacant inventory. Residential land uses are distributed throughout the Urban Service Area, but their concentrations vary. Inside New Circle Road, 56 percent of the land is residential, most of which is low-density. The highest concentrations of medium- and higher-density land use, however, are inside New Circle Road. The 900-acre Downtown Masterplan land use calls for increased residential development and maximized densities on vacant lots.

Most of the new residential designations and adjustments to the Land Use Map are in the area north of New Circle Road where 196 acres of Industrial land use were changed to Residential uses to reflect recent zone changes. The Land Use Map also reflects residential density adjustments in the Masterson Station area. East of New Circle Road, the Expansion Area accounts for most of the residential land uses. The area south of New Circle Road is mostly residential.

While there are limited land use designations for Mixed-Use, residential development is a required component of all mixed-use zoning categories. Under certain conditions, mixed-use zoning is an option along the arterials inside New Circle Road. The potential for increased residential development through infill and redevelopment exists through mixed-use zoning.

Commercial

Nearly 5,700 acres of the Urban Service Area are designated for the uses included in the commercial development category.

The distribution of the commercial land within the Urban Service Area varies considerably. An abundance of retail exists along South Nicholasville Road and in East Lexington. With its location on the Interstate and proximity on the east side of Lexington, the Hamburg commercial area is an attraction to the traveling public and a destination for households outside Fayette County. The Fayette Mall along South Nicholasville Road has undergone several renovations and expansions since it was built in 1971 and continues to attract local and regional households for leisure and shopping activities.

Established commercial centers inside New Circle Road, including Southland Drive, the Gardenside area on Alexandria Drive, and Turfland Mall on Harrodsburg Road continue to attract local households, while Lexington Mall on Richmond Road is completely shuttered. Along North New Circle Road, retail development appears to be viable, with new commercial development taking root at Leestown Road and New Circle Road. There is a need for neighborhood grocery stores, especially downtown

and north of downtown as well as in the Masterson Station area. There are also concerns about incompatible commercial uses in the Central Sector, which should be considered when that area is studied further.

Employment

The Employment category includes 10 percent of the land within the Urban Service Area and is the category that is not evenly distributed throughout the USA.

Historically, land to the north and northwest of downtown Lexington has been designated for industrial uses. The location of large tracts of land in an area with few residential uses and with access to utilities, major roads, and rail were important features to industrial developments. This has resulted in a significant portion of the employment land being developed in the north area of the community. As industrial uses have become more compatible with neighboring non-industrial uses, proposals to allow residential development in this area have become more appropriate.

Even though some of the industrial land uses in the north have been re-characterized to non-employment uses, 24 percent of the land in this area remains in an employment land use. In contrast, just two percent of the land south of New Circle Road, six percent of the land east of New Circle, and nine percent of the land within New Circle has an employment land use designation.

While some employment uses are seen as compatible with other land uses, residents in the Central Sector, in particular, are concerned about the impact of some of the area’s existing and former employment uses on stable and reviving neighborhoods. Further study of the Central Sector should identify the issues related to compatibility.

The ED land uses in the Expansion Area have seen no development in the 10 years since they were created. Proposals to re-characterize a portion of the ED area for residential and commercial uses were not approved. A proposal to amend the zoning text to expand the ED uses, namely for a hospital campus, was recently approved.

Public and Semi-Public

Public and semi-public land uses include a variety of urban land uses. Existing facilities and uses, such as churches, schools, The Red Mile, Eastern State Hospital, and private golf clubs are characterized for their existing use, in some cases to encourage these uses to continue in their current locations. If reuse of these lands becomes an issue, the Planning Commission should consider previous land use recommendations for these sites and the land use of the surrounding area in their decision-making process.

Public and semi-public land uses comprise 19 percent of the total land use within the Urban Service Area, second in area only to the Residential land uses. This land use category is fairly well distributed across the USA, varying between 16 percent south of New Circle Road to 21 percent north of New Circle Road.

Land Use -- All land within the Urban Service Area

Land Use - Vacant Land

Source: Vacant land inventory, conducted by staff from July through December 2005, and reconciled with the land use categories and boundaries adopted on January 22, 2007 for the Urban Service Area Land Use Map.

A Small Area Plan guides growth and development or redevelopment of a small defined area in order to promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization.

Small Area Plans

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan proposes broad, general land use and community facility recommendations for Fayette County. In some instances it may be determined that a more intense study of a specific area is desired. These studies may be undertaken at the request of a neighborhood, necessitated by unique demographic or physical characteristics of an area, or driven by actions of developers, neighborhoods, or the government. The study process and planning documents that are developed as a result of these studies are called Small Area Plans (SAP). A SAP is intended to guide growth and development or redevelopment in order to promote neighborhood stabilization and revitalization. These plans may include community design, identification of infill and redevelopment opportunities, and areas where new development can take place. The process includes the identification of the area to be studied, a survey of existing land use patterns, review of existing public facilities, and the cultural and social conditions of the defined area. The study is designed to be responsive to the conditions, needs, and issues of concern in the study area, to clearly define preferred land uses, and to provide more specific plans for these areas than can be addressed in a comprehensive plan.

The Small Area Plan process requires public involvement, including residents, business owners, community leaders, and representatives of important cultural and public institutions.

Just like a comprehensive plan, a small area plan must conform to KRS 100. The SAP process requires public involvement, including residents, business owners, community leaders, and representatives of important cultural and public institutions. The methodology for SAPs follows a traditional neighborhood planning approach in which the professional planning staff assists the neighborhood in identifying needs for community development and public improvements, which are then developed into recommendations. These recommendations may include specific goals and objectives, new or revised land uses, housing, density, circulation, and public facilities or services that are relevant to the area. Specialized projects or implementation tools may also be recommended to address the specific needs of the study area. The resulting small area plans conform to statutory requirements and may be adopted to amend and refine the current comprehensive plan.

The 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update recommended a sunset policy for small area plans older than 10 years that were adopted as elements of comprehensive plans. It is important to recognize that certain elements of SAPs are not suitable for adoption into the comprehensive plan or land use maps, including zoning, design standards, and certain special considerations.

As a part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan implementation, the current status of all SAPs will be reviewed by the Planning staff. Plans that have reached 10 years, or those that will reach 10 years before the next comprehensive plan, will have their current status detailed. If staff determines that these plans have been fully implemented, they will no longer be considered as amendments to the comprehensive plans, regardless of age. When small area plans less than 10 years old are reviewed and have elements that are still applicable, these elements will be incorporated into the comprehensive plan and land use maps. Any elements of a SAP implementation plan that have not been fully implemented should be incorporated into the next comprehensive plan. Staff will recommend to the Planning Commission that a new SAP be undertaken if elements of the plan due to sunset have not been fully implemented and are still relevant.

During the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process, three areas were identified for study through a small area plan process or other review for consideration as updates to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan or to subsequent comprehensive plans.

As part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, staff assessed eight small area plans that had been completed and adopted since 1995 and three corridor plans. Several of these plans were subject to the 10-year sunset rule recommended in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update; others were completed after the 2001 Plan Update was adopted. The analyses of these SAPs and the land use recommendations contained within have been incorporated into the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.

Beaumont Centre Subcommittee Report (completed 1996)

The Beaumont Centre Subcommittee Report addressed a development site located at the southwestern corner of New Circle Road and Harrodsburg Road. In late 1995, a Planning Commission subcommittee was convened to examine land use impacts related to proposed changes of the non-residential component of the area. The majority of the recommendations were incorporated into an amended development plan and into the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The land use recommendations were shown on the 2001 Plan Update Land Use Map. Therefore, as the land use changes and other recommendations were adopted as a part of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan and carried over to the 2001 Plan Update, the 10-year sunset recommendation of the 2001 Plan Update is applied to the Beaumont Centre Subcommittee Report.

Bracktown Small Area Plan (adopted 1998)

The 1998 Bracktown Small Area Plan was undertaken to clarify how urban development of vacant land could occur without negatively impacting the historic rural community of Bracktown. The Bracktown SAP was undertaken as part of an adjustment to the Urban Service Area boundary during the 1996 Comprehensive Plan process. The inclusion of Bracktown and the adjoining Marshall property into the Urban Service Area occurred after the adoption of the SAP by the Planning Commission in 1998. Since the adoption of the Bracktown SAP, the recommendations relating to downzoning, public facilities (specifically sewer service), and greenway and bikeway development have been implemented. Changes to the land use categories recommended in the study were incorporated and shown on the 2001 Plan Update Land Use Map. Therefore, while the 1998 Bracktown SAP would not sunset until 2008, the recommendations have been implemented and incorporated into subsequent land use maps and comprehensive plans, and the plan is considered to be fully implemented.

Greenbrier Small Area Plan (adopted 2003)

The Greenbrier Small Area Plan was adopted in April 2003 after an 18-month study. During the process conducted by the Greenbrier Area Study Committee, a variety of alternatives were considered, with the preferred alternative resulting in the adopted Greenbrier SAP.

Small Area Plans reviewed for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan: Beaumont

Bracktown

Greenbrier

Indian Hills

Paris Pike Corridor

Reynolds Road

Newtown Pike Extension

Southend Park

Greenbrier is an established neighborhood of one-acre and larger lots, which started developing in the early 1960s as a rural golf course subdivision community. The area was added to the Urban Service Area in the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan with a recommended land use of EAR-1. This designation allowed a maximum build-out of the area at three dwelling units per acre, a density much higher than the existing density. The addition of the neighborhood into the USA and potential zoning (EAR-1) that would have allowed redevelopment of areas (specifically the golf course) at intensities that did not fit the existing neighborhood character led to the development of the SAP.

The Greenbrier SAP concluded with an action plan to implement the recommendations adopted by the Planning Commission. The first action was to pursue a Neighborhood Character Design Overlay (ND-1) zoning designation. This overlay for Greenbrier was approved in 2004 by the Urban County Council and addresses minimum lot sizes and minimum/maximum building setbacks. The plan also contained a recommendation to explore the possible initiation of a zoning text amendment for the A-R zone. The objective was to explore an option which would allow for expansion of the existing golf course clubhouse as a non-conforming use in the A-R zone. This text amendment has not been pursued by the Planning Commission, Planning staff, or the neighborhood and is not part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommendations or implementation process.

Finally, the Greenbrier SAP recommended that if a zoning map amendment or conditional zoning was requested in the area, the plan should be consulted and the recommendations contained therein be thoroughly considered in the planning process.

Indian Hills Small Area Plan (adopted 2003)

The Indian Hills Small Area Plan was initiated in August 2002. The purpose of the plan was to resolve conflicts between the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update land use and the developers. The Indian Hills SAP addressed nine parcels located on Harrodsburg Road and recommended land uses and special considerations concerning design and redevelopment of specific parcels. The Indian Hills SAP was adopted by the Planning Commission in April 2003 and the land use changes are shown on the 2007 Land Use Map. Property owners and developers, along with Planning staff and the Planning Commission, should refer to the special considerations of the SAP as the area continues to develop. These considerations are to be in effect until such time that the area is completely developed or the SAP expires under the sunset rule.

Paris Pike Small Area Plan (adopted 1995)

The Paris Pike Small Area Plan was the result of an inter-local agreement in 1993 between the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, the city of Paris, and Bourbon County. This agreement set the framework for a cooperative process of reconstructing the Paris Pike in a manner that would preserve the roadway’s unique historic and scenic character. The agreement also created the Paris Pike Corridor Commission to oversee the planning and implementation process of a two-county

small area plan. The primary recommendations of the Paris Pike SAP were proposed land uses designed to preserve the character and integrity of the historic scenic corridor in both counties. The Paris Pike SAP was superseded by the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, which was adopted in 1999 by the Planning Commission; however, the document contains detailed information concerning the Paris Pike Corridor and should be used as a reference by the Planning staff, Planning Commission, and the Urban County Council when considering changes within the study area.

Reynolds Road Small Area Plan (adopted 1995)

The Reynolds Road Small Area Plan was adopted in 1995 and the associated land use recommendations were incorporated into the 1996 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. When the plan was initiated, the site had been vacant for many years and was primarily zoned for light and heavy industrial uses. The planning process was initiated by area citizens who were concerned about the redevelopment of the property for industrial uses and the compatibility of existing residential land uses along the southern boundary of the property. In addition, stormwater drainage and the possibility of the impact of increased traffic were of concern to the neighborhood. A modified Reynolds Road SAP was incorporated into the 1996 Comprehensive Plan text and maps. During the 2005 land use inventory conducted for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, 61 acres of vacant land still existed in the study area. As the land uses from the Reynolds Road SAP are shown on the 2001 Plan Update Land Use Map and have been reviewed as a part of the current plan process, the ten-year sunset policy of the 2001 Plan Update is applied to the Reynolds Road Small Area Plan.

Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan (adopted 2002)

The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan developed strategies, improvements, and objectives for neighborhoods affected by the realignment of the Newtown Pike corridor project. The plan used policies that were included in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update along with previous small area plans and other planning studies developed for portions of the study area, including Irishtown-Davistown (1980), South Broadway Corridor Plan Case Study (1997), Town Branch Greenway Plan (1977), and the 2025 Transportation Plan Update.

The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan is unusual in that it combines traditional neighborhood planning with the design and planning of a transportation route. The Corridor Plan includes elements and policies for land use, infill and redevelopment, streetscape improvements, and institutional facilities. The Corridor Plan provides recommendations for the design of the roadway, special landscape elements, land use, redevelopment, and suggested special development projects within the study area. The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan was adopted by the Planning Commission and incorporated into the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. The land use element of the Corridor Plan includes general recommendations for the area specific to the development and the redevelopment of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities. The Corridor Plan encourages the use of both the Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Character Design Overlay zoning to maintain and protect the built environment of specific areas within the study boundaries. The

The Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan is unusual in that it combines traditional neighborhood planning with the design and planning of a transportation route.

The Newtown Pike land use recommendations have been incorporated into the 2007 Land Use Map

The Southend Park Urban Village Plan was undertaken to mitigate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the Newtown Pike extension.

land use element of the Corridor Plan introduced two new categories of Land Use: Industrial Mixed Use 1 and 2, which are now combined as Industrial Mixed Use in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map.

In order to achieve many of the goals and recommendations of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan, the project team recognized the need to further study access and commercial redevelopment along the proposed corridor. In spring 2005, two consulting firms were selected to establish access management policies and commercial design standards known as Newtown Pike Extension Commercial Design and Property Access Standards. The intent of the study is to ensure that future commercial construction along Newtown Pike Extension, both public and private, be built with urban design elements and pedestrian visual character. These elements also address compatibility of future commercial development with the surrounding land uses, promote architectural design, and prescribe access locations that enhance pedestrian safety and walkability.

Southend Park Urban Village Plan (adopted 2003)

In 2003, as a result of the Environmental Impact Study for the Newtown Pike Extension, the Southend Park Urban Village Plan was undertaken to mitigate the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the corridor project and to guide the redevelopment of the area. The intent of an urban village is to blend moderate density residential uses with commercial and office uses (up to five-story buildings) in a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment that includes features (buildings and public spaces) at a human scale. An urban village is intended to provide appealing streetscapes along with greenspaces, plazas, and other design elements that encourage interaction among the residents of the neighborhood. While the Southend Plan does not introduce additional land uses, it does show a different arrangement of land uses other than those contained in the Newtown Pike Extension Plan. The Southend Park Urban Village Plan is considered a redevelopment plan and was adopted in 2002 by the Planning Commission based on a public facilities review to determine compliance with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. The land uses contained in the Southend Plan are indicated on the 2007 Land Use Map.

Corridor Studies

The three rural corridor studies, Old Richmond Road, Winchester Road, and Versailles Road, were prepared by citizens’ groups with grants provided by the Urban County Council in 2000. Detailed information concerning these plans is included in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update; however, the recommendations contained in the plans were not adopted as part of the 2001 Plan Update, as they did not conform to requirements of KRS 100 related to comprehensive planning. These studies do provide useful background information on some of the issues impacting these corridors and possible alternative recommendations for the Planning Commission’s use and consideration. If future urban development or transportation plans include these corridors, these studies should be consulted by the Planning staff and Planning Commission for reference.

Conclusion

Both the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor and the Southend Park Urban Village Plans contain elements that are not fully implemented. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission, therefore, should refer to these documents when making decisions that will affect these areas. The Plans should be considered in full force until the development of the area and the completion of the Newtown Pike Extension. An ongoing evaluation of the plan elements, including the use of Historic Preservation and Neighborhood Design Character Zoning Overlays to maintain and protect the built environment of specific areas within the study boundaries, is critical to the successful implementation of these Plans

In 2000, the Urban County Council funded three rural corridor studies:

Old Richmond Road

Winchester Road

Versailles Road

Future Newtown Pike Extension Corridor, Bolivar Street at South Broadway

The Lexington Downtown Development Authority oversaw the creation of the Downtown Lexington Masterplan. With the exception of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor area, all of the 900-acre downtown area is characterized on the 2007 Land Use Map as Downtown Master Plan.

Downtown

The need for a vibrant, dynamic, and growing downtown area continues to be one the most important elements of the overall growth management strategy of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The downtown area is the heart of the community, and its center for government and most commerce. Since the adoption of the 2001 Plan Update, extensive efforts have been undertaken to enhance recent trends and development activity that bode well for a major renaissance of Lexington’s downtown area.

Like most downtowns across the country, Lexington’s has experienced ups and downs over the past decades. These have primarily impacted the commercial core areas of downtown. Lexington is fortunate and unique in that its compact, linear downtown core is immediately surrounded by active residential neighborhoods, many of which are historic in character. Recent trends in development activity have shown that downtown is an attractive place to live. This residential component of downtown is viewed as key to downtown’s future as downtown and the immediate vicinity are inherently attractive to both younger and older residents due to diversity, walkability, entertainment, proximity to major universities and many other factors. A number of recent projects are underway which will add additional living space to downtown, often in a mixed-use development.

Vine Street

Downtown Development Authority Downtown Master Plan Project

To further bolster this new vision for Lexington’s downtown, the Lexington Downtown Development Authority engaged the nationally recognized consultant Ayers/Saint/ Gross to lead a planning and public input process focused on the downtown area. The study scope also included residential and retail market analyses and a transportation analysis. A major premise from the outset was that this effort would not just be another downtown “study,” but rather, would be considered for adoption as a part of the community’s official Comprehensive Plan.

Under the direction of a steering committee and with extensive input from interested citizens, government agencies, neighborhood associations, and other civic groups, the Lexington DDA developed the Downtown Lexington Masterplan. The Division of Planning worked closely with the DDA and its planning consultant throughout the process. The Masterplan vision places a premium on human interaction and the visual appeal of structures, with emphasis on developing outdoor recreation and entertainment, maximizing residential densities, and creating attractive gateways. The Masterplan presents the interrelationships of neighborhoods and the interaction of people with the built environment, which relies on the size, location, and appearance of structures—form-based design—rather than traditional land uses, as found elsewhere in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The boundaries of the study area for this planning effort are recognized on the Land Use Map. With the exception of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor area, all of the 900-acre downtown area is characterized on the 2007 Land Use Map as “Downtown Master Plan.” As noted on the Map and in this text, the Downtown Lexington Masterplan should be consulted for redevelopment decisions in this area.

As the planning process evolved and revealed new approaches to addressing downtown development, the Planning Commission was kept informed through regular updates and participation of some Planning Commission members in the meetings held by the steering committee. The plan document focused on a set of core principles and recommendations, many of which were acknowledged by the DDA to need further review, discussion, community involvement, regulatory ordinance, and process changes, and in some cases approval at the state and federal levels. This is particularly true for the recommendations relating to revising land use regulatory practices to a more form-based approach and recommendations regarding changing one-way streets to two-way streets. As downtown and the immediate areas further develop and additional residential and commercial uses ensue, existing neighborhoods should be enhanced, and not destabilized.

o w n t o w n M a s t e r p l a n

The Planning Commission accepted for inclusion in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan the core principles and recommendations of the Lexington DDA’s Downtown Lexington Masterplan, subject to further review and discussion.

As a part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan development process, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft downtown plan document. The Planning Commission accepted for inclusion in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan the core principles and recommendations of the Lexington DDA’s Downtown Lexington Masterplan, subject to further review and discussion, particularly for those elements indicated in the following list with an asterisk(*).

These principles and recommendations are:

• Change land use*

• Establish form-based building guidelines*

• Convert all one-way streets to two-way*

• Increase residential development

• Create a parking authority

• Maximize density in vacant sites

• Celebrate urban entrances

• Invest in a pedestrian network

• Integrate Rupp Arena into the urban fabric

• Develop Vine Street

• Create an amphitheatre

One issue considered by the Downtown Lexington Transportation Analysis is converting downtown one-way streets to two-way traffic flow.

• Create a community center/museum site for the history of the Eastend Neighborhood

• Define the spatial character of Thoroughbred Park with buildings

• Create a new green space at Main, Vine, Elm Tree, and Rose

• Make Farmer’s Market a permanent amenity

• Incorporate and celebrate the Town Branch Trail as a historic asset

Downtown Lexington Transportation Analysis

The Downtown Lexington Masterplan provides a blueprint for the revitalization of Downtown Lexington. The Downtown Lexington Transportation Analysis serves as a companion document to the Masterplan. This study was undertaken with objectives to:

• Assess anticipated future traffic conditions based on changes in land use and possible changes to the downtown street network;

• Specifically address the issue of converting downtown one-way streets to two-way traffic flow and identify the likely impacts associated with the change; and

• Address other transportation issues that will be affected by the Masterplan implementation.

The Masterplan recommends a phased conversion of all downtown one-way streets to two-way flow. The reasoning behind the recommendation is that one-way streets negatively impact businesses and tourism because the present configuration creates circuitous travel and causes confusion among out-of-town visitors. This study addresses, from an operational perspective, the traffic impacts that could be anticipated if the streets were converted to two-way. It stops short, however, of making a recommendation.

Successful implementation of the Masterplan must incorporate other critical transportation issues besides two-way streets. A vibrant downtown must be walkable in that pedestrians must be able to move freely and safely throughout the downtown area. Pedestrian connectivity to adjoining neighborhoods, attractions, Transylvania University, and the University of Kentucky, is essential. This mobility should incorporate bicycle travel as well.

Transit plays a critical role in the success of a downtown. Transit in Lexington must graduate from its historical role as assistance to underserved populations to being a critical thread within the overall fabric of Lexington, both downtown and beyond. Transit also must be considered as more than just bus service, to include new technologies and other forms of mass transportation.

Finally, parking will play an increasingly important role in the downtown transportation continuum. This study recognizes that automobiles will continue to be the primary mode of travel in Lexington, including downtown, for the foreseeable future and that the accessibility, supply, and cost of parking must be incorporated into the overall Masterplan.

The Transportation Analysis assessed the impacts of converting one-way streets to two-way in Downtown Lexington, but it also considered the big picture – an integrated transportation system including surface streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parking lots and transit facilities – as an integral component of the Downtown Lexington Masterplan.

Downtown Plan Implementation

As the Masterplan core concepts are considered for implementation, the Planning Commission should consider the recommendations of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update as well as other relevant current information to guide redevelopment decisions. Continued extensive public involvement must also characterize implementation efforts. These new approaches and ideas may be controversial; some may be found not feasible; and some may be beyond the control of local government to implement for any number of reasons. This downtown planning process, however, should be viewed as a watershed effort for downtown revitalization. The vision it establishes and efforts to advance the principles and concepts should be a major focus of comprehensive plan implementation for both the near and long-term future.

The DTMP Transportation Analysis envisioned an integrated transportation system of streets, sidewalks, bike lanes, parking lots, and transit facilities.

Infill is new development.

is expansion of an existing structure or adaptive reuse. Mixed use is residential development combined with commercial.

The Planning Commission adopted the Residential Infill and Redevelopment Strategy in 2001 to promote balance between green field or urban edge development and reuse and redevelopment of existing built areas.

Residential Infill and Redevelopment Program

For the past ten years, Lexington’s growth management strategy has focused on infill/ redevelopment as the sister element to rural land preservation. While long recognized as a way to increase utilization of the Urban Service Area, thus reducing pressure for expansion, it has only been in the last few years that a multi-faceted series of plans and implementing actions have elevated these efforts into a cohesive program.

The seminal document in this intensified effort began with the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Residential Infill and Redevelopment Strategy in 2001. The purpose of the strategy is to promote balance between greenfield or urban edge development and reuse and redevelopment of existing built areas by maximizing the amount of urban growth feasible within the existing Urban Service Area. Unlike most cities its size, Lexington is a growth management community where both suburban and urban development are contained within the same jurisdiction. For 50 years, urban growth has been compact and contiguous. As a result, there is a limited amount of undeveloped land that remains with the urban area, particularly inside New Circle Road. This is perhaps the biggest challenge to extensive infill and redevelopment. Other challenges include decades-old sanitary and storm sewer systems, property with multiple and disparate owners, and environmental issues. The Residential Infill and Redevelopment Strategy seeks to ameliorate some of the issues related to these challenges.

Infill/Redevelopment is important to Lexington-Fayette County’s growth because:

• I/R encourages balanced urban growth with the redevelopment of existing developed areas using existing infrastructure and services and reducing demand for new development in outlying areas.

• I/R encourages traditional development patterns for more compact, walkable, and mixed-use development, which is especially important in an increasingly more expensive energy environment and with the increasing aging population.

The Residential Infill and Redevelopment strategy is characterized by the following elements:

1. Regulatory Improvements - The Zoning Ordinance controls such things as building heights, setbacks, and uses. The initial I/R strategy and extensive text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance enacted in 2002 and now periodically reviewed and updated, based on experience and community input, attempted to make the regulations more attractive to developers. Although most text changes apply to the designated I/R Area, the changes also include zoning designations for new mixed-use and Neighborhood Design Character overlay (ND-1). Specialized small area plans, housing redevelopment, and commercial design studies are also encouraged as part of the regulations.

Redevelopment

2. Incentives - Programs used to encourage appropriate redevelopment include financial incentives, expedited review procedures, and regulatory flexibility for quality redevelopment. The most important aspect of development incentives is the careful determination of the Urban County Government’s priorities and to assure the highest quality development possible. The Infill and Redevelopment Incentives website, http://www.lfucg.com/planning/incentives.asp, provides more information about the incentives.

3. I/R Facilitation - A key opportunity to enable infill and redevelopment is improved coordination to mutually support quality I/R opportunities. The major accomplishments in this area are the establishment of the Lexington Downtown Development Authority and its project facilitation services; a newly established I/R facilitator senior planner within the Division of Planning; ongoing mixed-use developer assistance outside downtown; and initiation of a multiphase downtown sanitary sewer condition survey.

4. Small Area Planning - A key component of a successful I/R program is the development of small area or neighborhood plans. This type of neighborhood planning can happen at three different levels: (a) target area, such as small business district revitalization; (b) neighborhoods, including one or two neighborhoods that need a conservation plan or stabilization plan that stresses more remedial actions; or (c) multi-neighborhood or redevelopment plans that are comprehensive in scope and long term. Accurate cost estimates and action programs should be developed as part of each plan. Recent small area and neighborhood plans include: Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan; College Town Study (in cooperation with the University of Kentucky); Southend Urban Village Plan, Greenbrier SAP; Indian Hills SAP; and the Downtown Lexington Masterplan

5. I/R Advocacy - Educational programs are a vital part of an effective initiative to promote I/R potential. Effective advocacy should explain the benefits and importance of balanced growth. Operational information as to how to create successful smaller I/R projects is also important and adds to the available options. Successful case studies and cash flow information can be instrumental for all levels of development. Advocacy activities have included GTV3 reports and interviews, which are available to subscribers of cable television in Lexington, numerous speaking engagements, the I/R incentives Website and publication of a Neighborhood Design Character overlay zone pamphlet.

Ongoing Program Evaluation

There should be a periodic review of the overall I/R program to evaluate its effectiveness and adjust programming as needed. A successful I/R program should be viewed over the long term. The major accomplishments in this area have been systematic monitoring of procedural and zoning issues, development of a residential building permit tracking system, and monitoring Website activity.

Infill and Redevelopment Housing Activity

Since the adoption of the Infill and Redevelopment Strategy, the Division of Planning has been tracking building permits for each sector of the Urban Service Area. It is important to continually monitor activity to determine the success of the program. The purpose of the data is to gage how much residential building is occurring in the designated Infill and Redevelopment area compared to other faster growing areas. As shown on the New Residential Units table, activity in the I/R area has a low percentage compared to the other two areas. This relationship is to be expected based on size, proportion, and trends. More important is the increase shown in residential permits throughout the five-year period. This indicates that Infill and Redevelopment program goals and objectives are being accomplished.

There are numerous issues to study and address that would enhance the effectiveness of the Residential Infill and Redevelopment Program. Among the reasons the program was created was the issue related to off-campus student housing and the conflicts this created in established neighborhoods. Efforts to address this should be ongoing. Other inputs that would enhance the I/R program include:

• Underutilized Property Survey

• I/R Housing Market Study

• Economic Base Study and Development Strategy

• Commercial I/R Strategy Study and Design Standards

• Neighborhood Planning Program

• Expanded Historic Preservation Tax Investment Credits

• Expanded Tax Increment Financing

The Benefits of Infill and Redevelopment include:

• Increased access to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, which reduces the need for car travel and related expenses.

• Reduced travel distances that save public operating costs and reduce the need for construction and maintenance of infrastructure.

• Reduced driving that reduces auto emissions and air pollution.

• Compact development that supports mixed-use development and related entrepreneurial activity, which enhances the tax base. This is important since much of the LFUCG operating budget is funded by revenue generated from the occupational tax.

• Increased access to public transit that encourages affordable housing, which is necessary when seeking workers in the service and public sectors.

• Compact and walkable environments that support tourism and encourage historic and rural preservation. The most notable tourist destinations are highly walkable places.

• Balanced growth.

New Residential Units1 Inside the Urban Service Area

Prepared March 23, 2007

Underutilized Property Survey

In order to better understand the amount of land available for infill and redevelopment, an underutilized property survey should be performed. An underutilized property survey would consist of a citywide, parcel-based inventory within the Urban Service Area. As part of the survey, housing conditions, vacant, and underutilized parcels would be documented and inventoried. Once an inventory is complete the information can be disseminated to the real estate and development industry and nonprofit, affordable housing organizations.

Many of the Residential Infill and Redevelopment projects have addressed highdensity market-rate housing. A major redevelopment effort, however, is occurring at the former Bluegrass-Aspendale public housing site on the northeast side of Downtown. In an unprecedented partnership, the Urban County Government and the Fayette County Public Schools have joined forces with the Lexington Housing Authority to create a residential neighborhood of mixed housing types for low- and moderate-income households, which will be anchored by a new community elementary school. Federal HOPE VI funds in the amount of $20 million will be used to build nearly 250 multi-family and over 100 single family units. The Urban County Government and FCPS are partners for the construction of the community school and the Urban County Government will contribute to infrastructure improvements.

I/R Housing Market Study

A housing market study can be initiated by the Urban County Government to better understand the housing needs within the Infill and Redevelopment Area. This study would determine the housing market through an assessment of housing supply and demand, socio-economic data, and current trends. The findings of the study would benefit community development, private real estate investment, and affordable housing organizations.

Commercial I/R Study and Design Study

The primary focus of infill and redevelopment has been on residential and mixed-use projects. Although increasing residential density is a critical element in infill and redevelopment, attention to design of commercial infill should also be applied as part of the strategy. To promote residential projects, many regulatory codes were modified to encourage urban design, walkability, reduced surface parking, and bicycle and transit friendly features. Currently, the development of the Newtown Pike Extension Design and Access Study is in process and could be adapted to commercial properties within the Infill and Redevelopment Area.

Tax Increment financing helps with financing public infrastructure, land acquisition, and improvements.

A dedicated neighborhood planning program allows planners to work with residents to improve the appearance, safety, and services of the neighborhood.

Adaptive reuse is the process of adapting old structures for new purposes.

Most brownfield sites are redeveloped for office, commercial or industrial business centers.

Tax Increment Financing (tif)

Tax Increment Financing is a redevelopment tool that can be used for financing public infrastructure, land acquisition, utilities and planning cost and other improvements. Once the physical improvements are made, property values increase. This increased property value and investment creates more taxable property, which increases tax revenues otherwise known as the tax increment. Tax Increment Financing dedicates the increased revenue to finance debt issued to pay for the project.

Neighborhood Planning Program

Neighborhood planning is a way to develop and implement community-driven strategic plans at the neighborhood level. The most important resource a community has is its neighborhoods and the same can be said for Lexington. A dedicated neighborhood planning program would allow planners to work with neighborhood residents to initiate efforts to improve the appearance, safety, and services of the neighborhood. Similar neighborhood efforts are being made with the ND-1 Overlay Zone.

Historic Tax Credits

Preservation of historic buildings is an important aspect of community character. Sensitivity to historic neighborhood character should be taken into consideration with infill and redevelopment efforts. To help foster private sector rehabilitation and promote economic revitalization, both the state and federal governments offer tax credits for eligible historic properties. A tax credit is an incentive that results in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax liabilities.

Adaptive Reuse

Adaptive reuse is the process of adapting old structures for new purposes by changing the primary function of the structure but retaining some of the existing architectural details that make the building unique. Adapting old buildings as part of the infill and redevelopment strategy has enormous environmental, social, and economic benefits. There are a number of incentives, primarily federal, to reuse historic buildings. Commercial property owners who choose to renovate their historic buildings and follow certain historic preservation guidelines are eligible for a federal tax credit equaling 20 percent of the cost. A 10 percent credit is available to non-historic commercial buildings more than 50 years old.

Brownfield Reclamation

Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Some brownfield sites are redeveloped for residential use, but most become office, commercial, or industrial business centers. Federal and state programs support brownfield reclamation and revitalization by offering assessment, cleanup and development assistance, including grants and low-interest loans.

Expansion Area Master Plan Update

The Expansion Area Master Plan (EAMP), adopted in July 1996, marked a new direction for planning of new growth areas in Fayette County. The EAMP continues to be a stand-alone element of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, updated and incorporated for re-adoption by this reference. The EAMP is revalidated, with the exception of the minor modifications made with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, which are now part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Minor modifications adopted during the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update process are noted later in this section.

Planned vs. Zoned Acreage

1996-2006

The opportunity to design a plan for 5,400 new acres to the Urban Service Area allowed for new and innovative directions for growth management. The process of developing the EAMP produced a growth framework centered upon a mixture of residential densities, supporting retail and office services, and employment areas. For each use, a new land use category was created specifically tailored to the nature of the planned growth. Development areas are to be linked by neighborhoods that achieve a sense of place. Developers were given great flexibility to mix housing types, as well as residential and non-residential uses. During the implementation

The 77 acres of zoned EAR3 planned land in Exp Area 2A were zoned EAR-2. The portion of the Richardson Property added with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update added 67 acres to 2C zoned EAR-2, with 20 acres of that being the Edythe J. Hayes Middle School property.

26.5 percent of the Expansion Area has been approved for development.

A text amendment to the ED zone to expand the allowed uses has been approved.

The storm- water management system concept suggested in the EAMP for Expansion Area 2 was endorsed by the Council, and engineering and design have begun for the regional detention and water quality facilities.

The 70 percent of the county that comprises the Rural Service Area is recognized across the world as a defining factor of Fayette County’s quality of life.

phase, new zoning categories were created to achieve these principles. The provision of critical infrastructure was planned in a new and different fashion. To ensure that the new growth would pay for itself to the greatest degree possible, a comprehensive exaction program was created for major roads, parks, sanitary sewers, storm water management, and rural open space.

Initially, zoning and development of the Expansion Area proceeded slowly. No residential units were occupied until 2000. However, between 2000 and 2006 development activity accelerated. At the end of August 2001, approximately 1,800 acres, or roughly 34 percent of the land in the Expansion Area had been rezoned from agriculture, but only 137 acres, or 2.5 percent, had developed to the point of having a final record plat recorded. By the end of 2006, an additional 1,391 acres in the Expansion Area had been rezoned from agriculture which means that slightly over 60 percent of the land has been rezoned. The number of acres recorded in final record plats has dramatically increased. There are now 26.5 percent, or 1,390 acres, of the Expansion Area acres in recorded final subdivision plans or certified final development plans.

Since the adoption of the Expansion Area Master Plan through the end of 2006, the majority of acres rezoned have been in Expansion Area 2A, at 1,372 acres, followed closely by Expansion Area 2C, at 1,023 acres. Expansion Area 2A is the largest area with 2,414 planned acres, and while it has the most acres rezoned compared to all the other four areas, it is also the area with the most acres to be rezoned.

Expansion Area 2C is the second largest area at 1,232 planned acres, with 83 percent being rezoned. Expansion Area 2C has slightly less acres rezoned than Expansion Area 2A, yet it has more acres in recorded final record plats and certified final development plans. Expansion Area 2B is significantly smaller than 2A and 2C. Approximately 88 percent of the 2B land has been rezoned with two-thirds being in recorded final record plats or certified final development plans. Expansion Area 1 is planned to be entirely EAR-1, or Low-Density Residential, but this entire area remains zoned for agriculture and no zone change applications have been filed. Expansion Area 3 has experienced zoning activity resulting in 367 acres of the 503 acres being rezoned from agriculture, but no final plans have been certified.

Construction of infrastructure has been ongoing. Early on, LFUCG acquired 25 acres located off of Walnut Hill-Chilesburg Road near the abandoned rail line in Expansion Area 2B for use as a park. LFUCG has also approved programs for a major trunk sewer expansion to serve a portion of Expansion Area 2. The stormwater management system concept suggested in the EAMP for Expansion Area 2 was endorsed by the Council, and engineering and design have begun for the regional detention and water quality facilities. As anticipated, developers have opted to construct a significant amount of exacted infrastructure, offsetting those costs as a credit against exactions due. Infrastructure has generally followed the original plan concept, although some adjustments were necessary, as envisioned in the original plan language. Exactions have also begun to be assessed and collected, both in the form of cash payments and credits against developers’ costs for providing the exacted public improvements.

In 2005, the Division of Planning conducted an existing land use inventory. If no construction of concrete footers or a foundation had begun then the property was considered to be vacant. According to the 2005 existing land use inventory, about 64 percent of the Expansion Area land remained vacant.

Acres Zoned vs. Acres in Recorded Final Subdivision or Certified Final Development Plans, 1996-2006

There are more acres on approved development plans that have not been certified, which are not reflected in this table. The 77 acres of EAR-2 zoned land in sub area 2A were planned to be EAR-3 but were zoned EAR-2 with conditional zoning on the density. The TA (Transitional Area) zoned acres were incorporated into their accompanying EAR-1 or EAR-2 zoning totals. The USA boundary was adjusted with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update adding 67 acres of land that was zoned EAR-2, with 20 acres of the 67 being developed into a school. These 67 acres are included in the 506 acres zoned EAR-2 in Expansion Area 2C. The boundary adjustment also added 14.5 acres of A-R zoned land.

The Expansion Area Master Plan is being successfully implemented. There have been only two instances where the EAMP land use recommendations were not followed, one being approximately seven acres of Community Center zoning in Expansion Area 3. The EAMP recommendation for this land was ED. This land use change was not incorporated into the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update, particularly since no change in the use had yet occurred at the time of the adoption of the 2001 Plan Update. A final development plan was approved by the Planning Commission at the end of 2006, which does change the land uses. The 2007 Land Use Map reflects this change to CC.

The second instance where the EAMP recommendations were not followed occurred in Expansion Area 2A where slightly more than 70 acres were zoned EAR-2 but were planned to be EAR-3. This zone change was passed with conditional zoning to ensure that the density would be at the high end of the density range for EAR-2. This development accommodated a historic home, significant trees, and a greenway within the framework of the EAMP. Other zone change requests seeking to rezone property in disagreement with the EAMP were not approved.

Residential density is also being monitored. While development is at the low end of the density range throughout the Expansion Area, the possibility exists for this to increase since only 26.4 percent of the Expansion Area land has been developed to the point of recorded final plats.

Only small changes in the area and land use designations of the original EAMP were made as a part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update Land Use Element. Expansion Area 2C was revised as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update to include the Richardson Property, which had been partially included in 1996. The revisions included all the Richardson Property and a proposed school site. Existing developed small tracts along Athens-Boonesboro Road were also added. In total, this added approximately 67 acres of EAR-2 designated land to the Expansion Area, which included 20 acres of Public Education-designated land. The land that was added as an adjustment to the Urban Service Area is now a thriving neighborhood with a new school, the Edythe J. Hayes Middle School.

Planned vs. Zoned vs. Vacant Acreage

A second change to the EAMP under the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update was to designate additional Transitional Area (TA) overlay in the vicinity of existing churches on Todds Road, just east of the I-75 overpass. This change was needed to recognize the existence of these semi-public facilities and to create a proper framework for review of future changes in those developments. This resulted in Expansion Area 2B having an additional 50 acres of land with TA overlay zoning over the 13 acres planned by the EAMP.

The 77 acres of zoned EAR-3 planned land in sub area 2A were zoned EAR-2. The Richardson Property added with the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update added 67 acres to 2C. Vacant data for TA (Transitional Area) is included in the EAR-1 and 2 zones.

Rural Service Area Land Management Plan Update

The 1996 comprehensive planning process initiated a series of planning activities designed to plan, promote, and permanently preserve the cherished resource and economic engine that is rural Fayette County. The 70 percent of the county that comprises the Rural Service Area is recognized locally, nationally, and internationally as the community’s brand and as the single most element that defines the community. It contributes immeasurably to the series of tangible and intangible characteristics that define the community’s quality of life.

In 1999, the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan: Our Rural Heritage in the Next Century (RLMP) was adopted by the Planning Commission as an element of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, and the implementation began immediately after its adoption. The RLMP was incorporated in the 2001 Plan Update in its entirety by reference and is also fully incorporated into the 2007 Comprehensive Plan by reference. The following is a brief overview of how the RLMP has been implemented and the status of each of the programs.

Purchase of Development Rights Program

Fayette County’s Purchase of Development Rights program is the first agricultural conservation easement program by a local government in Kentucky. The PDR program was a goal of the 1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and was created in 2000 along with the Rural Land Management Board. The PDR program is designed to conserve large areas of farmland and thereby protect by way of conservation easements the natural, scenic, open space, historic and agricultural resources of rural Fayette County. The goal of the PDR program is to protect 50,000 acres of rural Fayette County land within 20 to 30 years of implementation.

By the end of 2006, over 17,500 acres of farmland had been protected by the PDR program. With 35 percent of the program’s goal being met in just six years, there is demonstrated and strong support throughout the agricultural community for PDR. Sustained and substantial funding for PDR is imperative, however, for the program’s continued success.

Purchase of Development Rights Accomplishments

 Development and adoption of the PDR Ordinance (January 2000).

 Creation of a 27-member citizen-based Rural Land Management Board to oversee program and hold easements.

 Creation of two staff positions to oversee the program.

 Conservation easements held on 150 farms totaling more than 17,500 acres. Included in this total are 464 acres on 13 farms protected by donated conservation easements (as of December 2006).

The pattern of PDR protected farms shows a concentration of easements in the northern and eastern portions of Fayette County. The PDR easements are scattered throughout the western portions of the county and east of I-75 as well. There are few easements immediately south of I-64 or west of I-75.

The PDR applications are scored based on a series of criteria, which pay particular attention to the location of the farm. Certain farms located in the rural sewerability categories lose points, as identified in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. (Please see the Code of Ordinances, Rural Land Management Ordinance, Chapter 26, Section 26-10 (16) for more information about how farms are scored in sewerability categories.) Based on the professional opinion of the Director of the Division of Sanitary Sewers and a review of the 2006 Sanitary Sewer Capability Study, it was determined to not be economically feasible to provide sanitary sewer service to the eastern portion of the I-64/Avon Sewerability Category 4 area. During the review of the Rural Land Management Plan and evaluation of the rural sewerability categories as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning staff recommended that farms located in this area should not lose points during the scoring process. Therefore, the limits of the I-64/Avon Sewerability Category 4 are amended as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, as shown on the Sewerability Map 13.

Rural Service Area Land Management Plan Accomplishments

• Increased the minimum lot sizes in the Agricultural-Rural zone (A-R) from 10 acres to 40 acres. (July 1999)

• Created new zoning categories for Agricultural Natural Areas (A-N) and Agricultural Buffer (A-B). (July 1999)

• Completed and adopted the Wellhead Protection Plan for Fayette and Scott Counties. (2003)

• Completed comprehensive study of Historic Rural Settlements. (2006)

• Created five land use categories in the Rural Service Area (2001 Land Use Map):

NAT – Natural Areas

BUF – Buffer Areas

RS – Historic Rural Settlements

ERR – Existing Rural Residential

CARL – Core Agricultural and Rural Land

Ongoing Projects

• Develop and implement protective measures for:

Viewsheds

Cemeteries

Stone fences

Environmentally sensitive areas

• Pursue preservation of Five Focus Areas as identified in the RLMP:

South Elkhorn

North Elkhorn

Kentucky River

Old Frankfort Pike

Boone Creek

Although the main recommendations of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan have been implemented, there are remaining planning and implementation measures to be completed.

The objectives, recommendations, and implementation programs of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan were designed to accomplish the primary objectives of supporting the agricultural economy and protecting the unique rural landscape and cultural heritage of Fayette County. The success of the implemented programs demonstrates the commitment of the citizens and government of Fayette County to rural preservation. This continued commitment has been strengthened in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process by the inclusion of Goals and Objectives and implementation plans specific to the Rural Service Area to protect the agricultural economy and the rural landscape.

Eastern Fayette County Farmland

The Rural Settlement Study was divided into three phases:

Phase I gathered data.

Phase II assessed the significance of the communities and evaluated existing planning and protection policies.

Phase III developed specific planning recommendations for each community.

Rural Settlements

The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan identified a vital but often overlooked element of the character of rural Fayette County – its varied rural settlements. It was found that the last time these often-historic resources had been systematically reviewed was 1971. Correcting this deficiency was deemed a major recommendation of the adopted RLMP

In 2002, a study was undertaken as part of the implementation of the RLMP and the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update to document and assess the status and needs of Fayette County’s small rural communities. These plans express concern about the significance and continued survival of the rural settlements. The study involved the University of Kentucky’s Center for Historic Architecture and Preservation (CHAP) as a consultant to the Urban County Council, the Division of Planning, and the Rural Settlement Alliance. The goals of the study included: 1) developing communication with community residents; 2) understanding the communities, both as historic places and in terms of their current issues and needs; and 3) making recommendations to ensure the sustainability and enhancement of the communities.

The study was overseen by the Rural Settlement Alliance, a group comprised of citizens representing some of the rural settlements, staff from the University of Kentucky’s Center for Historic Architecture and Preservation, and staff from the Urban County Government including the Division of Planning, Purchase of Development Rights, and Historic Preservation. The committee was chaired by a member of the Urban County Council and met regularly during the study process.

Throughout the study, the Planning Commission received updates from the staff and the Rural Settlement Alliance. The Alliance urged the Planning Commission to carefully consider the recommendations of the study and include them as action items in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

Phase I of the study gathered data for the 15 rural communities located in the Rural Service Area, and three (Cadentown, Bracktown, and Jonestown) located within the Urban Service Area. Data collected in this phase included community history, documentation of the character of the community, and the buildings within them. Phase II assessed the eligibility of the communities’ buildings and landscapes for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and evaluated existing planning and protection policies and mechanisms. In Phase III, planning recommendations for each community were developed.

During the third phase of the study, the boundaries of each community were reviewed. This review evaluated the historic and current landscape and land use patterns, historic plats (when available), historic significance of the community, its built environment, and pattern of existing residential buildings. The study suggested boundary adjustments to the following Rural Settlements, all of which were adopted by the Planning Commission and are shown on the 2007 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.

Rural Settlement Boundary Contraction

Centerville Clays Ferry

Fort Spring Willa Lane

The following summary of the recommendations is from the final phase of the study. Full reports for each phase of the project and the complete policy recommendations are on file with LFUCG’s Division of Planning.

1. Recognize that Fayette County’s small rural communities are threatened.

Some of Fayette County’s rural communities are threatened by Lexington’s urban growth (or potential expansion of the Urban Service Area); others have experienced population loss and the attendant decay and abandonment of buildings. The study found that new development has overtaken the community of Jonestown, while both Cadentown and Bracktown have lost much of their uniqueness due to new development that has taken place around them. Several others have fallen victim to the loss of longtime residents and the abandonment and deterioration of historic buildings.

Another threat to these communities is that they are not subject to the minimum 40acre rural lot size requirement and they are a non-conforming use in the Rural Service Area. This may mean that as available land in the Urban Service Area is developed, these communities will become a focus of proposals for redevelopment. If this trend takes place, it could destroy significant historic resources within the communities and could make Fayette County’s small rural communities undesirable for many current residents. Redevelopment could perhaps even gentrify these communities and render them unaffordable for current, long-time residents.

2 The Urban County Council, Planning Commission, and appropriate staff should commit to proactive and ongoing communication with community residents and participate in the Rural Settlements Committee. One important goal of the study was creating and maintaining open communications with community residents about the current conditions and future goals for the communities. The creation of the Historic Hamlet Alliance Committee, later renamed the Rural Settlement Alliance, was important for achieving this goal. It is critical for the future of these communities that the Urban County Government maintains this level of communication. Local government can achieve this in part by participating in a continued committee to advise it about matters related to the communities. The Urban County Council created the Rural Settlement Committee of the Urban County Council’s Planning Committee on November 21, 2006. The planning staff, through communication with the committee, should proactively maintain contact with the communities to ensure that community residents are aware of and informed about pending proposals that might affect the communities.

3. Recognize that Fayette County’s small rural communities are historically and symbolically significant, yet different in many ways from its historic urban neighborhoods.

Both the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update suggest that Fayette County’s small rural communities are significant features of the area’s landscape, but do not detail their significance. The Rural Settlement Study documented the historical significance of the communities and found them significant in the areas of early settlement, agriculture, commerce, community development, transportation, and African American heritage. Fayette County’s small rural communities are important to local people’s identities and sense of place, which is especially true of those associated with the histories of the area’s African American residents.

Fayette County’s citizens, policy-makers, and historic preservationists do not necessarily recognize the special character and significance of the small rural communities in the same context as the residents of the communities. While traditional preservation methods and policies are concerned mostly with individual buildings and communities with architectural integrity, the majority of the rural communities do not contain these features as most of the residential buildings have experienced significant alterations or replacement at least once, if not two or three times. The significance in these communities is generally landscape features such as layout, density, and general composition that have remained relatively intact over time. It is also important to note that with the exception of buildings that serve as sites of assembly, meeting, and worship such as churches, schools, and lodges, community residents are more concerned with the communities as sustainable places than with the character of individual buildings as architectural monuments.

4. Recognize the variety of Fayette County’s small rural community types.

While both the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update and Rural Service Area Land Management Plan identify Fayette County’s small rural communities as significant resources worthy of further study and special consideration in planning endeavors, they refer to them as a group. The Rural Settlement Study identified four different types of small rural communities in Fayette County: Crossroad Communities, Rural Service Centers, Free Black Communities, and Rural (residential) Subdivisions.

These community types reflect the various histories, geographical situations, and development of the communities over time. These distinct small community types often indicate differences in physical character that could be significant in planning for the communities’ preservation and sustained survival. It is important to understand that while each community represents at least one of four small rural community types, an individual community may exhibit features of more than one type, as illustrated on the Rural Settlement Community Types table.

A. Crossroads Communities

These small rural communities developed around the intersection of two or more transportation arteries. Many originated during the late 18th or early 19th centuries

to provide services to travelers. Most were commercial centers as well, containing establishments providing services to residents of the surrounding countryside and allowing them to conduct some business locally. Aside from the prominent location of a major intersection, Fayette County crossroads communities do not share particular features of layout. However, they do contain both commercial and residential buildings, often one or more churches, and sometimes a school.

B. Rural Service Centers

Like crossroads communities, rural service centers provided foci for a dispersed rural population. While they included many of the same functions, they were not travel oriented and not necessarily located at a crossroads. They were located with respect to other communities, approximately equidistant from them and along routes connecting them. Many of Fayette County’s rural service centers were the hearts of 19th-century magisterial units known as precincts. At the same time these precincts defined judicial/administrative areas within counties, the precinct center provided rural postal and other services. Rural service centers do not exhibit distinctive features of community layout or design.

C. Free Black Communities

Fayette County’s free black communities are rural residential centers for African Americans and generally occupy between 10 and 50 acres. Lots are generally between one-half acre and five acres in size, but may vary in size within any given community. Residential buildings are generally small, and the majority of those surviving date to the early 20th century and are built of frame. Most free black communities contain at least one church, and the larger ones have or had a fraternal lodge or school, and perhaps commercial enterprises and a post office.

D. Rural (residential) Subdivisions

Rural subdivisions originated in Fayette County around the same time the pace of suburbanization picked up within Lexington during the first half of the 20th century. These small communities developed according to formal plats, and with the exception of Avon were residential developments. In addition, a few previously existing small rural communities were expanded or redeveloped with rural subdivision characteristics around the same time.

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Uttingertown/Columbus Rural Settlement at Royster Road

5. Commit to context-sensitive solutions in planning and design within Fayette County’s small rural communities, recognizing that preservation, protection, and enhancement strategies must be appropriate to their special characters.

Context-sensitive solutions refers to a theoretical and practical approach to decision making and design that takes into consideration the communities and land (the context) about which decisions will be made. Closely related to but broader than context-sensitive design, the term asserts that not just the designed product, but also the entire process of planning, development, design, operation, and maintenance should take context and stakeholders into consideration.

With respect to Fayette County’s small rural communities, context-sensitive should not only characterize the approach to planning for their futures, but suggests that the mechanisms for their protection and enhancement should be tailored to meet distinctive and various needs of each individual community. A context-sensitive philosophy has distinguished the Rural Settlements Alliance and the Rural Settlement Study, and is at the heart of the recommendations within this document.

1 A community may be categorized by more than one community type.

6. Use existing mechanisms for recognition and protection as appropriate in individual communities.

A. Listing in the National Register of Historic Places

• In most of Fayette County’s small rural communities, at least one individual building is eligible for individual nomination and listing.

• Several communities contain eligible National Register historic districts. In some cases, further research is necessary to document suspected relationships between community landscapes and buildings and historical events or the trends of the community’s development.

• An alternative approach to pursuing National Register listing is the simultaneous nomination of several individual buildings or community historic districts through a multiple property submission that groups similar historic property types thematically.

Communities Determined Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

Community

Proposed Boundary

Athens Expansion of Existing National Register District

Avon Additional Research Recommended

Bracktown Further Research to determine boundaries

Cadentown Boundaries of H-1 District

Clay’s Ferry Entire Community

Little Texas Entire Community

Loradale Further Research Recommended

Maddoxtown Entire Community (historic plat)

Nihizertown Entire Community

B. H-1 Historic District Zoning Overlay

An H-1 zoning overlay offers a high level of protection to historic resources by mandating design review before any significant exterior changes can be made to any building within the zone. The design review it mandates effectively focuses on architectural integrity, which can be problematic in application unless the buildings or district in question have easily recognizable architectural importance. A distinct disadvantage of the H-1 or any zoning overlay is that its protection applies only to the parcels under the zone. It cannot therefore provide any protection for communities’ larger rural settings, something of importance to many of the communities.

Individual Properties Determined Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and/or Local H-1 Zoning

Overlay

The study found that while the communities are historically intact at a landscape scale, most of the buildings have either been replaced or altered in ways that have not maintained their historic architectural materials and features. Due to this lack of architectural significance and integrity the H-1 overlay is not wholly recommended for Fayette County’s small rural communities.

C. nd-1 Overlay Zoning

The ND-1 (Neighborhood Character Design) overlay zone is intended to provide residents the ability to adopt design standards that protect the character of their neighborhoods and allow them to choose the characteristics they wish to regulate. The ND-1 overlay zoning could assist in protecting the character of some of Fayette County’s small rural communities, but as currently written, it has limitations for this use in the rural communities. First, the overlay was conceived for application in neighborhoods that exhibit consistent design characteristics. Second, ND-1 can overlay only residential zones or residential uses. The majority of the communities contain Neighborhood Business (B-1) and/or Agricultural Rural (A-R) zones as well as residential zones and uses. The study recommended that commercial uses and zones remain, as the reinvigoration of these businesses is a possible means of enhancing community vitality. The current ND-1 may permit regulation of some of the important character-defining features of the communities’ historic buildings and landscapes – such as roof lines and shapes, lot width, building orientation, height and setback – but does not allow control of others, such as lot size, building size, and density.

Note: An ND-1 overlay may not be used in a community which already has an H-1overlay.

7. Adapt the Purchase of Development Rights program to enhance its utility for protecting the rural settings of Fayette County’s small rural communities.

The Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program was developed in response to a recommendation of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. Intended to protect large tracts of Fayette County’s rural landscape, the program could assist in maintaining the rural character of the settlements. This type of protection is in evidence near Jimtown, where the majority of surrounding farms are under conservation, which effectively buffers the community from possible inappropriate development on surrounding parcels. This program, however, does not protect the community from inappropriate infill or redevelopment.

While the rural communities are addressed in the PDR Ordinance as part of the rural landscape’s unique character, several of the PDR criteria eliminate the rural settlements from consideration for protection. The current point system also discourages the program’s use as a protective mechanism for the county’s rural communities. For example, an application may lose significant points in the evaluation process if it is in proximity to the Urban Service Area and, therefore, penalizes farms adjacent to several threatened or fragile rural communities (Uttingertown/Columbus, Centerville, Nihizertown, and Pricetown). Reconsideration of and adaptation of the program’s operational mechanisms to enhance their ability to protect Fayette County’s rural settlements is highly recommended and is of critical importance in preserving the communities’ rural settings.

8 Adapt existing and develop new mechanisms for the protection of Fayette County’s small rural communities.

A. nd-1 Overlay Zone (Residential Uses)

Adjust the ND-1 overlay zone to allow potential protection of additional landscape scale characteristics. The ND-1 overlay zone might be of greater utility in Fayette County’s small rural communities if its menu of design characteristics potentially protected was expanded to include additional characteristics. For greatest applicability within the communities, these should focus upon a landscape scale to address the communities’ most important character-defining features.

B. nd-2 Overlay Zone (Non-Residential Uses)

The LFUCG Division of Planning has been developing an ND-2 overlay zone, which would be similar in concept to the ND-1 overlay zone, but would apply to non-residential uses. The ND-2 overlay may assist in protecting the non-residential uses within Fayette County’s small rural communities.

C. Rural Community Zone or Zoning Overlay

Phase III of the Study recommends the development of an overlay zone or new rural community zone tailored to the specific needs of the rural communities and would allow for the preservation of communities’ historic landscapes. This could protect community character by using a contextsensitive approach, allowing community residents to participate in choosing those design characteristics they wish to protect while protecting the spatial relationships of the community landscape.

While architectural design review may be less important to community residents than the communities’ landscapes, building scale characteristics are important and should be considered for protection. The recommended rural community zone or zoning overlay should include some consideration of building design, building size, scale, overall massing, orientation, and setback more so than materials and architectural detail.

Most importantly, the zone or overlay zone should address guidelines for new construction so that the communities’ density and character defining features are not compromised by development insensitive to the communities’ context. Infill or replacement buildings, new additions and alterations should not replicate or duplicate historic architectural styles but should be compatible with traditional community design characteristics in terms of size, scale, proportion, and massing.

9. Adopt the protection, sustenance, and enhancement of Fayette County’s small rural communities within the comprehensive planning process, as well as within any future rural land management plans.

Upon recommendation of the Rural Settlement Alliance, the Planning Commission and Urban County Council included numerous references to the rural settlements in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan’s Goals and Objectives. Further actions to preserve and enhance the rural settlements have been included in the Implementation Chapter of the 2007 Plan.

Environmental and Green Infrastructure

Arbor Day at The Arboretum

Coldstream Park

New Housing at Hamburg from Star Shoot Parkway

Corridor Enhancement on Tates Creek Road at Alumni Drive

Environmental and Green Infrastructure Introduction

Green infrastructure is an interconnected network of landscapes and natural resources that contributes to environmental health as well as the health and quality of life for the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County. Previous Comprehensive Plans have recognized that the interrelationship of the natural environment to land use planning is a critical component to the long-range growth management and development of the community. Green infrastructure planning broadens previous conservation planning concepts by recognizing it as the fundamental framework for meeting current and future ecological, economic, and social needs. As our population and energy consumption continue to increase, there is an escalating demand on the natural environment and greenspace. With depleting natural resources and impeded natural processes comes an inevitable decline in the productivity of the environment to support living organisms or human activity, which is summarized as sustainability. Green infrastructure planning recognizes that a healthy ecosystem is the foundation of a community’s prosperity and very existence.

Green infrastructure necessitates a comprehensive, holistic approach to natural resource and greenspace planning and management, resulting in a balance between ecologic and human needs. Infrastructure is defined as the substructure or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community depends. Communities routinely provide gray infrastructure, such as roads, utilities, and public buildings. Like gray infrastructure, designating natural resources and landscapes as infrastructure elevates them equally as essential and necessary to the functioning of the community.

Natural resources are composed of biotic (flora and fauna) and physical (land and water) systems. Landscapes in Fayette County range from natural to farmland, suburban to urban, and with varying amounts of greenspace and forest scattered throughout. Human systems and activities include health, economy, demographic culture, history, land use, and the built environment. Green infrastructure planning and management look at the processes and functionality of natural systems and landscapes, and how they intertwine with human systems. The built environment impacts natural resources, landscapes, and ecological processes due to deforestation, impervious surfaces, soil erosion, waste disposal, water pollution, air pollution, habitat fragmentation/destruction, land consumption, shifting floodplains, invasive species, and resource depletion. Decisions for the use and management of natural resources and landscapes have socioeconomic consequences as well, including impacts on public health, resource allocation, social equity, economic vitality, and quality of life.

Green infrastructure is a network of landscapes and natural resources that contributes to environmental health and the health and quality of life of Fayette County citizens.

Green infrastructure necessitates a comprehensive, holistic approach that balances the ecologic and human needs.

for the use and management of natural resources and landscapes have socioeconomic consequences.

Decisions

By recognizing the reciprocal interaction among biotic, physical, and human systems through planning and by adequately supporting and funding green infrastructure programs and projects, the environment can be protected, human needs can be met, and quality of life can be improved. Planning decisions determine how and where landscapes, natural resources, and natural processes will be preserved, conserved, restored, or destroyed. Resource conservation, species protection, land management, and pollution control are already regulated to various degrees under existing laws. However, the integrated and proactive approach inherent with green infrastructure planning and management will promote better compliance with environmental laws and regulations and result in a more efficient use of funding and attainment of goals. Successful implementation of green infrastructure planning requires that it is considered and incorporated into new plans and policies for land use, transportation, stormwater, solid waste, health, and economic development. Green infrastructure, as a planning concept in land use decisions, will fulfill the 2007 Comprehensive Plan’s Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals and Objectives.

Value of Green Infrastructure

Quality of life factors, such as safety, heritage, greenspace, alternative modes of transportation, and a clean environment, create a livable community that can attract new residents and retain existing ones. The very features that bring people to a community can be degraded or destroyed to the extent that quality of life is diminished for all who live there.

Quality of life is enhanced by improving ecological viability and linking environmental planning and management to public health, economic revitalization, and community development. According to a report from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, quality of life is the third most important factor in determining where a business will relocate. Economically vital regions, such as North Carolina’s Research Triangle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Boston have discovered that in order to provide for and retain businesses and residents, a region must possess clean and abundant water resources, affordable energy, available construction materials, unique cultural resources, and substantial natural areas. These assets ultimately create a competitive edge by elevating a region’s quality of life and its economic vitality. Other studies have shown that if natural resources are considered and used effectively, there is a net gain in a cost-benefit analysis.

Santa Fe, Austin, and New York State have created incentives for businesses and consumers to adopt clean energy practices. Other incentives attract clean energy companies or promote local products. The Kentucky League of Cities established the NewCities Institute to engage civic capacity by looking at how the city of tomorrow’s society, economy, and environment should respond to inevitable change. Many of the questions asked in its self-assessment relate to greenspace, community uniqueness, energy use, natural resource protection, health, walkable neighborhoods, viewsheds, recycling, redevelopment, and mass transit.

Just as the road and utility networks that comprise gray infrastructure provide necessary services to the community, natural resources and landscapes that comprise green infrastructure must be actively supported and funded for the wide range of essential ecological and socioeconomic values they provide.

Green infrastructure planning anticipates and meets current and future needs of citizens without increasing the use of natural resources beyond the environment’s capacity to supply them indefinitely. Green infrastructure planning strives to balance, improve, and enhance biotic, physical, and human systems in an equitable manner. It recognizes that local actions have regional and global ramifications. Decisions to protect and use natural resources, provide equitable access to resources, locate people on the land, and consume energy will determine how sustainable the community will be for future generations.

The physical well-being and the livability of the community depend upon a healthy environment and vice versa, since survival depends on the interweaving of all living organisms. An ecosystem’s ability to resist and respond to change (natural or manmade), may be lessened as biodiversity and abundance declines. Human modifications on plant and animal communities alter ecological functions and thus the benefits vital to humans as well. Processes at the ecosystem level influence plant productivity, soil fertility, water quality, and atmospheric chemistry, that ultimately affect human welfare.

Green infrastructure provides a network of landscapes and natural resources whose functional integrity provides the following benefits:

Ecological Processes

• filter and cool water

• clean the air

• conserve native biota

• supply water through the water cycle

• store and recycle nutrients

• conserve and develop soils

• regulate local climate, evapotranspriation

• reduce impacts from flooding

• reduce soil erosion

• provide energy exchange, food and fuel

• provide pollinators and photo synthesizers

• sequester carbon

• decompose waste

• maintain streams, wetlands and aquifers

• provide important plant-animal interactions

• maintain and enrich habitat and biodiversity

Green infrastructure planning anticipates future needs of citizens without increasing the use of natural resources beyond the environment’s capacity to supply them indefinitely.

Community Services

• improve quality of life

• provide scenery and beauty

• maintain and improve health and wellbeing

• provide alternative transportation opportunities

• provide recreational and leisure opportunities

• shape natural and cultural heritage

• provide social gathering areas

• provide visual relief and stress reduction

• provide buffering, visual screening and glare reduction

• define urban form

• create stable neighborhoods with a strong sense of community

• enhance community, character and sense of place

• provide opportunity for recognizing, promoting, learning and adopting conservation values, ecological resource stewardship

Economic services

• attract tourists (especially heritage tourism)

• provide drinking water supply

• lower public and private costs for health care (asthma, obesity, diabetes and heart disease)

• attract/retain business through improved livability, quality of life and natural resource efficiency

• lower public costs for gray infrastructure (storm water management, wastewater capacity, water treatment, solid waste disposal, energy costs, pollution abatement)

• provide for a diversity of agricultural enterprises and commodities

• increase property value

• appreciate value over time (gray infrastructure depreciates over time)

• provide products and employment (minerals, timber, fish, hydroelectric power, fuel, fibers, food, building materials, medicines)

• lower risks and cuts costs from hazards and disasters (floods, fires, landslides, sinkholes, subsidence, erosion, air pollution, hazardous wastes)

A core value in Lexington that makes it unique and successful is its rural greenspace. To ensure that greenspace is protected, it must be analyzed in context of numerous interests. Green infrastructure planning identifies and factors in the hidden costs of development that degrade landscapes and natural environments, including pollution of water and air, loss of tree canopy and loss of prime soils.

Sustainable development helps to balance the increase in population in proportion to the increase in land and other resources consumed. A sustainable community is one where sound economic and social practices protect its environmental resources, which in turn, leads to an increase in economic activity and quality of life. Green infrastructure planning and management is proactive in its protection, conservation, and restoration of greenspace and the natural environment, while optimizing the use of natural resources by current and future residents.

Principles

Principles for green infrastructure planning and management include:

• Benefits both nature and people: Green infrastructure planning promotes ecological health, livable built environments, equitable distribution of resources, and the local economy.

• Meets current ecological, economic, and social needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs: Green infrastructure planning embraces environmental design to prevent harmful impacts and directs positive interventions that result in a healthier, more sustainable community.

• Identifies and protects natural resources and landscapes before development occurs: The high cost of restoring land and the difficulty in creating humanmade systems (that function as well as natural systems) necessitates early identification and protection.

• Creates a network: The network of hubs and corridors protects and links natural areas together, preserves intact landscapes, maintains vital ecological processes, conserves natural resources, and connects people to nature.

• Functions at different scales, across borders, and through diverse landscapes: As with transportation, utility, and communication networks, the green infrastructure network functions at site, community, and regional levels and across political boundaries.

• Uses scientific and land use planning theories and practices: Sustainability is the framework for green infrastructure planning and management, taking a holistic approach that incorporates diverse professional disciplines, including conservation biology, landscape ecology, urban and regional planning, soil science, environmental engineering, landscape architecture, and geography.

• Includes community-wide engagement: Successful implementation of green infrastructure planning depends upon the support of elected officials, the public, civic organizations, and landowners.

• Is funded as a primary public investment: As with essential community systems supported by gray infrastructure, green infrastructure initiatives should be financed as a primary budgetary line item. Green infrastructure planning and management is multi-divisional, and links interrelated programs and activities that protect and restore natural resources and landscapes.

Green Initiatives Timeline

Early pioneers settled in Lexington because of the abundant water supply, fertile soils, and gentle topography. Over the years, the beautiful landscape and natural resources have continued to attract people to the area. Over the past 200 years, intensive land management has altered the landscape, with very little native habitat remaining. Natural resource and greenspace protection have been goals and objectives for Lexington-Fayette County since the first Comprehensive Plan. Plans, ordinances, or regulations listed below are incorporated by reference into this Chapter

1900 Olmsted Plan recommended for parks

1920s Ashland Park neighborhood developed with intricate street pattern, landscaped open spaces, and woodland characteristics

1931 First Comprehensive Plan

1953 Sanitary Sewer Plan for urban growth

1958 Urban Service Area Boundary created

1963 Comprehensive Transportation Plan

1967 Major contraction of Urban Service Area Boundary

1971 Environmental Commission formed

1972 Landscape and Buffer Ordinance

1973 Floodplain Conservation and Protection Ordinance

1974 Environmental Planner position created

1975 Raven Run Nature Sanctuary dedicated

1978 Kentucky Horse Park opened

1979 Tree Board formed

1982 Sinkhole Regulations

1984 First greenway along West Hickman Creek McConnell Springs Park public/private partnership and restoration

1986 First Greenway Park

1987 Tree City USA (awarded each subsequent year) Corridors Committee Formed

1988 Comprehensive Plan park recommendations

1989 Recycling initiated

1990 Greenspace Commission formed

1991 The Arboretum created as joint effort between UK and LFUCG

1993 Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization formed

1994 Greenspace Plan adopted Stone fence removal ordinance

1996

Expansion Area Master Plan adopted Floracliff Nature Sanctuary dedicated

1997 Urban Forester position created

1998 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted Parks Advisory Board formed Greenspace Planner position created

1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan adopted Paris Pike Overlay adopted (joint committee with Bourbon County)

First Reforest the Bluegrass project Weed Ordinance revised to allow native plants next to streams

Forty-acre minimum lot size adopted

2000 Air Quality Planner position created Purchase of Development Rights Ordinance Tree Protection Ordinance

Water Supply Protection Plan adopted

2001 Stormwater Manual adopted Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Plan adopted

Floodplain Management Plan

2002 Infill and Redevelopment Ordinance

Greenway Master Plan adopted

Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator position created

2003 Energy Management Team formed and Energy Management Plan created LFUCG joined EPA’s Energy Star Partnership and Million Monitor Drive Dept. of Energy’s Rebuild America Partnership

2004 Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Community Joint Proclamation signed Air Quality Attainment

2005 Clean Air Ordinance

Air Quality attainment

U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement signed

2006 257 acres added to Raven Run Nature Sanctuary

Inventory and Analysis

An inventory of green infrastructure includes locational and statistical data for natural resources, landscapes, networks, and socioeconomic factors. The inventory should also include a list of LFUCG Divisions, Commissions, Boards, Committees, and community stakeholders involved in the planning and management of green infrastructure, along with relevant programs, policies, and regulations.

An analysis should be performed to identify the hubs and corridors that will create a green infrastructure physical network. Hubs are areas that provide sufficient space for flora and fauna to flourish and preserve important landscapes. They include sites such as natural areas, working farms, parks, and urban greenspace. Corridors serve as biological or migratory channels that connect hubs, and include greenways, transportation, and utility corridors.

Examination of scientific data, carrying capacities, opportunities and constraints, and economic cost/benefits will reveal the relationships between the biotic, physical, and human systems that are the true nature of a sustainable community as an inter-related process. Benchmarks and indicators should be developed to evaluate efforts. It is important, however, that a benchmark not be a goal in itself.

Computer models can quantify environmental and socioeconomic data, and then calculate the impacts of decisions on environmental systems, economic costs, and changes to landscapes. The models can create scenarios for potential resource management, built environments, and capital improvement projects. The computergenerated graphics can be used to show citizens possible outcomes and engage them in decision making. Green infrastructure is multifaceted, so a coordinated and holistic strategy using a variety of assessment tools will be necessary to achieve sustainability.

Direct and indirect impacts of green infrastructure implementation may include:

Biotic:

• cleaner air because of less vehicles on the road and reduced emissions

• cleaner water and improved aquatic habitat because of changes in development/ transportation design for pedestrian/bicycle friendly streets (less pavement/ runoff, which results in less sediment and contaminants entering streams)

Physical:

• pedestrian friendly neighborhoods are designed at a human scale and include trails and greenspace

• streets are reclaimed and designed for all users, not just vehicles

An inventory of green infrastructure includes locational and statistical data for natural resources, landscapes, networks, and socioeconomic factors. Hubs provide space for flora and fauna and preserve important landscape.

Human:

• commute to work patterns are altered, which impacts transportation planning and where people live in relation to their workplaces

• less congestion results in an increase in personal time

• improvements to public health resulting from improved air quality, ground and surface water quality

• transportation, community design, and open space planning impacts on fitness and well-being

• economic savings from improved energy efficiency

• economic savings from improvements to loss productivity due to long commutes

• economic savings from health costs (asthma and obesity related illnesses)

• economic savings from costs associated with cleaning air and water

biological or migratory channels that connect hubs.

Modeling can demonstrate environmental impacts and scenarios can be created to show different outcomes.

Unfortunately, the gap between the planning and funding of environmental programs and projects is widening. Recognizing these programs and projects as infrastructure is the first step in lessening the gap. The planning and management of natural resources and landscapes involve numerous LFUCG divisions, commissions, and boards. An integrated approach to planning and management should foster support of green programs and projects through an increase in awareness, better coordination of efforts, reduction in adverse impacts on the environment, improvement to quality of life, and tax dollars saved.

Green Infrastructure Components

Categorizing green infrastructure components runs a risk of losing sight of the inter-relatedness of the many elements that make up a network. Components may be grouped by division/program, by biotic, physical, or social classification, or by landscape type. For instance, categorizing urban forestry is difficult because of the vast number of benefits to air quality, water quality, stormwater management, habitat, ecological processes, property values, aesthetic preferences, visual screening, recreation, economic savings, health, and social setting preferences. For purpose of description, categorizing components is not critical. It may, however, become more important when future ranking and weighting criteria are established for computer modeling.

Corridors serve as

Natural Resources Air Quality

In 1990, Fayette and Scott Counties were designated by the EPA as a non-attainment air quality district for the pollutant ozone. In 1995, the area was re-designated to attainment, but required to show conformity to certain standards. In 2004, Fayette and Scott Counties were in attainment for the eight hour air quality standard and in 2005, attainment was reached for particulate matter.

Many efforts since 1990 were made to reach attainment, including congestion mitigation projects such as reversible lane controls and bike lanes. Biodiesel fuels are now used in LFUCG fleets, Fayette County School busses, and construction vehicles on UK’s campus. In accordance with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, transportation projects, programs, and plans cannot contribute to violations of air quality standards. Air quality monitors for 2002 – 2004 were very close to non-attainment for particulate matter. Air pollution reduction activities and projects, therefore, are still underway to maintain attainment status. A comprehensive air quality conformity determination analysis is conducted before updates to the Transportation Plan.

In 2005, the mayor signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement on behalf of LFUCG, joining other mayors across the nation in a commitment to reduce greenhouse emissions by using the targets outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. Under this agreement, participating communities voluntarily agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent less than their 1990 levels by 2012. This is accomplished by taking steps to reduce the use of fossil fuels (petroleum and coal) such as improving energy efficiency, promoting alternative transportation, adopting land use policies that reduce urban sprawl, improving the fuel efficiency of municipal vehicle fleets, or increasing recycling rates. By signing, LFUCG committed to conduct an inventory of local greenhouse gas emissions. A grass roots climate change team has been formed to help address this issue (with LFUCG participation), and the LFUCG has taken steps which support this agreement such as using hybrid vehicles, and installing energy efficient LED traffic signal modules. An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, however, has not been conducted nor 1990 emission levels calculated.

Water Quality

The underlying rock of Fayette County is a soluble limestone, which is marked by sinkholes, underground streams, and caverns. Lexington sits on a plateau and the small creeks flow away from the city center into adjoining counties. The Kentucky River creates the southeast county border.

Water quality monitoring locations are selected based on historic or anticipated problem areas. As a result, 100 miles of streams are monitored for impaired use. Streams in all nine major watersheds are impacted, with 51 miles not supporting, and 20 miles partially not supporting Clean Water Act standards for at least one use. In December 2006, the Environmental Protection Agency and Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a civil action against LFUCG regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. Please see the Community Facilities Chapter for more information regarding the EPA litigation.

In 2004, Fayette County was in attainment for the eight-hour air quality standard and in 2005, attainment was reached for particulate matter.

Air pollution reduction activities and projects are still underway.

lfucg has agreed to participate in a program to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions to seven percent less than their 1990 levels by 2012.

100 miles of streams are monitored for impaired use in Fayette County.

Efforts to improve water quality:

Restoration project near Fort Sumter, Eastland, and Roland Drives

3,000 native wildflowers planted by Boy Scouts

Greenway restoration in Masterson Station, Gleneagle, and Bluegrass Wilkes

Planting of 700 trees and shrubs in Gleneagles Greenway

Fayette County has over 11,000 acres of floodplain, with over 6,000 acres in the Urban Service Area.

84 parcels for a total of 29 acres have been acquired as reclaimed floodplain.

In 2001, the Kentucky Division of Water began requiring an Agriculture Water Quality Plan to protect streams on all farms with 10 acres or more. It uses National Resource Conservation Service standards for nutrient loads and recommended best management practices.

Other measures to protect water quality include sanitary sewer projects, street sweeping, reduction of salt use, a no-mow policy along stream banks, litter control, reforestation of riparian buffers and public education. The Division of Environmental and Emergency Management (DEEM) investigates spills, hazardous material incidents, underground storage tanks, and accidents to ensure proper cleanup. DEEM and the Division of Engineering promote water quality awareness through programs such as Katy Catfish, Kentucky River Watershed Watch, and Town Branch Creek Watershed Awareness.

Floodplains

There are approximately 11,200 acres of floodplain designated on the revised 2006 FEMA maps, of which 6,230 acres are within the Urban Service Area. FEMA maps do not show floodplains on smaller tributaries or drainageways. Under the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System, plans, ordinances, and projects have been undertaken to eliminate or reduce flooding hazards. Before the Floodplain Conservation and Protection Ordinance was adopted in 2001, structures were allowed to be built in floodplains. Starting in 1991, LFUCG began acquiring properties that had repeatedly flooded and removed the buildings. To date, there have been 84 parcels purchased for a total of 29 acres of reclaimed floodplain. Streams and floodplains are designated as conservation areas under the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan. In 2001, the Floodplain Management Plan and the Stormwater Manual were adopted. Since 2000, approximately 170 acres of floodplain have been dedicated to LFUCG as greenway.

Numerous floodplain studies have been conducted and data collected in six of the nine watersheds. However, no comprehensive watershed plans have been prepared. Revised FEMA maps for Fayette County are anticipated to be released in Spring 2008.

Drinking Water Supply

Kentucky-American Water Company holds a water withdrawal permit that allows up to 70 million gallons of withdrawal per day at Pool No. 9 intake on the Kentucky River. Jacobson Reservoir is a second source for drinking water and also provides recreation.

The Kentucky River Authority has announced new plans to stabilize Dam No. 9 on the Kentucky River by creating a new dam behind the existing dam and leaving the old dam in place. With further hydrologic and environmental studies, it may be possible to later add crest gates to the proposed dam to provide more storage for water supply. The replacement of Dam No. 10 is also in the planning stages for repair. Dam No. 10 is critical for Lexington’s water supply because it provides a reservoir impoundment upstream of Dam No. 9.

The 20 Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan recommends that the Kentucky River and its tributaries should be protected from dumping, discharges, spills, and undesirable development for a minimum of one mile upstream of the intake.

Drought Water Supply

Water supply planning is under-appreciated until a drought occurs and water use is curtailed by water restrictions. For the past 40 years, every study has indicated that a severe drought in Lexington would lead to water shortages, even with conservation efforts. Today, with global warming changing weather patterns and the threat of drought increasing in many parts of the world, it is imperative that a solution be implemented that ensures an adequate water supply in the event of a drought.

The 1930 drought was the worst measured drought and is the benchmark by which all other droughts in Lexington are measured. The drought lasted from July through December, although other records indicate that the effects really started in May and lasted until February 1931. While Lexington did not use the Kentucky River as its water supply in 1930, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers records indicate that water was not flowing over the top of Dam No. 9, but rather through cracks and holes in the dam at an estimated flow rate of approximately six million gallons a day. When a drought occurs and the river flow decreases to a certain point, the water withdrawal permit restricts the amount of water that can be withdrawn for Lexington, in order to have sufficient flow downstream to other communities and to maintain aquatic habitat. In a mild drought, Lexington’s water usage is up to 65 million gallons per day (mgd).

Since the drought in 1988, the Kentucky American Water Company has been investigating alternatives for Lexington’s water supply. The 20-Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan was adopted in 1999 and recommended finding an additional supply of drinking water to cover periodic droughts. The Bluegrass Water Supply Commission (BWSC) has been investigating water needs for the Bluegrass Region for about six years. Several options have been proposed and studied. In December 2006, the Kentucky-American Water Company announced plans for a second intake and treatment plant on the Kentucky River at Pool No. 3 in Owen County. The BWSC has proposed three possible pipeline routes from the new water plant on the Kentucky River. It is anticipated that the new facility will be completed by 2010 and add 20 mgd with a capacity for 30 mgd. Bluegrass Water Supply Commission is working with Kentucky-American to become owners of the increased treatment capacity.

The Royal Spring Aquifer is a 25-square mile area of which 80 percent is located in Fayette County. lfucg participates with the city of Georgetown and Scott County in the implementation of the Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Plan for the protection of Scott County’s water supply.

Lock No. 9 stabilization work

Flora, Fauna, and Natural Habitats

Fayette County has historically been managed extensively as cropland, pastureland, or urban development, so natural and native biodiversity have been severely reduced. Modifications to a landscape create disturbed and fragmented patches of small habitats, edge conditions, and decreases in forest interiors. Changes to soils, drainage, and vegetation disrupt the balance needed for a healthy ecosystem and allow invasive species to thrive.

Pockets of natural areas have very limited ecological value; migratory birds and many mammals need corridors to move between areas. While a small pocket may appear to be a hub, predators become a problem and most species won’t be able to sustain themselves. The size and shape of hubs and corridors are also important to species biodiversity. Early successional species (such as chipmunks, deer, coyotes, foxes, groundhogs, possums, snakes, and rodents) can adapt to man-made conditions. Some urban wildlife species, however, are considered a nuisance. The challenge to urban wildlife management is to decrease conflicts, increase biodiversity, create new hubs, and connect them by corridors. Knowledge of species’ preferences for diet, water source, nocturnal behavior, cover, and spatial requirements help manage wildlife appropriately. Native vegetation, snags, natural wetlands, and buffer strips encourage wildlife. Habitat structure includes ground cover, understory, and canopy layers, with each layer attracting different species.

There are three federally designated endangered species in Fayette County, the gray bat, the Indiana bat, and running buffalo clover. Short’s bladderpod (a plant) is another species of Management concern. There is not a complete inventory of habitat or species for Fayette County.

According to the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, there are no known significant plant communities (i.e. large indigenous populations of native vegetation) remaining. Counts show an increase in deer and coyote. Potential areas for wildlife habitat include natural springs and stream corridors, especially along the Kentucky River and small streams in the Rural Service Area. Waterfowl are plentiful on the reservoir during winter.

Within the Urban Service Area, stream banks are often mowed and the riparian area is not wide enough to provide good passage for wildlife. As defined in the Stormwater Manual, all streams in Fayette County are considered greenways. As greenways are established and conservation practices are employed, some habitat will be reestablished.

Two areas of particular significance are caves and the Kentucky River. Cave or cave channels are sensitive ecosystems and may be home to endangered species. The karst topography creates many sinkholes and caves, some of which are mapped. Most caves are small, due to the lithology, but may form larger caves when combined with faults or jointing. These habitats are especially vulnerable to impacts from development and pollution.

There are three federally designated endangered species in Fayette County: gray bat Indiana bat running buffalo clover

The Kentucky River and adjacent forest is the largest expanse of natural landscape remaining in Fayette County.

The Arboretum and Lexington Cemetery provide natural habitat and attract bird populations.

2005-2006 Fayette County:

6,500 registered hunters

14,800 registered fishermen Annual Natural Area visitation:

15,000 to McConnell Springs

26,000 to Raven Run

150,000 to The Arboretum

The Kentucky River and adjacent forest is the largest expanse of natural landscape remaining in the County. This area is known for the Palisades, deep gorges, wet weather springs, caves, limestone outcrops, cliffs, and diverse plant life. The extensively wooded corridor along the Kentucky River and its tributaries provides a major migration route for birds, a travel corridor for wildlife, and foraging areas for bats. Limestone cliffs and wooded uplands along the river harbor native vegetation including rare plant species. Two areas along the Fayette County side of the Kentucky River are preserved.

Within the Urban Service Area potential hubs include the 100-acre Arboretum and the 170-acre Lexington Cemetery. Because of their acreages and mature trees, they provide natural habitat and attract bird populations.

Exotic pest plant species are a major problem throughout Fayette County. Bush honeysuckle, Japanese honeysuckle, and wintercreeper especially have invaded large portions of natural areas and remaining woodlands, compromising the benefits to wildlife and biodiversity.

Soils

Fayette County is known for its fertile soils. In the rural service area, prime soils account for 58 percent and soils of statewide significance are 27 percent. The PDR ranking system gives the highest points to farms with these soils, thus ensuring that the preservation program recognizes the inherent value of these soils.

Landscapes

Bluegrass brings to mind images of a beautiful countryside of farms, gently rolling hillsides, country lanes, and wooden fences. Plans and regulations over the years have preserved scenic viewsheds, byways, the agricultural industry, nature preserves, and stone fences. A hard edge separates urban from rural uses.

Topography

Land with a slope over 15 percent gradient is considered steep. Comprehensive data on the percent of steep slopes is unavailable. Subdivision Regulations require assessment of these areas for possible geotechnical modifications prior to construction. The regulations, however, may need review for increased protection of steep slopes and potential erosion sites, especially where small lots are proposed or they are adjacent to environmentally sensitive/geologic hazard areas.

The Subdivision Regulations state that developments should preserve landforms and follow contours. However, extensive cut and fill still occurs in most developments. One barrier to developments conforming more to the natural contours is the Roadway Manual that require a longitudinal slope on new streets to be less than eight percent.

Willow Oak Neighborhood Greenspace near Millpond Road

Greenspace

The Greenspace Plan describes greenspace as more than horse farms and parks; it also encompasses stone fences, natural areas, valuable resources (such as prime soils), and historic buildings. Greenspace refers to the essential characteristics that give the Bluegrass its identity and quality of life. It can be experienced while driving scenic roads or traveling by bicycle or on foot through a greenway system. Greenspace is found inside the city and throughout the countryside, and includes both natural and cultural landscapes. Greenspace provides an array of benefits including environmental protection, visual relief, recreational and commuting opportunities, aesthetic enhancement, economic value, commodities, employment, relief from stress, increased property values, improved health, community character, and sense of place.

When thought of as a network that enhances and defines the Bluegrass identity, greenspace should be interpreted broadly as the concept behind urban design that makes a more attractive and livable community for people to reside, work, shop, and learn. The Greenspace Plan recommends a greenspace system that includes resources, sites, and linkages for both urban and rural greenspace. It further recommends three levels of protection for greenspace: 1) resource protection, with no public access;

2) visual access and protection; and 3) areas open to public access. While there is significant protection of many resources and sites, linkages have been planned but not acquired. There is no regularized source of funding for greenspace acquisition.

Urban Greenspace

Urban greenspace is predominantly within public parks. Other areas include the Arboretum, cemeteries, Ashland (the Henry Clay Estate), office parks (e.g. Ashland Oil), school grounds, floodplains, stormwater basins, grass medians and street trees, such as those along the Richmond Road corridor. The Greenspace Plan recognized the Bluegrass image extends to the visual experience of traveling city streets; therefore it recommended studies and guidelines for streetscape design.

In the Expansion Area, Scenic Resource and Special Design Areas are intended to minimize the visual impact of a development on an adjoining rural road. In both areas, clustered development and 200-foot setbacks from the rural road are required. The Scenic Resource Area requires 80 percent common open space and the Special Design Area requires 60 percent. Density lost in these areas may be transferred. While the boundaries for the areas were determined from ridgelines and hedgerows, on-site evaluations still need to be conducted to set the final boundaries.

There are no design guidelines in place for structures within these Areas. The Expansion Area Master Plan also reserved 100-foot setbacks from streams that are now considered greenways. In total, 26 percent of the Expansion Area acreage is planned for open space.

Greenspace refers to the essential characteristics that give the Bluegrass its special identity.

Greenspace includes both natural and cultural landscapes.

Urban

Greenspace exists in:

Public parks

The Arboretum

Cemeteries

Ashland/ Henry Clay

Office parks

School grounds

Floodplains

Stormwater basins

Scenic Resource and Special Design Areas in the Expansion Area are intended to minimize the visual impact of development on an adjoining rural road.

The Scenic Resource Area requires 80 percent common open space and the Special Design Area requires 60 percent.

26 percent of the Expansion Area acreage is planned for open space.

A parcel-based inventory shows 478 acres designated as open space of the Expansion Area.

Newer subdivisions are setting aside areas for open space, which might double as stormwater detention, buffer, landscaping, environmentally sensitive area protection, or Scenic Resource or Special Design Areas. A parcel-based inventory shows 478 acres designated as open space. Parcels only used for stormwater total 205 acres. These figures do not include greenspace that is not parcel-based, such as large green areas on school property, other stormwater facilities, cemeteries, office parks, green medians, or along roadways.

Parks

The Division of Parks and Recreation manages 102 park sites and over 4,400 acres of land that includes areas for active and passive recreation, golf courses, and natural areas. There is no data for acreages in passive versus active recreation. Private golf courses add an additional 615 acres. The 1998 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan analyzed each existing park facility and made recommendations. Although total park acreage exceeded national standards, the Master Plan identified areas of the city not within a half mile distance to a neighborhood park and recommended the acquisition of park land in these areas. Many neighborhood parks are heavily used with athletic fields and programs. It was anticipated that as large athletic facilities at Briar Hill, Cardinal Run and Shillito are developed, neighborhood parks can be reclaimed for public open space. The Master Plan noted that greenway development lags far behind national recommendations of one mile per 5,000 residents. The Master Plan recommended that developers should be required to construct greenways, just as they are required to incorporate planned roads, water, and other basic facilities.

Greenways

Greenways are linear greenspaces that greatly enhance the quality of life for residents in addition to protecting natural resources and providing stormwater control. The Greenway Master Plan designated stream corridors as Conservation Greenways and identified stream, utility, and rail corridors that create a countywide trail system. Conservation greenways protect ecosystems, improve water quality, provide wildlife habitat and control flooding. There are 700 acres of greenways owned by LFUCG, with approximately 115 additional acres nearly ready for dedication. Homeowner associations own and manage another 120 acres.

A draft Greenway Manual has been prepared, which will be a technical document on the use, acquisition, development and management of greenways. Regardless of ownership, the Manual explains principles, sets standards, and recommends guidelines for best management practices to improve water quality, provide wildlife habitat, restore streams, and build trails. It is anticipated that the draft Manual will be adopted and incorporated into the Engineering Manuals. In the meantime, a policy was initiated in 2006, and efforts are underway to educate homeowners on the value of no-mow zones and native vegetation along streams.

The Greenway Master Plan proposes a countywide system of primary, secondary and tertiary trails, which includes both on-road and off-road facilities. Currently, there are 8.4 miles of existing trails and funding for an additional 10.5 miles. Shared use trails provide a means of alternative transportation and access to community destinations close to where residents live and work. Trails can become destinations themselves, providing open space for community events, social gatherings, and opportunities for recreation and fitness.

In the Expansion Area, it is a requirement that greenway acreage be dedicated to LFUCG. Trail construction, however, is not included in exaction fees for basic infrastructure improvements. In other sections of the community, greenway property must be acquired through donation or purchase. Due to limited funding, little progress has been made in the acquisition, restoration, development, or maintenance of greenways since the adoption of the Greenway Master Plan in 2002.

Natural Areas

Raven Run is a unique nature sanctuary dedicated to preserving the natural beauty of the Kentucky River Palisades and early Kentucky history. The 732-acre park includes 257 acres purchased in 2006. Over 10 miles of hiking trails provide access to streams, meadows, and woodlands characteristic of the area. Vegetation within the public park is primarily first succession tree stands with some second and third successional growth. Over 600 species of plants and 200 species of birds allow visitors to become acquainted with and appreciate the natural world.

The second natural area along the Kentucky River is Floracliff Nature Sanctuary. Dedicated in 1996, the Floracliff Board of Directors owns the preserve and jointly manages it with the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. Floracliff has 287 acres of old field upland, second-growth forest, and a rich and diverse wildflower display. The rich flora, ravines, cliffs, and waterfalls of Floracliff make it one of the more scenic areas in central Kentucky. Floracliff also has a unique geological feature called a tufa formation, which resembles a frozen waterfall. It is considered one of the best examples in the eastern United States. The mission of the sanctuary is to care for the sanctuary property, ensure its protection as a nature preserve, and promote public education of the natural history of the Inner Bluegrass region.

Another natural area is located on a historic site within an industrial area near downtown. McConnell Springs is a 26-acre public park with two miles of trails running along the spring, stone fences, and vestiges of historical buildings. McConnell Springs boasts more than 130 species of plants and numerous species of urban wildlife. Its mission is to protect the unique geological, natural, and historic features of McConnell Springs and to provide natural, cultural, and historical education opportunities.

Greenways are linear greenspaces.

Greenways in Fayette County: 700 acres owned by lfucg

120 acres owned by Homeowner associations

The Greenway Master Plan proposes a countywide system of trails, which includes on-road and off-road facilities.

Raven Run Nature Sanctuary:

732-acre public park

10 miles of hiking trails

Access to streams, meadows and woodlands

Over 600 species of plants

Over 200 species of birds

Floracliff Nature Sanctuary

287 acres

Old field uplands

Second growth forest

Cliffs

Waterfalls

Frozen waterfall

McConnell Springs

26-acre public park

2 miles of trails

Stone fences

130 species of plants

Urban wildlife

Rural Greenspace

The Rural Service Area is predominantly agricultural in use. Of the 200 square miles in the RSA, greenspace, natural areas, and agriculture equal 95 percent of the total acreage. Nonagricultural uses include historic rural settlements, circulation, large residential lots, Rural Activity Centers, and rural residential subdivisions. The Greenspace Plan identifies natural and cultural resources that are proposed for preservation, restoration, and enhancement. Resource preservation is discussed further in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, the Greenway Master Plan, and the Rural Settlement Study. Through the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, growth management, zoning, and overlays, many resources are under protection.

Rural resources recognized in the Greenspace Plan include farms, rural roads, stone fences, rural settlements, and natural areas. The Plan identified Five Focus Areas that are considered to be exemplary examples of the Bluegrass landscape type. They are the North Elkhorn Creek, South Elkhorn Creek, Boone Creek, the Kentucky River and the Old Frankfort Pike corridor. The PDR Program awards points for farms located in a Focus Area. In addition, points are awarded for the protection and proper management of prime and statewide significant soils, environmentally sensitive areas, greenways, rural roads, scenic viewsheds, historic areas, and natural areas.

The Greenspace Plan identifies natural and cultural resources in the Rural Service Area proposed for preservation, restoration, and enhancement including: farms

rural roads

stone fence

rural settlements

natural areas

The goal of the PDR Program is to protect, at a minimum, 50,000 acres in conservation easements over the next 20-30 years. PDR now has over 17,500 acres in conservation easements. The protected farms include equine, general agriculture, and other farms (historic, sod, trees). The program has received $24,384,454 in local, state, and federal match grants for the purchase of conservation easements, and 13 of the protected farms were donated as conservation easements. Besides agriculture and the horse economies, the program conserves and protects natural, scenic and open space resources. Another 960 acres are protected through the Bluegrass Conservancy, a nonprofit regional land trust.

Urban development and the agricultural industry are incompatible land uses because of noise, odors, sprays, pollution, traffic, and security issues. The goal of the PDR program is to achieve a critical mass of farmland necessary to support the general agriculture, horse, and agri-tourism industries. Expansion into the Rural Service Area not only affects the farm to be developed, but may affect the adjacent farm’s subsequent eligibility for the PDR program. Over the past five decades since the inception of the Urban Service Area, the consumption of land has increased at a faster rate than the increase in population. Differences in the population to land ratio may be attributed to factors such as smaller household size, aging population, increase in single family housing, increase in open space requirements, and wider streets. Besides the loss in agriculture, increases in land consumption means a loss of greenspace and cultural landscapes, displacement of flora and fauna, and a disruption of ecosystems.

Five Focus Areas

Exemplary examples of the Bluegrass landscape type:

North Elkhorn Creek

South Elkhorn Creek

Boone Creek

Kentucky River

Old Frankfort Pike corridor Farms in Fayette County

$339,000,000 in farm receipts

738 farms

119,098 acres of farms average farm size is 161 acres over $242,000 in ag products sold per farm

$6.9 million in cattle sales

Tourism

$880,190,000

13,130 jobs

$14,650,000 tax receipts

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Manchester Branch of South Elkhorn Creek near Van Meter Road

Fayette County Population Density Urban vs. Rural

Working Lands

Fayette County ranks second in the State in farm products, generating $339,000,000 in cash farm receipts in 2004. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture data, there were 738 farms in the County, down 11 percent from 1997. Farm acreage was 119,098 (down 14 percent) and the average farm size was 161 acres, (down four percent). Market value of agricultural products sold per farm increased by 42 percent to $242,401. While Fayette County is known primarily for the equine industry, the area is experiencing relatively high growth in non-equine related commodities. In 2002, cattle sales generated $6.9 million. Tobacco sales are expected to continue to decline.

This unique rural landscape is the basis of the tourism economy and provides the unique character and sense of place known worldwide as a place that values its agricultural land to the extent of naming it “Horse Capital of the World.” Tourism in Fayette County generated $880,190,000 and supported 13,130 related jobs in 2004. Local tax receipts from tourism were $14,650,000.

The World Monuments Fund named Fayette and 11 other counties in the Inner Bluegrass region as one of the world’s most distinctive cultural and agricultural landscapes. Over the past decade, however, it has been threatened by rapid development and suburbanization. Because of the resulting loss of rural farmland and sense of place, the Fund placed the Bluegrass cultural landscape on its 2006 Watch List of 100 Most Endangered Sites in the World.

Rural Corridors

The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan listed many rural roads as scenic. Viewsheds were identified through interpretation of mapped features such as tree stands, ridgelines, and field review. It was recommended that viewsheds from the Interstate also be protected. Mapped tours along scenic byways attract tourists in vehicles; however, opportunities to experience the scenic countryside at a slower

pace on bicycle or foot are impeded by the lack of trails or signed bike routes. The Rural Service Area Land Management Plan and Greenway Master Plan call for the development of a rural greenway system. Proper design and planning can avoid conflicts with agricultural operations and identify the rural roads that are safest to travel by bicycle.

It appears that stone fences along rural roads are rapidly diminishing. An inventory conducted in 1990 found 247 rock walls with a total length of 38.7 miles. The inventory has not been updated. An ordinance adopted in 1994 protects the walls that are located in the public right-of-way. Unfortunately, this leaves many walls on private land unprotected. Another problem is that the Ordinance does not cover routine maintenance or repair.

Urban Forestry and Land Cover

The urban forest is one of the most effective tools known to protect and maintain the urban environment. Urban trees can substantially reduce electrical costs in cooling buildings and help reduce the heat island effect of cities, thereby reducing energy demand. Trees clean the air by removing noxious gases and particulates, such as dust and pollen. They absorb carbon dioxide, whose excessive buildup in the atmosphere can cause long term increases in the earth’s temperature. Trees slow and absorb surface runoff of stormwater and help control soil erosion. They provide food, nesting sites, and protection for birds and animals. Trees beautify neighborhoods and can increase residential property value.

Urban Forestry began in the 1970s, when the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Tree Board was created and a number of urban forestry studies were initiated to inspect and analyze the state of the urban forests. Street tree planting was brought back to the community as a mandatory green infrastructure necessity to create more livable subdivisions. The National Arbor Day Foundation has recognized Lexington for 20 years as a Tree City USA making it the oldest Tree City community in the State.

In the mid-1990s, the Urban County Council created an Urban Forestry Program, which administers the Tree Protection Ordinance, the Street Tree Ordinance, and the Hazard Street Tree Cost Share Program. The Urban Forester also reviews Tree Protection Plans in the planning and development process. The Program maintains trees in medians, parks, and LFUCG-owned greenways. Adjacent property owners are responsible for the maintenance and replacement of all other trees.

The quality of Lexington’s urban forests, especially in the older sections of Lexington in the right-of-way, is an issue being addressed by the Urban Forester. Many of the urban-forested areas were planted in the 1930s and, as a result, are now in a state of decline due to age. Pilot projects have been initiated to address some of the maintenance and tree removal needs. The Urban Forester also oversees private and public street tree maintenance decisions.

Data on the urban forest are needed to model its costs/benefits. There is no comprehensive tree inventory county-wide; however, a street tree sampling was

Urban trees can: reduce costs in cooling buildings help reduce the “heat island” effect provide food, nesting sites, and protection for birds and animals

beautify neighborhoods increase residential property value

lfucg Tree Board created in 1970’s

Oldest Tree City community in the State

Urban Forestry Program created in 1990s includes:

Tree Protection Ordinance

Street Tree Ordinance

Hazard Street Tree

Cost Share Program

Tree Protection Plans

Trees maintained in medians, parks and LFUCG-owned greenways

The Tree Protection Ordinance establishes the standards and procedures for county-wide tree protection and planting in new developments, and helps to meet minimum tree canopy coverage requirements. A goal set by the Urban Forester is to meet the national standard of 40 percent canopy coverage. Approximate coverage is currently at 18 percent. The Tree Protection Ordinance should be reviewed to evaluate target canopy coverage within specific zones in order to meet the national standard.

The Hazard Street Tree Cost Share Program helps property owners with the removal of hazard trees and replacement. The Program continues to receive many more requests than it can fund. A common problem throughout the community is the removal of trees without replacement. A Cost Share Program for replacement would only help property owners to be in compliance with regulations.

conducted in 2005. Of the 51,077 trees surveyed, 26 percent of all street trees were Callery pear trees, 22 percent were red maple and 13 percent were pin oaks. As a best management practice, no species should account for more than 10 percent of a total population; however, monocultures continue to be planted in new subdivisions.

The sampling did not include other data such as missing trees, tree health, or size. Street trees are required through regulations; however, there is little enforcement to require property owners to remove hazardous trees or replace missing ones. The urban forest was severely damaged and compromised by the 2003 ice storm; however, there is no data to compare before and after conditions. An inventory of trees in LFUCG-owned greenways began in 2005. It is estimated that over 1,000 trees are dead or dying between the curb and the sidewalk in the public rightof-way.

The agricultural land use in Fayette County is vast pasture for horse and cattle with cropland scattered throughout. Extensive tree stands in the Urban and Rural areas are scarce, except along fence-rows, property boundaries, creeks, and roads. Satellite data shows no significant forest cover in Fayette County except adjacent to the Kentucky River Palisades. Vestiges of isolated woodlands may merit protection or rehabilitation, especially if they are over one acre in size. On-site inspections will determine if the woodland condition is suitable for conservation measures (such as the extent of invasive species removal). While not particularly valuable for habitat (because of their isolation or lack of understory growth), modeling software is available that can demonstrate the benefits of small wooded lots to air quality, water quality and economic savings. Satellite data categorizes land cover by water, developed land, and vegetation (including deciduous trees, evergreen trees, shrubs, cropland, and grassland). From this data, canopy cover and impervious cover can be tracked over time.

New tree planting is ongoing in the community through the Corridors Committee planning efforts for corridor enhancement, and through the Reforest the Bluegrass program for planting in riparian zones. To date, approximately 155,000 seedlings have been planted in 160 acres of floodplains by 5,500 volunteers. The Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Center for Watershed Protection have declared that forest cover is the best use of land for water storage, recharge, runoff reduction, pollutant reduction, and erosion control; therefore, forest cover is the leading indicator of a watershed’s health.

Resource Extraction

Limestone is the primary mineral mined in Fayette County. There are three rock quarries located in Fayette County, and each has the capability of extracting 1,000,000 tons of rock per year.

Green Infrastructure Network

Hubs and corridors that make up a green infrastructure network have yet to be identified; however, there are components existing and proposed that can form the basis of a network. Potential hubs include parks, natural areas, woodlots, and other urban greenspaces. Corridors include the proposed countywide greenway system and Kentucky River.

Energy Recycling

LFUCG began a recycling program in 1991. Each year, community participation has grown, and in 2006, 70 percent of households recycled. In 2006, 16,721 tons of glass, cardboard, office paper, newspaper, plastic, aluminum, steel and other fiber were processed through the Recycling Center, an increase of approximately 6.5 percent from 2005. An additional 1,892 tons of material were accepted from 17 nearby counties. In addition to saving $374,884 in landfill tipping fees, over $1,248,078 was recouped from the sale of these materials.

LFUCG has taken steps to increase awareness among its employees and implement change to better environmental practices. The Division of Fleet Services recycled 10,781 gallons of used oil, 4,970 oil filters, and 719 batteries. The Outdoor Firing Range for the Division of Police has received a Best Management Practices Certificate of Recognition from the EPA for its plan to protect the environment by recycling expended ammunition recovered from the range. In 2005, over 39,000 pounds of expended metal ammunition were collected and recycled.

Since 2000, LFUCG has had an internal collection and recycling program for unwanted mercury-containing equipment, such as thermometers and mercury switches, burned out lamps, rechargeable batteries and fluorescent light bulbs. Recycling these materials (as opposed to landfilling these materials) reduces potential environmental liabilities under federal regulations. In 2006, LFUCG collected and recycled approximately 23,034 lamps (equivalent to over 10 miles of fluorescent tubes).

Composting

In 2006, 19,711 tons of yard waste and 4,067 tons of brush were composted at the LFUCG compost pad (to include over 17,000 tons of leaves and eight tons of Christmas trees). This is up from 2005, when approximately 15,332 tons of yard waste and 4,364 tons of brush were composted by LFUCG. Horse muck generated by the Police Mounted Patrol and vegetable food waste generated by the Adult Detention facility is also composted.

lfucg recycling program began in 1991.

In 2006:

16,000 tons recycled

$374,000 saved in landfill costs

One million dollars generated in sale of recycled materials

10,000 gallons of oil recycled

39,000 pounds of expended metal ammunition recycled

23,000 fluorescent lamps recycled

19,700 tons of yard waste composted

lfucg Energy Efficiency efforts: Used oil heater Motion controlled lighting

Programmable thermostats

Saved $120,000 by use of led traffic signal modules

lfucg sponsors

Bluegrass Green Living and Energy expo

Annual Energy Efficiency Awards

Energy Efficiency

During 2006, LFUCG continued efforts to become more energy efficient. Some of the more significant efforts included installing a second used oil heater at Fleet Services, purchasing a solar powered aerator for a pond at the Adult Community Corrections facility along with motion controlled lighting for selected office space, purchasing 392 LED signs and 235 programmable thermostats, buying 20 vending misers to minimize energy use at Parks and Recreation soda machines, participating in and sponsoring the Bluegrass Green Living and Energy expo, and facilitating the LFUCG Energy Efficiency Annual Awards which recognize Divisions that take steps to save energy.

The Division of Traffic Engineering continued to facilitate use of LED traffic signal modules. Since LEDs use significantly less energy than incandescent signals, this upgrade has lowered LFUCG energy costs for these signals by approximately $120,000 per year. This has also reduced maintenance costs significantly and reduced greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to planting over 4,000 trees or taking 400 cars off Lexington roadways each year.

The Lexington Housing Authority announced it would begin Energy Star Rated housing. The Housing Authority will open 24 Energy Star rated rental apartments in 2007. There are also plans to start construction on 60 new energy star homes that will be available in 2008.

Since 2003, six homes built for Habitat for Humanity were tested and received a fivestar energy rating. The organization builds all of its homes with the same standards and specifications so they will all meet the five-star rating standards, and they continue to test annually to maintain the rating.

The U.S. Green Building Council is a nonprofit organization that promotes environmentally responsible, healthy, and profitable buildings. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) is a rating system that sets voluntary standards and a certification program for high performance green buildings. The LEED system includes all building types and is based on site planning, water management and efficiency, energy management and materials used. Currently, there are no LEED certified buildings in Lexington.

Transportation

It is well established that a community’s walkability is an important factor in measuring its livability. Transit ridership, cycling, and walking, as alternate modes of transportation, reduce air pollution and provide opportunities for an active lifestyle. These facilities include bike lanes, shared use trails, and signed shared roadways.

In 2003, a sidewalk inventory was conducted on 48 percent of the streets in the Urban Service Area, concentrating on areas around public schools, universities, and downtown. Only 55 percent of the streets had sidewalks present on both sides, and 13 percent had sidewalks on one side only. Sidewalk condition was good on 44 percent, fair on 39 percent and poor on 15 percent of those inventoried. Two schools will

begin the Safe Routes to School Program starting in 2007. The program encourages bicycling and walking to school.

According to Census data, the percent of trips to work on foot dropped from five percent in 1990 to four percent in 2000. Bicycle commuting increased from 0.35 percent of trips to 0.6 percent. Public transportation decreased from 1.6 percent to 1.3 percent. Carpooling remained constant at 11 percent. Commuting times under 20 minutes over the ten years dropped from 64 percent of commuters to 58 percent. Current transit data shows that trend reversing. From July to December 2006, there were 1,337,442 riders using transit. This is an increase of 28.7 percent from the same period in 2005. Four additional routes were added in 2006, along with a decrease from one hour to 30-minute frequency.

Infill/Redevelopment

Energy consumption is dramatically lessened by accommodating growth first with infill and redevelopment within the current Urban Service Area. In December 2005, a land use survey was conducted. A parcel was considered vacant if there was no building foundation observed on the site. From 2001 through December 2005, 76.4 percent of the land that was vacant in 2001 was still vacant in the Expansion Area. In the remaining Urban Service Area, 58.4 percent of the vacant land from 2001 remained.

Since the Infill and Redevelopment boundary was created in late 2002, building permits for over 900 residential units have been issued. In the past two years, there has been a significant increase in the number of mixed use development in or near downtown. Over $500 million in new downtown projects are completed, under construction, or planned. The average density is 55 units per acre.

Transportation efforts:

10.5 miles of existing bike lanes

8.5 miles of shared use trails

4 miles of signed shared roadway

11 percent carpool

Addition of 4 transit routes

Over 1 million transit riders

Safe Routes to School Program

The 500’s on Main and First Baptist Church

Socioeconomic

Public Health and Safety

Land use, development patterns, and transportation planning have impacts on public health and well-being, including, air quality, water quality, physical activity and drinking water supply.

Tourism

Tourism is a strong economic sector in Fayette County. For 2005, the economic impact from tourism sales in Fayette County was estimated at $1.4 billion and tourist employment of 22,881 (an increase of 9.2 percent from 2004). The most requested information from the Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau was for horses and history. The preservation of agriculture, scenic viewsheds, and cultural landscapes is critical to attracting tourists.

In 2010, Lexington-Fayette County will host the World Equestrian Games at the Kentucky Horse Park. This will be the first time that the Games have been held in the United States. It is anticipated that there may be 600,000 visits to the Park during the two-week event.

Property Values

National studies show that property values adjacent to parks and greenways are usually higher than other properties off of the greenspace. A preliminary study of home sales along the West Hickman, Town Branch, Masterson Station, and Beaumont greenways indicates that values along the trail are higher than neighboring properties. Additional sales tracked over time will verify these findings.

Partnerships

Public-private partnerships improve the chances of successfully implementing green infrastructure programs and projects. A number of partnerships have been created over the years. One recent venture into organizing “green” efforts is through the Bluegrass Partnership for a Green Community. In 2004, LFUCG, the University of Kentucky, and the Fayette County Public Schools signed a proclamation for the purpose of “sustaining and preserving regional quality of life; protecting the environment and conserving resources; minimizing waste and preventing pollution.” Additional outcomes expected in the collaboration of projects include a cost savings through purchasing agreements and setting an example for others to follow. Since its inception, other organizations have become partners, including the Bluegrass Community and Technical College, Bluegrass PRIDE, Kentucky Division of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and the Kentucky Environmental Education Council. There are nine teams working on separate projects, including: Green Buildings; Reduce, Reuse and Recycle; Environmental Education; Green Purchasing; Transportation; Outreach and Education; Water and Storm Water; Food and Lands; and Greenspace.

Public Support

Education is imperative for gaining support of green infrastructure initiatives and movement towards a sustainable community. Numerous surveys and public input during the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process showed that the public is devoted to cultural and rural heritage.

Private citizens volunteer to serve on many commissions, boards and committees. These advisory groups assist LFUCG to formulate policy, prioritize projects, and educate the public on various green programs. The public participates in a number of events sponsored by LFUCG, including:

• Clean Sweep, an annual event where trash is removed from the Kentucky River

• Great American Cleanup, when garbage is collected from around the community

• Spring Clean Household Hazardous Waste event

• Reforest the Bluegrass where trees have been planted in riparian zones

• Adopt a Creek program where volunteers clean streams and educate citizens on water quality

• Division of Engineering workshops to inform the developers of changes to the Engineering Manual and provide a forum to address issues

• Division of Engineering educational materials sent to homeowners who live adjacent to greenways

• It All Adds Up to Cleaner Air program, public education campaign and Tree Madness

• Recycling of electronic components, batteries, and appliances

Green Infrastructure Plan

Just as the road and utility networks that comprise gray infrastructure provide necessary services to the community, natural resources and landscapes that comprise green infrastructure must be actively supported and funded for the wide range of essential ecological and socioeconomic values provided. It is recommended that a Green Infrastructure Plan be developed that will integrate the principles into the planning and management of natural resources and landscapes. The Plan should include a vision, goals and objective, and specific recommendations for steps in achieving sustainability.

Community Facilities

Mounted Patrol at the Courthouse Plaza

The Woodlands from Thoroughbred Park

Triangle Park and Lexington Center

UK Medical Center, South Limestone

Community Facilities

Introduction

The Community Facilities Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan summarizes existing conditions and conveys proposals for the most desirable, appropriate, economic, and feasible pattern for the general location, character, and the extent of public and semipublic buildings, land, and facilities. While the list of existing and needed Community Facilities is extensive, the 2007 Comprehensive Plan provides information on the critical facilities, such as sanitary sewers, public safety, and other public facilities, such as parks, schools, and libraries. In nearly every instance, each of these facilities could be considered essential for any community, especially one that aspires to attract and retain citizens that contribute to a vibrant and healthy society.

Some of these Community Facilities are provided and directed by other divisions within LFUCG. In most cases, these divisions have their own long-range or master plans from which the reports in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan are derived. Approved plans should be consulted for more information about these facilities. The Division of Planning and LFUCG work closely with organizations outside the government, such as Fayette County Public Schools and Kentucky Utilities to ensure their analyses and plans are incorporated into the 2007 Plan and the day-to-day development review process.

Information related to these community facilities and their services, the demands upon them, and their capacity for expansion, when combined with population projection data, can provide a solid base for initiating discussion related to the type, location, and intensity of future land use patterns in Fayette County. This Chapter provides an overview of the current status and capacity of many of the essential community facilities in Fayette County.

Parks and Recreation Recreation Trends

The demand for quality recreational opportunities continues to intensify at both the local and national levels, and is found among every age group. Recreational opportunities desired by the public are diverse, ranging from improved facilities and sports complexes to passive open space and nature preserves. As organized sports have grown, with extensive facility demands, so too has environmental awareness, with an associated need for large areas that preserve valued natural features while accommodating at least some public access for hiking and passive activities. Planning for the location and size of various parks and recreation facilities, therefore, involves a combined planning methodology that examines local population demand and needs, nationally accepted park standards, and taking into account local environmental concerns and parameters. Responding positively to these needs and demands is a major challenge that requires focused attention and commitment by local government to ensure that the facilities, as well as the recreational programs and services, are provided.

Community Facilities are essential to attract and retain citizens and contribute to a vibrant and healthy society.

Most LFUCG divisions tasked with the oversight of Community Facilities have independent long range or comprehensive plans.

The recreational opportunities in the community are diverse, including:

Swimming

Hiking

Nature preserves

Sports complexes

Passive open space

In 2006, 257 acres were added to Raven Run Nature Sanctuary.

Fayette County has over 5,600 acres of parks, including The Kentucky Horse Park. Planned enhancements include:

Greenways Connectors

Open space

Protection of wildlife habitat National standards are used to determine the sufficiency of facilities and to estimate future needs.

A new Parks Master Plan process is scheduled to begin in 2008

Overall, Fayette County is responding well to the challenge of meeting recreational needs with 101 government-owned parks, three state-owned parks, and six leased parks, which when combined total 5,678 acres, a figure that includes the state owned and operated Kentucky Horse Park (1,185 acres), which meets the regional park needs for Fayette County. During the visioning sessions for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, comments were collected from residents that reported insufficient and inadequate parks in the north side of Lexington. Other general comments noted the lack of parks in new developments, particularly in the Expansion Areas. To better assess park needs throughout the community, a new Park Master Plan should be created.

The last master plan, the 1998 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan, called for widespread enhancements to existing parks through a system of greenway connectors to provide increased recreational opportunities, preserve additional open space, and protect wildlife habitat and water quality. This is a priority that is expressed in the Environmental and Green Infrastructure Chapter of the 2007 Plan. As Fayette County continues to grow, addressing current neighborhood and community park deficiencies, while continuing to keep pace with new demands, will be an ongoing challenge.

National standards for park acreage and service area were reported in the 1998 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan. These standards are used to determine whether sufficient park facilities exist and to estimate future needs to meet population demand. This information is balanced with local environmental concerns and the location of valued natural features to determine where public funds can best be expended to meet local parks and recreation needs.

National Standards for Park Acreage and Service Areas

Note: Standards are used for park planning guidelines only Source: National Parks and Recreation Association

standards state all residents should be within ½ mile of a park.

Gaps of service areas related to the need for neighborhood parks are met through an arrangement between Parks and Fayette County Public Schools.

Good planning and management can result in community parks fulfilling neighborhood park-type needs for adjoining residential areas. Funding is necessary for a successful public parks and recreation program.

New Community Centers are recommended at:

Shillito Park

Cardinal Run Park

Coldstream Park

Lakeview Park

Major Needs and Current Challenges

NationalThe 1998 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified a number of critical needs, including renovations necessary to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, safety issues, installation of safety surfaces for playgrounds, repair to buildings and restroom facilities, and the renovation of several athletic fields. A detailed inventory of specific needs for particular parks can be found in the Master Plan. Overall, maintenance and renovation of parkland and facilities should be considered as a concern with critical funding needs. To this end the Division of Parks and Recreation is recommending the creation of a new Master Plan, which will begin in 2008.

Neighborhood parks have been identified in the Master Plan as the category of parks where a shortage exists throughout Fayette County. These parks generally serve a particular neighborhood, are typically between ten and 20 acres in size, and include both passive and active uses. Ideally, they are sited to serve the population within a ½-mile radius of the park, which allows convenient access by walking, jogging, or biking.

Existing neighborhood parks and the associated ½-mile service areas are shown on Map 11. There are a number of areas in Lexington-Fayette County that are not located within ½ mile of an existing or proposed neighborhood park. This deficiency appears to be most serious in the planning area outside New Circle Road between Bryan Station Road and Todds Road. The number of parks in this area will improve in the near future by the addition of a neighborhood park and school site along Liberty Road in the Hamburg development. Efforts to alleviate neighborhood park shortages throughout Fayette County should be continued.

Some of the gaps related to the need for neighborhood parks are met through a cooperative arrangement between LFUCG and Fayette County Public Schools. The Division of Parks works extensively with the schools to operate programs at some school facilities. Occasionally this results in cooperative physical improvements to the facilities as well. This cooperation is essential and should be improved to meet the needs of residents and neighborhoods beyond the half-mile radius.

Looking to the Future

An updated parks master plan will provide a clearer picture of the adequacy and need for park facilities. Funding for acquisition, construction, and maintenance will be critical for a successful public parks and recreation program. Neighborhood parks, in particular, will be critical issues as infill and redevelopment initiatives address growth and demand for housing. Creativity in park design and operation will be crucial components to safe and effective park development.

Acquiring new land for future parks and recreation needs must continue with determination and perseverance. Predicting where future demands will be greatest is a difficult task that has traditionally focused on projecting where population will be growing the fastest, yet this method alone can be misleading and may not

accurately portray areas where new parkland is or will be needed. Other factors to consider include the demographics of neighborhoods and location of other open space features. Good planning and management of community parks, with a balance provided between passive and active recreation, can result in those parks fulfilling neighborhood park-type needs for adjoining residential areas.

Establishing greenway connections is an excellent opportunity to not only protect environmentally sensitive areas and expand passive recreational opportunities, but also to increase accessibility to neighborhood and community parks that otherwise might not be accessible via walking or biking.

Proposals and Advances

The Parks Master Plan states that as existing community parks are further developed, consideration should be given to establishing community centers at some of these parks. These centers should have meeting and program space, a gymnasium, arts space, health and fitness facilities, staff offices, and in some cases indoor and outdoor swimming pools and racquetball courts. The plan also recommends several locations for these community centers, including Shillito, Cardinal Run, Coldstream, and Lakeview Parks and recommends an assessment of the feasibility of coordinating community centers with high school complexes. Lexington’s first Community School will be built as part of the redevelopment of Bluegrass-Aspendale. A community school is a set of partnerships between the Fayette County Public Schools and LFUCG, with an integrated focus on academics, health, social services, youth and community development, and community engagement. The school portion will be for elementary students while the community portion will be a center for neighborhood residents.

The 1996 Comprehensive Plan recommended that Raven Run be expanded along the Kentucky River to a minimum of 1,000 acres. In 2006, an additional 257 acres were purchased towards this recommendation. The 2002 adoption of the Greenway Master Plan will lead to greenway dedications and land acquisitions that will create a truly spectacular system of nature preserves and associated greenspace. The Environmental and Green Infrastructure Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan raises numerous issues related to parks and open space.

The Greenway Master Plan will create a truly spectacular system of nature preserves and associated green space.

Beaumont Greenway Trail

Fayette County drains to nine major watersheds.

In 2005, the Phase I Downtown Sanitary Collector Sewer Study was begun. This study focuses on the rehabilitation of what is potentially Lexington’s oldest infrastructure.

Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water Infrastructure

Throughout the visioning and public input process of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, citizens commented on a variety of issues related to sanitary sewer and storm water infrastructure. Concerns about the adequacy of storm water systems in particular were raised after flooding occurred in September 2006. Anticipating the civil action against the LFUCG by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act, numerous citizens expressed concern about the adequacy of the sanitary and storm water systems. Many of these concerns were raised as reasons against proposals to expand the Urban Service Area. Citizens further contended that new sanitary and storm water systems should not be constructed until existing systems are repaired. In December 2006, the U.S. EPA and Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet (KY EPPC) filed a civil action against the Urban County Government seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties for asserted violations of federal and state laws. The claims made by the EPA and KY EPPC questioned the operation of the Urban County Government’s storm water and sanitary sewer systems, generally asserting a failure to adequately implement, monitor, and fund the management of the storm water and sanitary sewer systems and permitting unauthorized discharge of pollutants and cross-connections between the systems. In the complaint, the EPA and KY EPPC specifically request a court order directing the Urban County Government to undertake a program to achieve permanent and consistent compliance with federal and state law. The future implications of this pending litigation are unknown.

Sewerage System

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government operates the public sanitary sewer system in Fayette County serving much of the urbanized area of LexingtonFayette County. A separate detailed wastewater facilities planning document entitled the 201 Facilities Plan Update was adopted in 1999 and should be referred to for details regarding the LFUCG sanitary sewer service. Operating and maintaining the government-owned sanitary sewer system is the responsibility of the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water and Air Quality, formerly the Division of Sanitary Sewers. The system includes 79 pump stations, 1,300 miles of sewer line, over 33,900 manholes, and two large sewage treatment plants, Town Branch and West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plants. Parts of the collection system date back to the 1930s and have reached the end of their design life cycle. Aggressive repair and replacement of the older piping network (clay pipe and brick manholes) will continue to receive greater attention in the coming years.

To provide orderly, logical, cost effective development of the public sewerage system, the facilities must be sized and sequentially constructed in the same orderly, logical, and economical manner as any other major public, or quasi-public, network. Therefore, as owner and operator of the sewerage system, the LFUCG functions like a utility company. LFUCG is responsible for design and construction of major trunk projects, which is accomplished under guidelines contained in the Engineering Manuals and the Land Subdivision Regulation. The government permits, and in some cases, requires developers to design and construct the facilities for which the LFUCG then assumes ownership, maintenance, and operation.

The Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on the Town Branch north of Old Frankfort Pike approximately ½ mile inside New Circle Road, primarily serves the northern and western areas and downtown. It began operation in 1919 and was among the first sewage treatment plants in this section of the United States. This plant has been upgraded a number of times, most recently in 1987. The upgraded Town Branch wastewater treatment process is classified as a single-stage conventional nitrification activated sludge system. This treatment facility has a design capacity of 30 million gallons per day (mgd), but the plant can hydraulically treat a peak flow of 64 mgd. The average daily flow in 2005 was approximately 18.8 mgd.

The West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on West Hickman Creek in northern Jessamine County on Ashgrove Pike, primarily serves southern and eastern Fayette County. This plant began operation in 1972 and has been upgraded or expanded three times, with the most recent upgrade in 2001. The upgraded West Hickman Wastewater Treatment Plant is now classified as a single-stage conventional nitrification activated sludge system with phosphorus removal treatment. It has a design capacity of 33.8 mgd, with a peak flow of 64 mgd. Average daily flow in 2005 was approximately 19.2 mgd.

Because Fayette County drains to nine major watersheds, pump stations are an integral part of the sewerage system, pumping sewage from other watersheds to the two existing treatment plants located in the West Hickman and Town Branch watersheds. Some of these pump stations, such as the Cane Run Pump Station, are significant in size. The Cane Run watershed drains much of northern and northeast Fayette County. Gravity lines and a series of smaller pump stations collect the sewage in this area, which then drains to the larger Cane Run Pump Station. This flow is pumped to the Town Branch Plant in the western part of the county. The pump station is located in the Coldstream Office Park and is designed to accommodate future growth on Lexington’s north side. Current average flow is 4.4 mgd, with a daily capacity of up to 35 mgd.

In 2001, LFUCG began construction on 17 sanitary sewer rehabilitation projects that were funded by a bond initiative approved with a 20 percent sewer user fee rate increase. As of January 1, 2007, 16 of these projects have been completed at a total cost of $17.6 million. LFUCG has continued repair work in the inflow and infiltration program, committing several million dollars over the past five years to repairing and replacing pipes and manholes within the Urban Service Area.

In 2005, Phase 1 of the Downtown Sanitary Collector Sewer Study was begun. Deliverables associated with this study include the physical assessment of pipe network serving the downtown area, in-pipe flow monitoring, and hydraulic modeling. The goal of the study is to obtain the information necessary to initiate rehabilitation of what is potentially Lexington’s oldest infrastructure while at the same time considering potential future sewer capacity demands associated with a downtown redevelopment strategy.

Limited areas of the Urban Service Area are served by private wastewater treatment systems and package plants. Very low-density rural areas of the County are served primarily by private on-site wastewater treatment systems.

New development within the usa is allowed only in areas served by the public sewage treatment system.

In 1996, for the first time, Fayette County began to accept and treat sewage from Jessamine County.

LexingtonFayette County has a 50-year history of planning sanitary sewer collections systems in coordination with planned urban development.

First considered as part of the Urban Service Area expansion decisions for the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, a new diversion line is planned for the northeastern portion of the Urban Service Area, which is in the North Elkhorn watershed. This line will collect sewage from an area roughly bounded by Todds Road and Bryan Station Road, outside of New Circle Road, and will divert it to the Town Branch Plant on the western edge of the urban area. Throughout the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process, questions were raised by citizens whether LFUCG will need a third treatment plant. There are issues related to a third treatment plant that have not been fully explored.

Industrial Waste

The Division of Water and Air Quality also operates an approved Pretreatment Program, which is incorporated into the Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) permit issued to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Industrial Pretreatment Program regulates and controls discharges of industrial wastewater to LFUCG’s two wastewater treatment plants. Currently, there are 61 permitted industrial users. Seven are regulated as federal categorical industries, 14 are significant non-categorical, and 40 are insignificant non-categorical industries. Permits are issued for a three-year period. The Division of Water and Air Quality conducts compliance monitoring on its categorical and significant industrial users at least once yearly and most are monitored monthly. Categorical and significant industrial users have self-monitoring requirements to sample and report twice per year. Inspections are performed by pretreatment staff on each industrial user once per year.

Development of Public Wastewater Service in Fayette County

Limited areas of the Urban Service Area continue to be served by private on-site wastewater treatment systems and private package plants. The very low-density rural areas of Fayette County are served primarily by private on-site wastewater treatment systems. The primary method of sewage disposal within the USA is the public wastewater system. Over the last 30 years, the Urban County Government has sought to provide septic tank users and private package plant users inside the USA with public treatment service. For the urban septic/drainage field users, the government adopted a plan designed to provide collector sewers to these areas in order of severity of need. In 1978, the 201 Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment Works incorporated the desire of the government to provide public treatment for the persons using private

Costs of providing public services within the Expansion Area are covered as development occurs.

Aeration Cascade, Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant

package plants into a plan to meet mandated federal water quality standards. In the 1970s, the government began a process to acquire and eliminate existing package plants. At this time only four package plants are in use in Fayette County.

Another aspect of the 1978 201 Plan was the provision of future trunk and force mains to all unserved areas within the USA. To accomplish this expansion of the trunk system, the capacity of the existing plants on Town Branch and West Hickman Creek were increased to current levels of service. All new development within the USA is allowed only in areas served by the public sewage treatment system as capacity becomes available and as new trunk lines and force mains are constructed.

In the early 1980s federal funding for local wastewater systems was greatly reduced. As part of its efforts to meet the need for more sewer facilities in growth areas of the USA, the Urban County Government conducted a study in 1986 to develop an implementation plan to provide sanitary trunk sewers and pumping facilities serving essentially the entire area within the existing USA. This study is known as the Implementation Plan for Construction of the Outer Perimeter Sewerage Systems (OPSS). The current 201 Plan, updated in 1999, built upon those planning efforts.

In 1996, for the first time, Fayette County began to accept and treat sewage from a development in another county. The site-specific agreement resulted from a request for a private package treatment plant just across the Jessamine County border, east of Harrodsburg Road, to serve a 27-acre retail and residential development in northern Jessamine County. A Master Service Agreement between LFUCG and the Jessamine South Elkhorn Water District (JSEWD) was approved by LFUCG in 2002. This Master Service Agreement allows property owners within a designated area of Northern Jessamine County to enter into sanitary sewer service agreements with LFUCG and JSEWD. LFUCG’s obligation in the Master Service Agreement is to provide, under certain conditions, up to 2.0 mgd (12-month moving average) of treatment plant capacity at the West Hickman Plant. JSEWD’s obligations include constructing both sanitary sewer collection/conveyance infrastructure and storm water management infrastructure in accordance with LFUCG design standards. Service is currently being provided in Jessamine County on Harrodsburg Road just south of the county line, to Southland Christian Church and the recently developed Brannon Crossing retail area on US 27.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Urban County Government entered into a service agreement that allowed the state to extend a dedicated line to replace the private package plant that had been in operation at the Kentucky Horse Park. This plant, which was required to be closed by the Division of Water by December 2000, served the Horse Park, Spindletop Hall, the Council of State Governments, Energy Research/Institute, UK’s Geological Laboratory, Asphalt Research Center, and two buildings owned by the Finance and Administration Cabinet. This rural line crosses land owned by the University of Kentucky and is intended to exclusively serve the current and future needs of state-owned and supported facilities. The pipeline was designed to accommodate the 20-year projected growth within state-owned property at the Horse Park and Spindletop.

The Rural Service Area Sanitary Sewer Capability Study was completed in 2006 and was used as a planning tool during the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process.

The 1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan determined that only a small portion of the Rural Service Area is sewerable without major capital expenditure.

approach to managing stormwater is to manage both water quantity and water quality.

Sewerability is a factor considered before land is deemed appropriate for development.

lfucg’s

Future Policy

Lexington-Fayette County has a 50-year history of planning sanitary sewer collections systems in coordination with planned urban development. Adequate sanitary sewers are essential for continued urban development in Lexington and for the maintenance of the Urban Service Area boundary. Since the 1988 Comprehensive Plan, land designated for future urban development within the USA has been planned as appropriate for urban development, subject to the availability of sanitary sewers and other public services and facilities. The 1986 OPSS study addressed this policy in some detail. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed policies which tied development to the provision of sewers and developed new funding polices for the Expansion Area approved in 1996. Map 12 depicts existing and proposed sanitary sewer facilities for the Urban Service Area.

In 1996, the 5,400-acre Expansion Area was added to the Urban Service Area. Policy decisions were made that the costs of providing public services within the Expansion Area would be covered as development occurred. To that end, comprehensive development exactions have been put in place, which recover the cost for necessary capital improvements, including sanitary sewer transmission facilities. The comprehensive development exaction is allocated on a per Expansion Area, per land use category basis in order to ensure that the exactions are roughly proportional to the impact of new growth and development. Sewerability is just one factor considered before land in the USA is deemed appropriate for development. Other required infrastructure elements are roads, stormwater management, solid waste disposal, parks, libraries, public safety, general governmental services, and schools.

One of the rural developed areas that has experienced problems with an existing package treatment plant is the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Two package treatment plants (Boonesboro Manor, west of I-75, and Blue Sky, east of I-75) are located in this area, one of which serves the bulk of the non-rural development in the area. There were longstanding problems with this private treatment plant, resulting in the degradation of the water quality of Baughman’s Fork and the unnamed tributary through Blue Sky. Due to the bankruptcy of the private treatment plant owner, LFUCG was granted interim operational control of the treatment plant in August 2003. While final transfer of ownership of the treatment plant is still unresolved, effluent discharge from the plant has vastly improved. The Division of Water and Air Quality has restored operation of all existing processes, but the facility’s continued ability to meet existing and future discharge limits will be challenging. If the Blue Sky treatment plant continues to be a problem, LFUCG may need to consider ways in which the Government can assist in the provision of reliable and compliant sanitary sewer service for this area.

Land outside the USA is addressed in the 1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan. According to this Plan, very little of the Rural Service Area is sewerable by either public or private means, without major capital expenditures for plants, major trunk lines, and pump stations or force mains. New package plants in the RSA are technically feasible, but have the potential for problems of siting, scope of service

The Urban County Government has a Sump Pump Redirection program to help identify and relocate groundwater flow to reduce the impact on the sanitary sewers. The government assists homeowners who are not located in floodplains or floodways with overland flows of stormwater.

As of November 2006, 64 priority projects had been completed, and eight others were being designed.

The Reforest the Bluegrass project has planted more than 155,000 seedlings in 160 acres of floodplain.

area, and interference with agricultural activities. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan continues to endorse the long-standing policies not to allow new package treatment plants and to eliminate such plants whenever possible.

Current RSA policies do not call for provision of new sanitary sewers, nor do they allow new development at intensities requiring such facilities in rural areas. The Rural Service Area Sanitary Sewer Study proposed in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan and in the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan was slated to identify potentially appropriate facilities, as well as the cost that may be required if new development were to occur. The Sewer Capability Study was completed in 2006 and was used as a planning document during the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process. The study presented technical feasibility information and cost projections for providing public sanitary sewer infrastructure in rural areas adjacent to the current USA.

Stormwater

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government’s Division of Engineering’s approach to managing stormwater is to manage both water quantity and water quality. In new development, developers are required to analyze peak flow, volume of runoff, and time distribution of flow in an effort to more accurately design new stormwater drainage facilities. New stormwater requirements have been included as part of the adopted Engineering Manuals, which outline procedures and criteria to be used for the design and construction of all future stormwater facilities. LFUCG is also developing computer simulations of urban watersheds to help predict effects of development and establish post-development floodplains. In addition to regulating the stormwater impact of new development, the Division of Engineering addresses stormwater issues in existing neighborhoods.

Historically, the sanitary sewer systems in the urban area have been impacted by groundwater infiltration and inflow. Often groundwater flowed into the sanitary sewer system by way of basement sump pumps. This additional water often overloads the sanitary sewer lines and causes overflows as well as backups into homes. To help address this problem, the Division of Engineering and the Division of Sanitary Sewers have collaborated on a Sump Pump Redirection Program to help identify and relocate problem generators of inflow. Participation in the program is currently voluntary and the Division of Engineering works with local homeowners to determine the appropriate action.

In a separate program, the Division of Engineering assists homeowners who are not located in floodplains or floodways with overland flows of stormwater that may be impacting houses or streets. The Division can provide some technical assistance in addressing alternatives for directing the flow of water away from the structure and ensuring that all streets are passable.

The Division of Engineering has compiled a list of proposed stormwater projects from a variety of sources. These projects are considered significant enough to try to solve through capital funding. The Division has established a methodology for prioritizing

this list of stormwater projects to allow for the better allocation of funding. The list includes projects where home flooding or severe street flooding has occurred. Additions to and deletions from the list occur as new potential projects arise or old problem areas are solved.

Proposed projects are rated with a severity score based on a 22-item scoring matrix. The scoring matrix is weighted to favor home flooding issues over street flooding and nuisance flooding. Cost estimates are also a part of the prioritization process. The cost estimate and severity score are used to calculate an efficiency value, which establishes the project’s priority related to funding.

As of November 2006, 64 priority projects had been completed, and eight others were being designed. The Division continues to work closely with the Urban County Council in the project prioritization process to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Fayette County.

Another program created to mitigate stormwater effects is the Reforest the Bluegrass project. This project intends to systematically restore as much riparian forests in floodplain areas as is feasible. Reforestation is an economically feasible way to use natural processes to slow the speed and volume of stormwater and to restore water quality and aquatic habitat. More than 155,000 seedlings have been planted in 160 acres of floodplain by 5,500 volunteers.

Waste Management

The Division of Waste Management provides once-a-week curbside residential service for refuse, recyclable materials, yard waste, and bulky items. Refuse is collected from 82,000 households and recyclables from over 52,000 households. Recycling is offered to all residents within the Urban Service Area at no additional charge. Nearly 3,900 businesses have refuse collection twice a week.

Residential customers receive a 95-gallon refuse roll cart called a Herbie. The 60and 95-gallon Rosie recycling carts are designed to make recycling easy by allowing all recyclable materials to be co-mingled in these carts, except for glass, for which a separate insert bin is provided.

There are two drop-off sites for people to dispose of recyclable materials: the LFUCG Recycling Center is located near Downtown at the corner of Thompson Road and Old Frankfort Pike; and the Haley Pike Landfill is off Route 60 on Hedger Lane. The Recycling Center is a multi-county facility owned and operated by the LexingtonFayette Urban County Government. The Bluegrass Regional Recycling Corporation (BRRC) assists LFUCG by acting as a regional marketing agent for the participating municipal and county governments that recycle through LFUCG Recycling Center.

The Division of Waste Management also collects yard waste, which is turned into mulch. Residents can choose between sturdy 30-gallon paper yard waste bags or an aerated 95-gallon yard waste cart called Lenny. The cart and bags are free to residents with LFUCG garbage collection. Yard waste includes grass clippings, leaves, shrub

The Division of Waste Management collects refuse from 82,000 households. 52,000 households participate in the recycling program.

The Recycling Center allows citizens to dispose of recyclable materials.

Yard waste makes up 18 percent of all residential waste, which is turned into mulch and given to residents.

Bluegrass

Waste Alliance Transfer Station processes waste which is then trucked to landfills outside of Fayette County.

Since 1995, the 105-acre Haley Pike landfill has been operated by LFUCG as a construction and demolition debris facility.

A walking trail along Town Branch on the landfill is proposed.

trimmings, and tree limbs. Yard waste makes up about 18 percent of residential waste and takes up valuable landfill space Separating yard waste from garbage saves Lexington residents in landfill fees. Mulch from the yard waste program is given away to residents four times a year.

Bluegrass Waste Alliance Transfer Station

Republic Services, Inc. operates the Transfer Station located at 1405 Old Frankfort Pike, which is a public-private partnership between LFUCG and Republic Services, Inc. After processing at the Transfer Station, Fayette County’s waste is transported to several landfills outside Fayette County, which are owned and operated by Republic.

Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill

Since 1995, the 105-acre Haley Pike landfill has been operated by LFUCG as a Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) facility. Approximately 35 acres of the site are used at a time. Prior to 1995, the Haley Pike landfill accepted the municipal solid waste from Lexington. Since then LFUCG has contracted with a private company to transport its refuse to landfills outside of Fayette County. The CDD landfill currently accepts bricks, concrete, furniture, roofing shingles, metals, paper products, insulation, and wood. Liquids, hazardous materials, garbage, and whole trees are not accepted.

The Haley Pike landfill area is also the site of LFUCG’s contractor-operated compost operation. County residents can drop off acceptable yard waste there.

Old Frankfort Pike Landfill

Lexington’s former landfill, located on Old Frankfort Pike, was in use from the 1940s to 1977. The landfill covers over 50 acres and is located adjacent to the Town Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. The landfill has been capped and is officially closed. The reclaimed site includes a five-acre asphalt pad for driver safety training by the government. A walking trail along Town Branch on the landfill is proposed. Water leaching from the landfill is captured and pumped into the nearby Town Branch Waste Water Treatment Plant. Particular care has been taken to keep the leachate away from the Town Branch, which was impacted in the past by the landfill. There are nine wells for monitoring ground water around the landfill.

Former Landfill on Old Frankfort Pike

Public Safety Police

Public safety through police protection is a component of a community with both perceived and actual benefits. The very presence of uniformed officers at public events can contribute to feelings of security. The horses of the mounted patrol attract the attention of children and convey a positive and authoritative image of the police. Neighborhood patrols reassure residents that deterring crime is a community priority.

During the visioning process for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, many residents noted low crime rates and good police protection as appealing attributes of Lexington. Those opinions, however, were different for residents of the north side of Lexington, who cited neighborhood crime and drug dealings as well as an inadequate supply of police as significant concerns. In meetings with the Central Sector, which is an area north of downtown inside New Circle Road, for which a small area plan has been recommended in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood representatives said crime and drugs are major issues. Police assigned to the Central Sector have been participating in neighborhood meetings.

The Division of Police is authorized 570 sworn personnel and 88 civilian employees (excluding part-time school crossing guards). At present, 528 sworn officers are available to serve the citizens in Fayette County. In order to assign geographical responsibility, Fayette County is divided into three sectors with one Captain responsible for each geographic area: West Sector, Central Sector, and East Sector. Patrol sectors are defined, as closely as possible, by establishing boundaries in which the need for services is evenly distributed. In addition to squads assigned to beats within the sectors, many neighborhoods have a Community Law Enforcement and Response (CLEAR) Unit officer assigned specifically to the geographic area to aid in the prevention and reduction of crime and efficient service to their designated neighborhood. One of the primary functions of the CLEAR Unit is placement of proactive officers in problem areas to concentrate their efforts on problems identified by the agency and community. CLEAR officers work with other government entities and neighborhood residents to address and correct issues in their assigned areas. Special Operations personnel, in addition to officers assigned to the Bureau of Operations Patrol, may provide assistance in a variety of ways.

The Division of Police has seven Segway transporters which allow officers to be in close contact with the public while still mobile to respond to nearby locations. The Division of Police has over 100 officers trained to ride bicycles. This capability not only contributes to a reduction in crime but also better relations with the community. These officers are assigned to a sector, including the downtown area. Segways, bicycles, and foot patrols are year round assignments in the downtown area and various neighborhoods.

The Mounted Patrol Unit began in 1982 with four officers to patrol the downtown area. At present, the Unit has nine members with a Sergeant patrolling downtown

Air Support

Unit began in 2006 and has provided assistance during disasters.

Special Operations

Units:

Canine

Hazardous Devices

Emergency Response School Liaison

The horses of the mounted patrol attract attention and convey a positive image of the police.

Some residents noted low crime rates and good police protection as appealing attributes of Lexington.

The Division currently operates at a ratio of 2 officers per 1,000 citizens.

With an estimated population of 344,000 people by 2030, Fayette County will need 963 police officers.

Lexington as well as other locations where services are needed. The Unit’s nine horses are Quarter Horses, Thoroughbreds, and Percheron and are stabled at 575 West Short Street.

The newly established Air Support Unit and other assigned Special Operations personnel provide valuable assistance to citizens and officers from the air due to the Division’s acquisition of a surplus military Bell Ranger Helicopter. Since beginning its operation in 2006, the Air Support Unit has provided assistance during disasters, such as the 2006 crash of Comair Flight 5191, narcotics investigations, and location of missing at-risk individuals. Anticipated uses by other Divisions include observation of road conditions following winter storms to direct the snow removal crews.

Additional special operations include the Division of Police Canine Unit, School Liaison Unit, and the Hazardous Devices Unit. The Division of Police Canine Unit is composed of one sergeant and eight officers. The Unit provides canine support services to all Bureaus of the Division of Police. One sergeant and five officers are assigned to the School Liaison Unit to assist Fayette County Public Schools Law Enforcement officers. These officers address the growing needs within the school system. The Hazardous Devices Unit is a part-time on-call team composed of two sergeants and five officers. If necessary, these highly trained officers can mitigate a potential explosive device and render it safe. This Unit has been deployed on many occasions both within and outside Fayette County as needed.

High risk situations may be handled by the Division’s Emergency Response Unit. This award-winning, part-time team is composed of selected personnel throughout the Division with one full-time coordinator. The Unit may be deployed to address barricaded persons and hostage situations or conduct raids on drug assignments where weapons may be involved.

Future Plans

The Division of Police maintains a Multi-Year Plan, which outlines the agency’s long-term planning goals. The agency’s goals include plans for implementation of a fourth sector as shown on Map 14. A fourth sector would evenly distribute the work load and further reduce response time to calls for service. In order to adequately staff the fourth sector, the Division of Police has requested 49 more officers by 2009. The fourth sector would allow for much needed Division growth and move the Division closer to the national average of 2.8 officers per 1,000 people in cities over 250,000. With a current population estimate of 270,000 people, Fayette County’s Division of Police is operating with about two officers per 1,000 people. With an estimated population of 344,000 people by 2030, Fayette County will need 963 police officers, an increase of over 82 percent.

In order to accommodate growth of the agency and its personnel, multiple capital projects have been requested in the Multi-Year Plan. The following facilities are requested to aid the Division with its expanding personnel and associated needs:

• Communications Technical Facility needed immediately for storage of large emergency response vehicles. The facility will allow space for installation of technical equipment (i.e., radios, mobile data computers, radar units, emergency and safety equipment, etc.). It is recommended that the facility also contain classrooms, a document storage area, uniform/quartermaster space, and secure evidence/property storage. Funding has not been appropriated for this facility.

• Fourth Sector patrol operations are needed prior to 2009. This is necessary and has been planned for several years in order to coincide with the Division’s projected growth plan. Land has been designated for this facility in the Hamburg area. Capital funding must be appropriated for the design and construction of a roll call center. Please see Map 14.

• West Sector Roll Call Building needed immediately. Ideally, this facility will be centrally located in the west sector. This roll call center should have additional classroom space with adequate parking to accommodate the agency’s growth. It is recommended that the classroom space accommodate a minimum of 60 students and also serve as a community gathering room for neighborhood meetings or events.

• Training Facility needed to allow enough space to accommodate future growth and required training. The Division also hosts many regional training opportunities for outside agencies. One of the features for this facility should be a large multi-purpose room that could be used for CompStat (crime analysis meeting), graduations, and other large functions.

The Division of Police is authorized to have 570 sworn officers and 88 civilian employees. Fayette County is divided into three patrol sectors, with plans for a fourth sector.

Manyneighborhoods have a Community Law Enforcement and Response (clear) Unit officer.

Segways, bicycles, and foot patrols are year round assignments in the downtown area and various neighborhoods.

The Mounted Patrol Unit began in 1982 and now has nine horses and nine officers.

Police Air Support Unit

Fire protection is provided by 23 fire stations, 548 sworn personnel, and 23 civilian employees.

The Division’s equipment includes:

Two 95-foot elevated platform ladder units

Two 105-foot ladder units

Nine Emergency Care Units

Current growth trends indicate the need for seven new stations and the relocation of six existing stations.

Fire Protection

Fire protection is provided to the residents of Fayette County by 23 fire stations, which comprise the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. The Division is staffed by 548 sworn personnel and 23 civilian employees. Four of the 23 stations are located in the Rural Service Area while 19 serve the urban population. The newest stations are Veterans Park (Station 22) and Bluegrass Station (Station 23).

Different types of equipment and specially trained staff serve each of the 23 stations, with seven stations assigned ladder trucks. Of these seven, the 95-foot elevated platform ladder tower units are housed at Woodland Avenue (Station 5) and Clearwater Way (Station 22). Ladder units at East Third Street (Station 1) and Beaumont (Station 20) house 105-foot trucks, while the remaining ladder units house 75-foot trucks. All stations except Merino Street (Station 3) house Engine Companies. At present, nine of the existing stations also house Emergency Care units. The location of these units is based on analysis of run volume, response time, and development growth trends. Besides faster response to emergencies, a sufficient supply of fire stations, equipment, and personnel may lead to reduced insurance costs for households and businesses. Service area standards for engine companies are 1.5 road miles from the station and 2.5 miles for ladder companies. Water availability is based on the distance to the closest fire hydrant, with 1,000 feet being the minimum standard for rural applications, and closer requirements for urban and commercial areas.

The LFUCG Division of Fire and Emergency Services presented a 10-year Comprehensive Plan to the Urban County Council on September 13, 2005 outlining objectives related to providing emergency response within Fayette County. Recommendations, based on current growth trends in the community and national response guidelines, include the construction of seven new fire stations and the relocation of six existing fire stations. The recommendations as presented allow strategic location of Division of Fire resources to minimize response times, provide the highest quality of service, and maximize property insurance savings for the rate payers.

To focus attention on the immediate needs of the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, a four-year plan for immediate implementation was developed. The fouryear plan includes new station construction in the areas of Ironworks Pike and Berea Road, Leestown Road and Bradley Lane, and Polo Club Boulevard and Hume Road. Facilities will also be relocated to Versailles Road and Rosalie Lane from Harrodsburg Road, to Eastland Drive from New Circle Road, and to Leestown Road and Opportunity Drive from Leestown Road and South Forbes Road.

The full 10-year plan, however, must be completed in order to provide the proposed coverage. Each station relocation or new station constructed has an immediate impact to both new and existing response areas and must be coordinated so that additional coverage gaps are not created.

The Division of Fire and Emergency Services works closely with Kentucky-American Water Company to ensure that an adequate water supply for fire suppression is available. KAWC regularly checks and makes system improvements to ensure adequate pressure and installs public fire hydrants to comply with the Division of Fire and Emergency Services requirements.

The location of future stations requires careful planning to ensure that appropriate property is acquired at a reasonable cost. The Division of Planning, Division of Fire and Emergency Services, and other LFUCG divisions work closely to maximize the benefit to local neighborhoods when locating a new facility. Using context sensitive design, fire stations can become an important part of a neighborhood’s social structure. Context sensitive design takes into account the fire station’s relationship to the developing neighborhoods. In addition to emergency responses, a new fire station can function as a community service facility that will provide for the needs of the neighborhood and create a sense of place for the community and the future.

Enhanced 9-1-1

Lexington-Fayette County recently combined the 9-1-1 service centers previously under the Division of Fire and Emergency Services and the Division of Police into the Division of Enhanced 9-1-1 to eliminate duplication, improve communications among all public safety personnel, and to provide a better and more efficient service to callers requesting emergency services. The volume of calls has increased steadily each year and reflects the growth in the County along with the growth in methods that 9-1-1 can be accessed.

In 1998, 9-1-1 could only be called via a landline phone. Today, 9-1-1 is integrated into computers, automobile location services, satellite phones, text messaging, and all cell phones. This expansion has required the migration of the 9-1-1 service into new technologies such as GIS, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) and wireless communications. Over 66 percent of all 9-1-1 calls originate from cell phones, which requires the use of computerized maps and full automation within the call centers.

The Division of Enhanced 9-1-1 maps every address within Fayette County to ensure proper dispatching and quick response to all calls, regardless of origin, which reduces the time required for emergency personnel to locate citizens. This effort will assist in all aspects of service delivery and will integrate with the new Emergency Notification System (ENS).

The ENS will reverse the current role of 9-1-1 and allow emergency personnel to contact citizens directly and advise them of hazards within close proximity of their home, office, or school. The service also automates the notification of responders to decrease notification, response, and setup time for special units during times of natural or manmade disasters or critical incidents.

9-1-1 is integrated into computers, automobile location services, satellite phones, text messaging, and all cell phones. Over 66 percent of all 9-1-1 calls originate from cell phones.

A new Emergency Notification System will allow emergency personnel to contact citizens directly and advise them of hazards. Plans are underway to build a new Regional Emergency Operations Center.

Fire Station Addresses and Components

Finally, the acquisition of land has been completed to construct a new Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC) and 9-1-1 service center to house all elements of the 9-1-1 infrastructure while integrating the technology with the REOC. This facility will ensure that Lexington can continue to provide 9-1-1 and emergency service into the future.

deem (Division of Environmental and Emergency Management)

The Division of Environmental and Emergency Management (DEEM) conducts a number of activities that enhance or ensure a better environment for the citizens of Fayette County. DEEM participates on the Commercial Building Inspection Review Committee through the Division of Building Inspection, where all new commercial building plans are submitted for review. Through this process, DEEM is assured precautions will be taken to properly store hazardous materials and minimize environmental issues, such as secondary containment for above ground storage tanks. Specific guidelines have been developed for retaining spills at retail gas stations to prevent entry into the storm water system. This process also affords the opportunity to carefully plan the types of businesses allowed to locate in the Royal Springs Wellhead Recharge Area or other sensitive areas and to require appropriate protective measures for these sensitive areas.

DEEM responds to citizen environmental complaints, especially those that relate to hazardous materials. DEEM also responds to hazardous materials released to streams, private property, and at extremely hazardous substance (EHS) storage sites and oversees all mitigation efforts associated with such releases. DEEM has the ability to issue Notices of Violation for releases of hazardous materials to the environment and, when necessary, to force compliance where mitigation is required. DEEM requires the reporting of the release to the environment of any petroleum substance over 10 gallons, or if it causes a sheen on water.

DEEM also participates in the Fayette Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) to help develop emergency plans for all Fayette EHS sites. DEEM is the repository of records for the Fayette LEPC. All Tier II hazardous materials reports are received and kept to heighten awareness of chemicals in the community.

Underground storage tanks are regulated by DEEM. No underground storage tanks are installed in Fayette County unless they meet the LFUCG underground tank installation regulations. These regulations require installers to use double-walled tanks and double-walled piping for petroleum storage facilities. Facilities with underground tanks must register with LFUCG through DEEM prior to operation and develop a Spill Prevention Control Plan. DEEM must also be notified of tank closures. DEEM acts as the State Fire Marshall’s representative in Fayette County relative to underground tanks and inspects and certifies each phase of the installation process. DEEM conducts routine operational inspections at these facilities to ensure compliance and is notified if a release of product has occurred or is suspected.

deem assures precautions are taken to properly store hazardous materials and minimize environmental issues.

Underground storage tanks are regulated by deem.

Public Schools

The Fayette County Public Schools proclaims “It’s About Kids” as a way of focusing the beliefs and practices of the school system. With this declaration, FCPS intends to develop into a world class school system by 2020. Since 2001 the district has spent in excess of $117 million on new construction and renovation projects, and over $23 million in site improvements and deferred maintenance. In May 2005, the district held the first of numerous public input sessions to design the school of the future and in November 2005, the board voted to adopt the 2020 Vision of the Fayette County Public Schools created by the community.

Many of the proposals made by the community will affect school facilities. The addition of spaces for a richer educational approach to the arts, world languages, and science and technology have created an opportunity for the district to review its current spaces and consider the renovation and retooling of all of its current facilities.

The Local Planning Committee, a standing committee created by the Board of Education, meets regularly to review and plan the facility needs of the district. Members of the committee, which include teachers, parents, school administrators, and community members assess both current and future needs and formulate a fouryear plan to meet the ever-changing needs of the district. A Division of Planning representative is a member of the Local Planning Committee. The next District Facilities Plan is scheduled for completion in late 2008.

Chief among the concerns of the Local Planning Committee is providing safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for students. They also study current building trends that will assist students in maximizing their intellectual potential and allow for the inclusion of facility needs proposed by the community.

The FCPS has responded to changes in demographics in a number of both traditional and innovative ways, especially in the construction of new schools. New facilities include the Edythe J. Hayes Middle School in 2005 and Athens-Chilesburg Elementary School in 2006. In January 2007, students at Bryan Station High School returned from winter break to a new $40 million facility.

Future plans call for the construction of three new elementary schools scheduled to open in 2008 in the northern portion of the county. Linlee Elementary School, built in 1927, will be replaced with a new facility in the Masterson Station area. Russell and Johnson Elementary Schools will be replaced by a Community School, a cooperative venture between LFUCG and FCPS, in the Bluegrass-Aspendale area. A community school has an integrated focus on academics, health, social services, youth and community development, and community engagement. The academic portion will be for elementary students while the community portion will be a center for neighborhood residents. A third new elementary school will be located on Liberty Road at Star Shoot Parkway in the Hamburg area. This school will replace Julia R. Ewan Elementary, which was built in 1937.

Fayette County Public Schools

intend to develop into a world class school system by 2020.

The 2020 Vision for FCPS was created by the community and adopted in 2005.

The next District Facilities Plan is scheduled for completion in late 2008.

Providing safe, comfortable, and aesthetically pleasing state-of-the-art facilities for students is a chief concern of the Fayette County Public School Planning Committee.

Future plans call for the construction of three new elementary schools to open in 2008.

Fayette County Public Schools experienced an unprecedented sixth straight year of growth with the 2006 enrollment.

Plans are underway for complete renovations at:

Arlington Elementary Cassidy Elementary

Leestown Middle School

Bryan Station Middle School

In addition to the three new elementary school facilities opening in 2008, plans are underway for complete renovations of Arlington and Cassidy Elementary and Leestown and Bryan Station Middle Schools.

In 2006 the Board adopted the Student Continuation Plan to further relieve elementary school crowding without redistricting. This Plan was developed to assure that every student who began in an elementary school would complete their elementary education without having to change schools due to redistricting.

With 2006 enrollment, FCPS experienced an unprecedented sixth straight year of public school enrollment growth. Even with redistricting, several high schools and elementary schools are full.

At the high school level, five high schools currently serve over 9,400 students at close to full capacity, an increase of 700 over the number of students enrolled in 2001. Replacement of the old Bryan Station High School has improved Fayette County Public School’s ability to properly serve high school students, but it did not significantly increase the overall capacity. The Local Planning Committee is closely monitoring the need for new facilities in this and other areas.

Existing High School Facilities Planning Conditions

Source: Fayette County Public Schools

Bryan Station HighSchool

At the middle school level, enrollment is steady at approximately 7,700 students, the same as in 2001. Renovations of several existing middle schools are needed, as stated in the district’s Facility Plan. Any major Urban Service Area boundary expansion in the next five to 10 years may trigger the potential relocation of a middle school or construction of a new middle school.

Existing Middle School Facilities Planning Conditions

Edythe

Leestown

Southern Tates Creek

Winburn

Source: Fayette County Public Schools

Edythe J. Hayes Middle School

At the elementary school level, there are 34 schools accommodating over 16,500 students. This is a decrease of one school and an increase of 500 students since 2001. New 10-year projections under development are expected to show a continued increase in elementary students. Over the last 20 years there have been major increases in kindergarten enrollment, pre-school enrollment, and immigrants to Fayette County. If these trends continue for more pre-school students and immigrants, Fayette County is likely to need additional elementary schools. This will be particularly true if there is a significant Urban Service Area expansion, but may even be true with major preschool changes and no boundary expansion. The Division of Planning works closely with FCPS to assess and consider its needs.

Existing Elementary School Facilities Planning Conditions

Academy Combined with B.T. Washington

Arlington Poor/Fair

Ashland Small

Athens No longer a school

Athens-Chilesburg New

Booker T. Washington

Breckinridge Fair

Cardinal Valley Fair

Cassidy Poor/Fair

Clays Mill Fair

Deep Springs

Dixie

Garden Springs Fair

Glendover

Harrison

James Lane Allen

Johnson Poor/Fair (To be replaced in 2008) Small

Julia R. Ewan Poor/Fair (To be replaced in 2008)

Julius Marks

Lansdowne Large

Linlee Poor/Fair (To be replaced in 2008)

Mary Todd Fair

Maxwell

Meadowthorpe Fair

Millcreek Fair

Northern Picadome Overcrowded

Rosa Parks Large

Russell No longer a school

Russell Cave Poor/Fair Small

Tates Creek

Veterans

Yates Fair

Source: Fayette County Schools

Note: This exhibit is based upon capacities and enrollment in 2006-2007 school year. The results shown should be used only as general indicators; they would differ somewhat in other years. The building conditions are preliminary indications of buildings requiring attention.

Wireless Communication

Wireless Telecommunications and other forms of information technology, including Wireless Internet (WiFi) and cellular towers play an important role in employment, economic development, and quality of life in Lexington.

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance influence the long-term impacts of local land use and policy decisions regarding provisions for new forms of IT infrastructure. In addition, the ability to provide universal access to technology by the average consumer should be examined in light of the capacity of existing and proposed facilities, technology, and other IT needs. The need for this technology should be balanced with the needs of individuals and businesses, as well as aesthetic issues.

LFUCG is looking to provide free WiFi service in the downtown area where infrastructure from a previous private provider already exists. Other free connections include Lexington Public Libraries, the University of Kentucky, Blue Grass Airport and various private businesses. LFUCG plans to pursue wireless connectivity for the entire county.

In 2002, KRS 100 was amended to give Planning Commissions and local governments the authority to regulate the location of cell towers. Before that, the Public Service Commission had final approval of cell tower applications, sometimes upholding and sometimes overturning the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

In order to minimize negative visual effects of cell towers, co-location of antenna should be encouraged for each site. Where possible, existing structures and facilities which meet the requirements of the proposed installation should be used (e.g., water towers, church steeples, radio and televisions towers, tall buildings, commercial signs, etc.) Cell towers should not be sited in a location that might have an adverse effect on public health, safety, and welfare, or might alter the essential character of an adjoining area. Map 19 depicts the location of all existing cell towers (excluding building antennas) in Fayette County. The Planning Commission, when asked to consider the potential location of a new cell tower site, should review this information.

To the largest extent possible, cellular service providers are encouraged to site their facilities on government-owned properties, if these properties are appropriate in light of surrounding land uses. Whenever possible, cell towers should be sited at locations that minimize their adverse effect on residential uses in the immediate area. Only when no other adequate site is available should a cell tower be permitted in a residential zone. Cell towers should not be sited on environmentally sensitive lands, historic areas, or along scenic byways, unless the applicant proves that no other reasonable site is available and the tower is designed to minimize impact. Review of the proposals submitted to the Planning Commission should include consideration of the impact of the proposed tower on the surrounding land uses. Adequate and appropriately designed fencing and landscaping should be provided. More intrusive types of towers may be confined to office, warehouse, industrial, and agricultural zones.

neighborhoods

traffic circulation

storm drainage

access aesthetics and similar issues.

The Planning Commission has the authority to address a variety of issues that affect the area surrounding cell towers, such as impact on:

The Kentucky River forms the southeastern boundary of Fayette County and is the primary source of water for the County.

Public water suppliers serve 97 percent of Fayette County residents.

The KentuckyAmerican Water Company is the primary water service provider for Fayette County.

80 percent of the recharge area for Royal Spring Aquifer lies in Fayette County.

Fayette County’s public water supply system started in 1885 with 222 customers and 15 miles of pipeline.

Water Supply - Service Providers

Fayette County has nine major watersheds that drain to the Kentucky River. The urban area of the County is located on a topographic high that results in all tributary streams draining away from the center of downtown Lexington. The Kentucky River forms the southeastern boundary of the County and is the primary source of water for the County. Public water suppliers serve 97 percent of Fayette County residents. Of the few residents not served by public water, 60 percent rely on private domestic wells and 40 percent rely on other sources.

The Kentucky-American Water Company (KAWC) is the primary water service provider for Fayette County. The company provides over 1,800 miles of pipeline to serve approximately 290,000 people in Fayette County, as well as parts of Scott, Bourbon, Jessamine, Woodford, Clark, Harrison, Owen, Grant, and Gallatin Counties. A small number of customers in west Fayette County are served by South Woodford Water District, which purchases treated water in bulk from the city of Versailles. Portions of southern Fayette County are served by the city of Nicholasville in Jessamine County. In addition, KAWC maintains and manages the water system at Avon (Bluegrass Station), which purchases water from KAWC.

The primary public water supply for the Georgetown Municipal Water and Sewer Service (GMWSS) is the Royal Spring Aquifer. Eighty percent of the recharge area for Royal Spring Aquifer lies in Fayette County, but Fayette County currently is not served by this water supply. A few houses in Fayette County are served by GMWSS in Fayette County due to the geographic location of loops of pipelines. The Royal Spring Aquifer does provide water through private wells and springs to a number of locations in the aquifer in Fayette County. Fayette County also participates in a joint aquifer planning effort with Scott County to ensure the water quality for Scott County residents who rely on the Royal Spring for their water. This joint effort has resulted in the development of the Royal Spring Wellhead Protection Plan adopted by the Planning Commissions in both communities in 2001.

Fayette County’s public water supply system started in 1885 with 222 customers and 15 miles of pipeline. The community water needs were met by Jacobson Reservoir and Lake Ellerslie, built on East and West Hickman Creeks. Today Jacobson Reservoir still provides approximately 20 percent of the County’s water supply needs during non-drought times. For short periods, it can be used for up to 60 percent of the average day demand. Lake Ellerslie can supplement the water supply for an additional three million gallons for a short period of time. KAWC has two water treatment facilities with a total treatment capacity of 70 million gallons per day. The Richmond Road Station has a treatment capacity of 25 mgd and the Kentucky River Station has a treatment capacity of 45 mgd. The average daily water production for KAWC in 2006 was 45.2 million gallons. KAWC’s peak day of production in 2006 was 67.2 million gallons. Its historical maximum day demand was 71.8 million gallons in 2002. The average day water demands are projected to be 40.6 mgd in 2010, 42.5 mgd in 2015 and 44.3 mgd in 2020.

Water Supply -- Issues

The drought of 1988 illuminated the need to have better water supply planning throughout the state. This minor drought created awareness that analysis of drought demand for water and existing water supplies in various communities would require comprehensive water supply planning. In 1988, many communities experienced water shortages either through inadequate pumping facilities, piping infrastructure, or dwindling water supply source needs. In 1988 the Kentucky Division of Water identified 13 cities with advisory conditions, six with voluntary conservation conditions, five with alert conditions, and two with emergency conditions. Fayette County required conservation efforts both in 1988 and 1999.

The droughts of 1930 and 1953 are used as benchmarks to measure drought conditions. In 1930, there was no measurable rain after April. The drought of 1988 more closely approximated the lesser 1953 drought, lasting for about three months. During the 1988 drought, Kentucky Division of Natural Resources and the Legislature realized that if a 1930-type drought were to occur again, the state could be facing severe water shortage. After the 1988 drought, the Legislature passed State Regulation 401 KAR 4:220 to provide for water supply planning in the Commonwealth. All counties, including Fayette, were required to develop a comprehensive 20-year water supply plan that would be updated every five years. The purpose of the Plan is to address all aspects of water supply. It is intended to be a realistic plan for future water demand, water use, and how to obtain water.

LFUCG created the Water Supply Planning Council in July 1997, which developed and adopted the Fayette County 20-Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. The Plan was accepted by the Kentucky Division of Water in July 1999.

Water supply is an issue throughout Central Kentucky. In a severe drought situation, all Central Kentucky counties, except for Franklin County, find water demand exceeds water supply. Since the 1999 drought, an informal regional association of water suppliers, Bluegrass Water Supply Commission, has been looking at regional water supply needs and ways to augment the Bluegrass Region’s water supply systems in a drought situation. Kentucky-American Water Company participates in this effort, along with Fayette County representatives.

Fayette County Water Supply Plan

The 1999 Fayette County 20-Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan found that the Kentucky River would, under normal conditions, supply all of the water needs of the Kentucky-American Water Company service area (including more than just Fayette County) from its intake in pool #9. If drought conditions similar to those of 1930 return, however, the Kentucky River may not be able to supply the full needs of the Kentucky-American Water Company service area during the summer and fall months. Water conservation measures discussed in the Water Supply Plan appendix can allow the supply to meet demand for a longer period of time. The Water Supply Plan indicates that even by making optimum use of the existing water release valves in the dams above pool #9 and drawing those pools down as far as reasonably possible, there

The average daily water production for kawc in 2006 was 45.2 million gallons.

The droughts of 1930 and 1953 are used as benchmarks to measure drought conditions.

lfucg created the Water Supply Planning Council in July 1997. The Fayette County 20-Year Comprehensive Water Supply Plan was accepted by the Kentucky Division of Water in July 1999.

are still limits on the available water from the Kentucky River during the summer and fall months of a severe drought period. To meet community water demand needs during a severe 1930-type drought, additional water supplies would be needed.

Electric

Fayette County is currently served by three electric companies. The majority of Fayette County is served by Kentucky Utilities Company, an electric utility serving more than 528,000 customers in 77 counties of Kentucky and five counties in southwestern Virginia. It is a subsidiary of E.ON - US of Louisville. In 2005, peak wintertime usage of 4,065 megawatts per hour was recorded on January 18 and peak summertime usage of 3,847 megawatts per hour was recorded on June 30. A smaller percentage of the County and the urban area are served by Bluegrass Energy Cooperative and the Clark Energy Cooperative. These non-profit consumer-owned electric distribution cooperatives are headquartered in Nicholasville and Winchester, respectively.

Natural Gas

Natural gas is delivered to customers in Fayette County by Columbia Gas of Kentucky, a subsidiary of Columbia Energy Group. Columbia Gas serves over 140,000 customers in Central Kentucky, 75,000 located in Fayette County. Customers may choose a different natural gas supplier, which is then delivered by Columbia Gas.

Healthcare

As a regional healthcare provider, Lexington is home to numerous full-service hospitals and clinic facilities offering a variety of services. Public input for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan indicated that healthcare and access to medical facilities were significant assets to Lexington. Besides providing care, the health industry is a major employer in Lexington, with the University of Kentucky Medical Center, Central Baptist and St. Joseph Hospitals, and Veterans Medical Center in the top 10 employers and St. Joseph East and Lexington Clinic in the top 20.

Central Baptist Hospital, Nicholasville Road

University of Kentucky

Most of the major healthcare facilities are inside New Circle Road. Recent changes to the Zoning Ordinance will enable the construction and operation of comprehensive medical facilities, including hospitals in the Expansion Area. The following chart summarizes the activities of Lexington’s hospitals.

Lexington Hospitals

and surgery, plus others

Level 1 Trauma, Level 3 Newborn Intensive Care Unit, cancer, cardiology, neurosciences, and Kentucky Children’s Hospital

60-county area of Central and Eastern Kentucky, 75 percent from the 17- county Bluegrass Area Development District

An addition for obstetrics and maternity, renovation of Emergency Department and cardiac labs

New addition to existing facility for lab, mechanical, offices, services, renovation to Emergency Department, Heart Institute, radiology, and endoscopy

Regional referral center

Building a new hospital facility, currently have multiple renovations for patient care and offices ongoing

Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Kentucky

No immediate plans to add more beds; ongoing updates of existing facilities

Post Office

For many people, the United States Postal Service continues to provide essential links to information and services. Access to Post Offices, therefore, can be an important amenity for a household. In addition, representatives of the USPS work with LFUCG’s Addressing Committee to ensure reasonableness and accuracy in assigning addresses, which is an essential component of emergency response. The following chart lists the local USPS offices.

The Mission of the Lexington Public Library is to connect with the diverse population of Fayette County.

The Library provides 120 public computers with Internet access.

The Lexington Public Library – the community’s connection to information, ideas, and imagination – transforms and enriches people’s lives. As such, the Library is an essential part of the community, enhancing the quality of life by responding to the information needs of Lexington residents. The Lexington Public Library’s six locations provide places where people can enjoy reading, view works of art, attend cultural events, and explore the Internet. These facilities also serve as locations to hold meetings and classes and to perform personal and professional research.

The Mission of the Lexington Public Library is to connect with the diverse population of Fayette County by providing excellent staff, resources, and services to ensure the Library is the center for information literacy, learning support, current topics, titles and issues, cultural awareness, and is the community’s commons.

The Lexington Public Library’s priorities include providing equal access to information in all available formats. In order to accomplish this, the Library provides 120 public computers with Internet access. These computers are used by over 250,000 patrons each year. The Library’s Computer Center offers beginner basic, intermediate, and advanced computer training at all Library locations at no cost.

Six library locations provide services to residents regardless of where they live.

Central Library

140 East Main Street

Beaumont Branch 3080 Fieldstone Way

Eagle Creek Branch

101 North Eagle Creek Drive

Northside Branch 1737 Russell Cave Road

Tates Creek Branch 3628 Walden Drive

Village Branch 2185 Versailles Road

There is more than one library card per household in Fayette County.

A replacement of the Northside branch, the oldest in the community, is planned to open in 2008.

The Village Branch opened in 2004 to meet the special information needs of the growing Hispanic population in the Cardinal Valley neighborhood.

The Lexington Public Library has more than 700,000 items in its collection, including books and audio-visuals such as audio books, videos, DVDs, cassettes, and CDs. Since 2002, annual circulation has exceeded two million items. In addition to circulating materials, each Library location has a non-circulating reference collection that may be used in-house. The Central Library on Main Street includes a Reference Department with four special service areas: 1) The Kentucky Room, 2) the Reference Collection, 3) Telephone Reference, and 4) Periodicals. The department also provides the Online Reference Room, which provides access to 23 full-text computer databases, the Kentucky Virtual Library and Interlibrary Loan, which provides patrons with access to books and periodicals not available in the Lexington Public Library’s collection.

The Library’s current emphasis in terms of meeting the community’s library facility needs is the replacement of the Northside Branch. This branch is the Library’s oldest and second-smallest facility. With new housing already planned for the area served by the branch, the Library has begun planning for a new building on the branch’s existing property. This will be a larger facility that will provide much-needed meeting space for North Lexington plus additional public computers and literacy classrooms needed to meet the current demand. It also will provide space for the Library’s cable channel staff and a new home for Central Kentucky Radio Eye, the volunteer reading service for the blind. The new Northside Library will open in 2008.

Population growth in Fayette County is expected to increase the need for branch library services. These needs are met by both additional branches strategically located in significant growth areas (e.g., the Village Branch, which opened in 2004 to meet the special information needs of the growing Hispanic population in the Cardinal Valley neighborhood) and by providing larger branch facilities to meet the growing demand at or near current branches (e.g., Northside).

Based on Lexington’s projected population growth, the Division of Planning and library staffs have jointly evaluated the direction and elements of population growth and developed a recommendation for a new branch library in the Hamburg area. The Library Board and staff work closely with the Division of Planning to monitor changing needs in terms of library locations. In doing so, the Lexington Public Library will continue to respond to the community with easy access to information and public spaces.

Conclusion

A local community’s quality of life is greatly influenced by the availability and convenience of its community facilities. The accessibility and quality of the services discussed in this section can provide a basis for orderly, high quality development. The essential services, such as recreation opportunities and a strong education system, indicate a community’s commitment to excellence. The Planning Commission should continue to provide a vision for how the community wants the area to accommodate anticipated growth, as well as how to meet demands for facilities and services made necessary by growth. Decisions related to how to expend capital funds on such things as the potential provision of water and sewer service into the rural areas need to be tied with future land use plans. Careful coordination between the Departments and Divisions within the Government that provide these services, as well as with outside agencies can allow LFUCG to continue to accommodate high quality growth, preserve its rural areas and cultural heritage, and continue to be a desirable place to live and work.

Veterans Park Fire Station, Clearwater Way

Housing and Neighborhoods

Housing and Neighborhoods

River Park, Crosby Drive

Willow Oak Neighborhood Greenspace near Millpond Road

Townley Center, Leestown Road

Star Shoot Parkway/Liberty Road Connection

Housing and Neighborhoods

Affordable Housing Introduction

Affordable housing is an essential component of a diverse and prosperous community. Local affordable housing initiatives are generally designed to help households earning less than 80 percent of median income meet their housing needs.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a commonly accepted guideline for housing affordability is a housing cost that does not exceed 30 percent of the household’s income. Families who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered “cost burdened” and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care. The lack of affordable housing is a significant hardship for low-income households, preventing them from meeting their other basic needs. U.S. Census data, as compiled in the LFUCG 2005 Consolidated Plan, states that in Lexington, 27 percent of both renterand owner-occupied households pay at least 30 percent of their income toward housing. Although over a quarter of Lexington’s population is considered cost burdened in their housing, Lexington’s housing costs remain below national averages, according to Commerce Lexington’s Economic Digest. The housing costs are, however, among the highest in Kentucky, and while housing affordability may not yet be a crisis condition, affordable housing issues and policies should be considered now in order to avert a dangerous situation. National housing experts at the Urban Land Institute contend that a community cannot prosper if its only residents are high-income.

History of Affordability: Nationally and Locally

Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, residential developers experienced a boom in Lexington and many communities around the country. In most markets, this industry produced a wide variety of competitively priced housing products. Mortgage interest rates were at all-time lows. Yet even under these ideal conditions, many low- and moderate-income families found their housing options to be minimal. According to the Enterprise Foundation, the underlying causes are directly related to inflation and stagnant incomes. Over the past 30 years, housing prices have advanced with inflation, while the inflation-adjusted incomes of almost half the population have stagnated or declined. In 1999, the median price for a house in Lexington was $117,500 and the median household income was $39,813. In 2005, the median price for a house was $146,000, an increase of 24 percent over six years. The 2005 median household income was $42,442, an increase of seven percent. Although housing prices increased more than three times that of household income, householders were not necessarily excluded from the home buying market because of favorable interest rates and creative financing options during that time.

A Community cannot prosper if its only residents are high-income.

27 percent of Lexington’s households pay at least 30 percent of their income toward housing. In 2005

The median price for a house was $146,000, a 24 percent increase from 1999. The median household income was $42,442, a 7 percent increase. The average rent for a 2-bedroom apartment was $715.

Homeownership: Lexington - 60% Kentucky - 71% U.S. - 67%

41 percent of Lexington’s families earn less than 80 percent of the median income; 17 percent of these earn between 50 and 80 percent of the median income.

53 percent of the elderly population earns less than 80 percent of the median income.

Source: LFUCG Building Permits

Between 2001 and 2006, there were significant changes in the number of residential building permits issued. From 2001 to 2003, single-family building permits increased 32 percent to 1,985. By 2006, however, the number of single-family building permits had dropped 35 percent, from 1,985 to 1,281. Townhouse permits peaked in 2005 with 542 permits issued, and then declined 56 percent in 2006. Over 600 apartment units were created in 2004, nine times the number created the year before. Recent activity, therefore, indicates that residential building peaked between 2003 and 2005 and declined in all categories in 2006.

The number of homes most likely to be affordable to moderate-income households, the homes less than 1,500 square feet in size, also declined. In 2004, nine percent of the permits were for single-family and townhouse units less than 1,500 square feet. By 2006, only six percent of single-family (69 units) and townhouse (29 units) permits were for dwellings less than 1,500 square feet.

Owners and Renters

The U.S. Census reports that homeownership rates in Lexington (60 percent) fall behind the national rate (67 percent) and well below the Kentucky rate (71 percent). Affordable rental housing, therefore, is an important consideration in the affordable housing picture. Of the rental households earning less than 80 percent of the median income, 58 percent are considered cost burdened. In 2005, the average rent for a twobedroom apartment was $715, excluding gas and electric utilities.

Local Economic Situation

Over 40 percent of Lexington’s non-agricultural employment is in the service industry where wages and benefits are typically lower than other business sectors. While the median income for a Lexington household in 2005 was $42,442, 41 percent of the families earned less than 80 percent of the median, with 17 percent earning between 50 and 80 percent of median income. The wages of some of Lexington’s essential workers fall well below the median income.

In 2006, the starting salary for a new teacher was $31,683, a new police officer was $34,899, and a new fire fighter was $36,062. These salaries are between 75 and 85 percent of the median income. Low-skilled workers in offices, restaurants, hotels, retail, and other service industries paid less than $10.20 per hour all earn less than 50 percent of the median income. Elderly households are a particular concern for affordable housing, with 53 percent of Lexington’s elderly earning less than 80 percent of the median income.

Challenges

For 50 years, the Urban Service Area boundary has directed efficient and compact residential development and prevented the kind of sprawl that other communities have experienced. In 2005, there remained 5,700 acres of vacant residential land inside the USA boundary that were predicted to provide nine years of housing at current development rates. Creative and efficient designs for new development will be necessary to accommodate the estimated 76,000 new residents over the next 23 years, and provide housing for all income levels. Likewise, localized environmental constraints, including floodplains and sinkholes, restrict intense development in certain areas.

With Lexington’s appeal as a place to live, attend school, and retire, many families and households with varying financial means are choosing to settle or remain in the community thereby adding to the demand for housing. Other issues affect housing affordability and choice, such as local, state, and federal tax structures, zoning and development regulations, infrastructure, and utility costs.

Affordable Housing Results and Options

With numerous affordable housing providers and programs already at work in the community, such as Lexington Habitat for Humanity and REACH, there is a strong foundation of experience that is supporting successful affordable housing initiatives.

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government has worked in partnership with a number of local housing providers to increase the supply of affordable housing. When the Planning Commission expanded the Urban Service Area in 1996, the government created an incentive for affordable housing in the Expansion Area by offering density bonuses for the construction of affordable housing. Residential developers, however, have not taken advantage of this incentive to build any new affordable housing in the Expansion Area. In addition, neighborhoods and historic preservation advocates have successfully blocked some infill housing proposals. Likewise, most of the Infill and Redevelopment incentives presented by LFUCG are federal and state programs, such as Federal LowIncome Housing Tax Credits and Kentucky’s Affordable Housing Risk Sharing Finance, and not local initiatives.

In order to succeed with a comprehensive affordable housing strategy, the housing situation in Lexington must first be thoroughly analyzed and understood. The LFUCG Consolidated Plan is a valuable resource that identifies housing and community

Beginning Salaries in 2006: Teacher $31,683 Police Officer $34,899 Firefighter $36,062

The LexingtonFayette Urban County Government has worked in partnership with a number of local housing providers to increase the supply of affordable housing. The issues related to affordable housing should be fully developed and understood by the community.

development problems. The Consolidated Plan is a report prepared by the Division of Community Development that represents the government’s goals and objectives for addressing housing and community development needs, which is a requirement of recipients of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant programs. The Consolidated Plan analyzes Census data and local market conditions to create a strategic plan for addressing housing and community development problems. However, the issues identified in the Consolidated Plan and the need to address them may not be fully understood by the community. During the preparation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, issues such as available land supply, rural preservation, and storm water were extensively discussed by the community while issues related to affordable housing were noted as sidebars. News reports, editorial opinions, private opinion surveys, mailings, and advertising campaigns raised the awareness of rural preservation and storm water, and public opinion was brought to bear at public hearings and input sessions for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. In order for the community to embrace the need to address affordable housing, it may be necessary to champion the issues in the same way that lead to the strategic decision to maintain the existing boundary of the Urban Service Area.

LFUCG’s role is critical to the success of addressing the need for affordable housing. Its actions can take the form of providing financial incentives, consensus building, coordination, data, studies, or best practice solutions. However, the government will need the support of the community and the support of the local affordable housing service providers. The experiences of these providers and the obstacles they have faced should be studied. Public participation and community education should be pursued to enable community support and understanding of the affordable housing issues. The Consolidated Plan provides statistical data about housing affordability and plans to address the problems. There may be larger issues, however, that are beyond the scope of the Consolidated Plan and the grant funds that it represents. Identifying the issues and building community consensus would create focus and support for addressing the problems.

Through this process, numerous approaches to providing affordable housing could be identified. This process should also reveal particular affordable housing issues, such as young people who want to buy starter homes, single parents who want to be close to good schools, elderly and special needs households who need to be near health care and social services, and 30- to 60-something residents who seek easy access to work and commercial centers.

Across the nation, numerous approaches have been designed to address the problem of an inadequate supply of affordable housing. Sophisticated financing mechanisms, inclusionary zoning, and land banking, as well as tax and fiscal policies and revised zoning and subdivision codes have been employed in other communities with varying degrees of success in creating affordable housing.

There are myriad approaches to increasing the supply of affordable housing that other communities have supported, enabled, or implemented over the past 30 years.

These include:

Affordable Housing Trust Fund is a fund that could be made up of contributions by developers, foundations or individuals, and profits from the sale of public land. The fund would be administered by a nonprofit organization and leveraged by federal and other private funds. The proceeds would be distributed among local affordable housing providers.

Co-Housing is a community with common facilities, such as kitchens, dining rooms, and living rooms, that are planned, owned, and managed by residents.

Density Bonuses are especially important incentives for mandatory programs, such as Inclusionary Zoning.

home provides federal funds for a variety of affordable housing initiatives. hope vi provides federal funds for public housing initiatives.

Inclusionary Zoning requires housing developers to set aside a percentage of new units for lowand moderate-income households.

Land Banking involves the acquisition of land for a public purpose. Oftentimes, the purpose is for open space in advance of urbanization, but it can also be applied to redevelopment sites where deed restrictions or land trusts could be employed for long-term affordable housing development.

Land Trusts exclude the cost of land from the price of housing. The land is not sold but managed by an organization that includes the home owners.

Low-Income Housing Tax Credits provide tax credits to developers of affordable housing. Revise Zoning and Subdivision Regulations that address density, use, accessory dwelling structures.

Streamline Development Review for developments with an affordable housing component. Tax Abatements discourage displacement of existing residents in the face of gentrification and higher property taxes.

Some of these approaches are already being successfully implemented in Lexington. In the Bluegrass-Aspendale public housing area northeast of downtown, new housing and infrastructure, anchored by a new community school will be developed with HOPE VI and other funds. Southend Park Urban Village, along the Newtown Pike Extension project, will combine a Land Trust with HOME funds and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to create affordable renter- and owner-occupied housing. This project has been carefully designed to ensure that existing residents are not displaced and receive new and better housing. For a list of the affordable housing initiatives underway in Lexington, please see the Affordable Housing Programs table.

Regulatory approaches, such as inclusionary zoning and revised zoning and subdivision codes can be more complicated to implement. Successful inclusionary zoning ordinances in other communities have been created after thorough and credible evaluation of affordable housing needs. These studies are effective in identifying the need for government intervention and the best solutions to providing affordable housing. This approach has not been presented in Lexington and there is no indication what kind of support it would receive. In other communities, threats to inclusionary

zoning ordinances involved issues of property rights. These threats were addressed by thorough analysis of the housing situation and sufficient compensation in the form of density bonuses for losses to the developer.

Regulations that enable or require the affordable units to be built on site with the market rate units have the potential to accomplish a variety of public purposes by creating affordable housing, raising awareness of affordability issues, and enabling a mix of households in a development.

Revising local zoning and subdivision regulations may be challenging issues, particularly as the new regulations impact existing neighborhoods. Stakeholder participation in the process can be cumbersome and is no guarantee of success. Oftentimes, there is not a unified voice speaking for the neighborhoods or developers. Political leadership can also change. Public participation, however, is an essential component of raising awareness and building consensus about the affordable housing issues.

Conclusion

The need for affordable housing is a controversial reality of a prosperous community. Lack of affordable housing can make low-cost labor scarcer and increase demands on transportation systems as workers travel longer distances between jobs and affordable housing. Studies also link the parallel trends of housing cost increases and declines in enrollment at local schools. Gains in affordability often result from expanding land available for housing or increasing density and redevelopment in established areas. Ensuring a steady supply of affordable housing means that communities must weigh real and perceived livability impacts against the raw necessity of affordability. This can be a contentious process laden with racial, ethnic, and class implications. Successful affordable housing initiatives, therefore, rely on credible action, sound research, public-private partnerships, and strong community support.

New Residential, Nelson Avenue

Affordable Housing Programs

Program Purpose Principal Criteria Contact Information State and Federal Programs

Programs providing equity capital or debt purchase to enable the financing of affordable singlefamily, multi-family, and mixeduse housing projects. Also, transitoriented and energy-efficient construction projects.

Federal Investment Tax Credit of 10% or 20% of rehabilitation costs:

• 20% credit is applicable to historic structures listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

• 10% credit is applicable to noncertified structures built before 1936. www.heritage.ky.gov

Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits enable property owners to claim a tax credit equal to 30% or 70% of a project’s present value, depending on the type of project. The tax credit is claimed over a period of 10 years.

fannie mae Financing

Increase of affordable housing stock and neighborhood revitalization Private, shareholder-owned company created by Congress.

Preference for experienced developers.

Historic Preservation Tax Investment Credits

Rehabilitation of income producing historic structures and revitalization of historic neighborhoods

Only income producing properties in need of substantial rehabilitation are eligible.

Building must be depreciable.

Owner must own building for at least 5 years or pay back all or a prorated portion of the tax credit claim.

Low Income Rental Housing Federal Tax Credits

To increase the supply and availability of low-income rental housing by offering incentives to developers

All units receiving the tax credit must rent to people earning 50%-60% or less of the area median income. Projects utilizing the tax credit must rent at least 1/5 of the units to families earning 50% or less of area median income or rent at least 2/5 of the units to families earning 60% of area median income.

Affordable Rental Housing Risk-Sharing Finance (State)

Brenda Weaver 300 W. Vine Street Suite 810

Lexington, KY 40507

Phone: (859) 226-5140

Kentucky Heritage Council 300 Washington Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7005 ext.141

Housing Credit Program

Kentucky Housing Corporation 1231 Louisville Road Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7630 ext. 264

Financing and risk-free mortgage insurance to developers for new construction projects, acquisition projects, and acquisition with substantial rehabilitation for family, elderly, and/or assistedliving apartment projects.

Creation of affordable multi-family rental housing A property needs analysis may be required.

Small Multi-family Low-Interest Construction Loans (State)

Low-interest loans at rates no lower than 3.5% for construction and/or permanent financing of affordable housing development.

To increase the supply of rental housing for lowincome individuals

Projects are not to exceed 11 dwelling units.

Interest rates are set at the highest possible rate that the program can afford.

Affordable Housing Development Subsidized Loans (State)

Low interest loans for new construction, rehabilitation, site or land development, acquisition or construction of affordable houses.

REACH (Resources, Education, and Assistance for Community Housing) www.reachky.com

To facilitate the construction of affordable housing

Coordination of Multiple Bank Development Projects

Housing costs are subject to KHC’s “purchase price limits” in order to be eligible.

Home buyers subject to KHC income guidelines.

REACH offers a forum and technical assistance to help coordinate the development of affordable housing and/or projects.

Risk-Sharing Program

Kentucky Housing Corporation 1231 Louisville Road

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7630 ext. 266

Small Multifamily Affordable Loan Program (SMAL)

Kentucky Housing Corporation 1231 Louisville Road

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7630 ext. 318

(800) 633-8896 (KY only)

Housing Development Fund

Kentucky Housing Corporation 1231 Louisville Road

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-7630 ext. 356

REACH, Inc.

733 Red Mile Road

Lexington, KY 40504

(859) 455-8057

Affordable Housing Programs

Program Purpose

Grants to provide funding that assists affordable housing developers with construction, rehabilitation, land acquisition, and/or site improvement costs.

Contact Information Development of Affordable Housing (Local)

To increase affordable housing opportunities to low to moderate-income families.

Principal Criteria

Projects subject to local matching fund requirement.

Tenants subject to rent and income limits.

Local Home Owner Assistance

Community Reinvestment Alliance of Lexington First Time Homebuyers Program

Provides subsidies for eligible first-time home buyers purchasing new or existing singlefamily units; Down payment or closing cost assistance.

Division of Housing and Community Development

200 E. Main St., Sixth Floor Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-258-3070

Community Reinvestment Alliance of Lexington 498 Georgetown Street Lexington, KY 40508 (859) 231-7055

Community Ventures Corporation

www.cvcky.org

Homeownership Counseling Service for the Spanish Speaking

Down Payment and Closing Cost Program Lease Purchase Program

Voucher to Homeownership (Section 8 to Homeownership)

Counseling service for Hispanic population. Includes homebuyer education training, post purchase counseling, and access to affordable lending products

Financial assistance to low-income families for down payment and closing cost assistance.

CVC acquires and rehabilitates or newly constructs houses and then leases them to income-eligible clients (typically two years), who are then trained in the skills to become owners of the home.

Designed to move very-low income families into homeownership. Clients receive intensive training.

Community Ventures Corporation

1450 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40505 (859) 231-0054

Community-Wide Housing Rehabilitation Program

Division of Community Development

www.lfucg.com/community_dev/ index.asp

Faith Community Housing Foundation

www.FaithCommunityHousing. com

Habitat For Humanity

www.lexhabitat.org

Lexington Housing Authority

www.lexha.org/frameset2.htm

LFUCG Division of Adult Services

www.lfucg.com/social_services/ adult/index.asp

REACH

(Resources, Education, and Assistance for Community Housing)

www.reachky.com

Homeowner assistance

Provides up to $18,000 for home owners to correct code violations, make handicap modifications, and make energy efficient upgrades.

Low-income – no payments

Moderate-income – low interest

Assistance with low-interest loans and gap financing.

Homeownership Assistance

Must earn 50% - 80% of Annual Median Income.

Income Min/Max

LFUCG Division of Community Development 200 East Main St Lexington, KY 40507 (859) 258-3070

Faith Community Housing Foundation 1450 North Broadway, Lexington, KY 40505 (859) 685-2163

Lexington Habitat for Humanity

Homeownership Program

Demonstrate: Substantial need for housing Ability to pay Willingness to partner

1260 Industry Road Lexington, KY 40505 Phone: (859) 252-2224

Homeownership Program

Assistance to homebuyers in the form of closing costs, points, associated fees, etc. The sale price of the home may be adjusted to facilitate the purchase. Income restrictions apply.

Homelessness Prevention Prevention program for households who are at risk for losing their housing due to evictions or utility shut-offs.

Homeownership Down Payment Assistance

Eligible clients may receive a second mortgage loan for up to $15,000 to be used for down payment and closing costs to purchase homes in Fayette County, with required. credit, budgeting and homeownership counseling.

Lexington Housing Authority 300 West New Circle Rd. Lexington, KY 40505 (859) 281-5060

LFUCG Division of Adult Services

130 North Broadway Lexington, KY (859) 255-0926

REACH, Inc

733 Red Mile Road Lexington, KY 40504 (859) 455-8057

Affordable Housing Programs Program Purpose

Principal Criteria Contact Information

Local Home Owner Assistance

Realtor-Community Housing Foundation

Repair Affair

www.lbar.com/Public/RCHF/ what_we_offer.htm

Homeownership Counseling

Home Repair

Provides accessible and affordable homeownership counseling, pre-purchase counseling, default counseling.

Homeowners over 60 – income guidelines

Material and labor for exterior home repairs, including roof repairs, siding, painting, and window glazing at no cost.

Participating employers providing down payment and closing cost assistance are:

Realtor-Community Housing Foundation

2250 Regency Road Lexington, KY 40503 (859) 276-2693

Live Where You Work

Counseling provided by REACH is required for all of employer assisted programs.

Homeownership Down Payment and Closing Cost Assistance

• University of Kentucky - Forgivable loans for 5% of the purchase price with a maximum of $15,000

• Samaritan Hospital - Forgivable loans for 5% of the purchase price with a maximum of $10,000

• Lexington Fayette Urban County Government - Forgivable loan for 5% of the purchase price up to $7,400.

Local Rental Assistance

Contact Specific Employer

Faith Community Housing Foundation

www.faithcommunityhousing.com

Rental Assistance

Provide affordable rental housing to lowincome (50% and below Annual Median Income level)

Faith Community Housing Foundation

1450 North Broadway Lexington, KY 40505 (859) 685-2163

and built environment. Cultural Heritage is both the rural landscapes and the built environment of the urban area. Well planned communities incorporate both new and historic buildings and neighborhoods.

Historic Preservation Introduction

During the 2007 Comprehensive Plan public input process, citizens in Fayette County stated that the unique natural and cultural landscape, historic architecture, and scenic corridors and areas are characteristics that enhance the community’s quality of life. Public input also favored preservation and protection of both the natural and built environments that make Lexington and Fayette County unique.

While not always considered in the light of historic preservation, the character of the urban core and residential neighborhoods also enhances the quality of life and helps define the community. These defining characteristics may be obvious, such as the historic Fayette County Courthouse, or more subtle as in the physical and architectural character of neighborhoods.

In order to address the concerns of the citizens of Fayette County, preservation and protection of the community are notable features of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan While Goal 5 is specific to the preservation and protection of the historic and cultural heritage of Fayette County, Goal 15 speaks to the preservation and enhancement of existing neighborhoods in the Urban Service Area. The theme of preservation, both in literal and figurative terms, is repeated in many of the 2007 Plan’s Goals.

Lexington and rural Fayette County have a rich and diverse cultural history that began before statehood. This heritage is evidenced in the natural environment of the County’s rural landscape and the built environment of its urban areas. This is most recognizable as historic houses and commercial buildings, historic urban neighborhoods, historic rural settlements, horse farms, and crop farms. The cultural landscape includes agricultural and horse farms, landscape features, barns, outbuildings, fences, and archaeological sites.

Historic and architecturally significant buildings are also an important part of the urban character, as they create a unique place to live and work. A well-planned community incorporates both the new and the historic, a balance that attracts businesses, residents, and tourists who seek a unique physical and cultural environment.

Historic properties and sites are resources that provide citizens not only with places to experience and enjoy, but also provide economic development and

Citizens favor preservation and protection of natural

Historic Home under renovation, West Third Street

The preservation of historic buildings, neighborhoods, and other cultural resources provide benefits to the citizens of Lexington-Fayette County that in many ways cannot be measured.

These benefits include:

Sense of Place provides a visible symbol of our heritage, a connection to the past, and a source of pride. Historic buildings, neighborhoods, significant rural landscapes and other places have unique character, define our community, and have unique qualities that are in many cases indefinable. These buildings, neighborhoods, rural landscapes and other places are resources that are important to protect and preserve.

Cultural Tourism, which includes historic, cultural, and preserved sites, is one of the major reasons that people travel to selected destinations. The rich historic and cultural heritage of Lexington includes a variety of sites making it a prime destination for cultural tourism.

Economic Benefits from historic preservation accrue in a variety of ways. Federal and State Historic Tax Credits may be available as an incentive for historic restoration and to offset some of the costs. Preserved buildings can be put to use as economic generators, for both public and private use.

Community Pride and Accomplishment are by-products of preservation efforts as citizens of the community become involved in projects that protect or enhance important symbols of their heritage.

Governmental Preservation Efforts Division of Historic Preservation

The Division of Historic Preservation was created in 1987 to bring a stronger local commitment to preservation of significant structures, neighborhoods, rural resources, cultural landscape features, and historically significant areas. The Division oversees a variety of programs, including public education of preservation issues in relationship to planning and zoning and the enforcement of Fayette County’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. This Ordinance states that “the preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of historic [resources which have] special, unique, or distinctive character . . . are public necessities.” In addition, “The protection of these is required in the interest of the economic well being, prosperity . . . and general welfare of the people.”

The professional staff of the Division of Historic Preservation provides technical assistance on the development process as needed when historic resources are found in areas being considered for new development. The Division makes information on historic resources and their significance available to the staff as well as the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Board of Architectural Review, and the Urban County Council to facilitate knowledge of the issues. The Division works closely with a number of other LFUCG Divisions, such as Planning, Building Inspection, Code Enforcement, and the Department of Law.

The Division of Historic Preservation was created in 1987.

Staff provides technical assistance education reviews permits in h-1 overlay districts documents historic buildings assists neighborhoods.

Historic Preservation holds educational events and reviews nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.

Area Design Overlay

design

Additionally, the staff assists neighborhoods and others who seek the H-1 zoning overlay, reviews plans for Certificates of Appropriateness, and reviews permit applications for renovation, new construction, and demolition within existing H-1 neighborhoods and commercial areas. The Urban County Government requires that all demolition permits be reviewed by the Division of Historic Preservation prior to issuance. If it is determined that the property is over 50 years old and has architectural or historical significance, the property is documented by the Division of Historic Preservation before the demolition permit is issued.

Certified Local Government

The Urban County Government is a Certified Local Government and has demonstrated that its historic preservation programs fulfill the intent of the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, making Lexington-Fayette County eligible for state administered federal grants, which play a critical role in the enhancement and continuation of preservation in the area. This is carried out through Lexington’s legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties, its qualified historic preservation review commission, its inventory of historic properties, the opportunity for the public to participate in such processes, and other responsibilities as noted in a Memorandum of Agreement and grant agreements.

Courthouse Area Design Overlay

of

buildings with the character of the historic area.

In 1999, the Courthouse Area Design Overlay zone was created by a text amendment to Lexington’s Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the overlay is to encourage appropriate growth and redevelopment in the downtown area. The Downtown Commercial National Register Historic District was the basis for the overlay zone area. Properties within this area contain buildings from different periods and of varying architectural design. The purpose of the overlay zone is to ensure the compatibility of basic design with regard to building height, setback, and materials, whether restoring, renovating, or rehabilitating historic structures or constructing new structures as infill projects in the area. The Courthouse Area Design Review Commission reviews applications for projects in the Courthouse Overlay zone.

Purchase of Development Rights

historic and cultural features are considered when farms participate in pdr program.

Rural preservation has traditionally been a strong element of Fayette County and a part of its identity. The Purchase of Development Rights program uses conservation easements to ensure that rural land will not be developed at urban intensities. The Division of Historic Preservation works with the PDR program by identifying significant historic and cultural features in rural Fayette County that may be considered for participation in the program.

Voluntary Conservation Programs

Several other entities also accept voluntary conservation easements on properties. The Bluegrass Conservancy is a nonprofit regional land trust committed to the conservation and preservation of the unique rural and cultural resources of the Bluegrass Region

As a Certified Local Government, lfucg is eligible for federal historic preservation grants. Courthouse

ensures

compatibility

new

Significant

and currently holds conservation easements on four properties in Fayette County. The Kentucky Heritage Council also accepts conservation and preservation easements that are used to protect historic structures, facades, or land areas. Easements to protect landscapes, open space, or ecosystems might be referred to as conservation easements. The easement is recorded as a deed restriction. Although the landowner retains permanent ownership of the land and may sell, lease, bequeath, or otherwise transfer the land, the property will continue to be subject to the restrictions contained in the easement and the enforcement powers of the easement holder.

Paris Pike/Lexington Road Corridor Overlay

The Paris Pike/Lexington Road Corridor Overlay provides the framework to implement the Paris Pike Corridor Small Area Plan and uses an inter-local agreement between Bourbon County, the city of Paris, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to achieve the goals and objectives of the Plan. The corridor overlay includes properties adjoining Paris Pike between Johnston Road and the Paris city limits, and is defined as 1,000 feet on either side of the road. The purpose of the overlay is to preserve the character and integrity of the historic and scenic corridor. The Paris Pike Corridor Small Area Plan is further discussed in the Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Stone Wall Preservation

In 1990, a report called Stone Fences of Fayette County identified 247 stone fences of various types and lengths. The study further identified and mapped almost 100 historic stone fences, which were defined as those that were at least 500 feet or a combination of fences on either side of a road that totaled at least 500 feet. In 1994, the Urban County Council passed the Stone Wall Preservation Ordinance (Sec 1483). This ordinance stipulates that the Division of Historic Preservation must issue a permit to remove any stone wall that is located in the public right-of-way. The Division reviews all plans for proposed work or changes to these walls whether it is new development, road realignment, or simple repairs to existing walls.

Local Historic Overlay Zoning (h-1)

Historic zoning began in Lexington in 1958 with the Old and Historic Lexington zone for the Gratz Park area. In 1959, the Zoning Ordinance was revised to permit a historic district overlay in any zoning category, provided it met certain criteria. The ordinance outlines specified criteria for the creation of Historic Districts. To date, 14 Local Historic Districts have been designated containing more than 200 acres and 2,500 properties. The St. Paul AME Church and Helm Place are designated as Local Historic Landmarks. Historic Overlay zoning is intended to protect and preserve neighborhoods and buildings that are of historic and architectural importance, reflecting their significance to the community. Owners of property in the historic districts must seek approval through the Division of Historic Preservation before making exterior changes. This review helps ensure that exterior changes are compatible with the historic district or the historic property.

In 1990, there were 247 stone fences in Fayette County.

Stone Wall Preservation Ordinance protects historic stone walls in the public right-of-way.

Local Historic Districts

Arcadia Park (Seven Parks)

Aylesford

Bell Court

Cadentown

Constitution

Elsmere Park

Fayette Park

Helm Place

Gratz Park

Mulberry Hill

Northside

South Ashland/Central Avenue

South Hill

Western Suburb

Woodword Heights

Local Historic Landmarks

Saint Paul AME Church

Historic Preservation Commission

The Historic Preservation Commission consists of 15 members and is the advisory body to the Division of Historic Preservation and the Board of Architectural Review. The Commission’s responsibilities include reviewing all nominations of properties to the National Register of Historic Places, promoting preservation issues of importance in Lexington-Fayette County, promoting local historic districts and landmarks, and working with preservation issues throughout the community. The Commission also helps in the coordination of educational events that have to do with historic preservation, including the celebration of Historic Preservation Week held in May of each year.

Board of Architectural Review

The five-member Board of Architectural Review, the representation of which is defined by ordinance, is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Urban County Council. The Board is charged with reviewing applications for Certificates of Appropriateness (permits) for exterior changes to properties within Fayette County’s H-1 overlay districts or landmarks. The Board has delegated to the Division of Historic Preservation staff the capacity to review and issue permits for a variety of work. All permit applications are reviewed using the Design Review Guidelines, which are based on the Secretary Standards of the U.S. Department of Interior.

Neighborhood Design Overlay (ND-1)

The preservation and protection of the physical and architectural character of neighborhoods may be met by the Historic Preservation (H-1) Overlay Zone, which is typically used to protect a building or neighborhood that is at least 50 years old. There are neighborhoods within the community that do not meet the criteria for the H-1 overlay but nevertheless have distinctive characteristics. In this case, a neighborhood may request a Neighborhood Design Overlay Zone (ND-1). The purpose of the ND-1 is to give neighborhoods the ability to adopt design standards to conserve and protect the character of a neighborhood. While ND-1 will not necessarily protect the historic character of a neighborhood, it can be a tool to stabilize an area until H-1 provisions would be appropriate.

lfucg-Owned Historic Properties

The LFUCG owns over 30 historic structures in addition to historic sites, parks, and monuments with historic significance. The Division of Historic Preservation reviews proposals for renovation and alteration to these historic properties prior to work being carried out to assure that it will be appropriate and will not negatively impact the historic resource.

Historic Buildings and Sites Owned by lfucg

Other Local Cultural and Historic Resources

Scenic Byways

The Kentucky Department of Transportation administers the state and federal scenic byways program. The program includes an intensive review of specific criteria that roads must meet in order to qualify as scenic. Under the program, KDOT recognizes certain roads as state Scenic Byways based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities. No byways in Kentucky have been granted Federal All-American Road or National Scenic Byway status. According to the KDOT, there are 23 designated Scenic Byways in Kentucky, eight of which are either totally within or travel through Fayette County and include:

Old Frankfort Pike - from the Woodford County Line to Fox Run Creek

Boone Creek Scenic Byway - from Athens via KY 418 to Grimes Mill Road and McCalls Mill Road Loop

US 68 - this byway travels through 10 counties in the Bluegrass, including Fayette

Iron Works Pike - from Paris Pike to I-75 interchange

Russell Cave Road - from Iron Works Pike to Hughes Lane

Hughes Lane - from Russell Cave Road to Paris Pike

Rice, Van Meter, and Elkchester Roads - from Versailles Road to Old Frankfort Pike

Old Richmond Road/Grimes Mill Roadfrom Athens-Boonesboro Road to Grimes Mill Road to McCalls Mill Road

Historic Turnpikes

In the 19th century, a turnpike was a toll road built by private companies. A bar, or “pike,” was used to block passage until the toll was paid. The tollgate attendant would turn the pike to permit passage. Hence, it was named turnpike.

The 1992 Corridor Enhancement Study identified 18 historic turnpikes as follows:

Athens-Boonesboro Road Cleveland Road

Haley Road

Harrodsburg Road

Iron Works Road/Pike ** Leestown Road

Georgetown Road

Houston-Antioch Road

Newtown Road/Pike

Nicholasville Road Old Frankfort Road/Pike**Old Richmond Road** Richmond Road** Russell Cave Road

Todds Road Versailles Road

Tates Creek Road

Winchester Road

Several of the historic turnpikes were recommended for inclusion in a scenic corridor overlay. For further information, please see pages 37 and 38 of the Corridor Enhancement Study.

All or part of eight Kentucky Scenic Byways are located in Fayette County.

18 identified Historic Turnpikes and 17 scenic roadway corridors are located in Fayette County. Seven rural scenic road segments are located in the Expansion Area.

** These roads are designated as Kentucky Scenic Byways and Highways (as of February 2007)

Scenic Roadways and Corridors

The 1992 Corridor Enhancement Study identified 17 roads which were considered scenic roadways due to their location, topography, geologic significance, or cultural considerations. A Scenic Roadway is made up of both the road, the right-of-way and the scenic corridor. The scenic corridor is generally described as the view from the road. The boundaries of a scenic corridor may vary with the natural geography and characteristics of the landscape. The following scenic roadways are located in Fayette County:

Armstrong Mill RoadBowman’s Mill RoadDelong Road

Dry Branch Road Grimes Mill Road ** Hume Bedford Road

Jacks Creek Road Keene Road Lemon’s Mill Road

McCall’s Mill Road ** Military Road/Pike Paris Road/Pike**

Parker’s Mill RoadShelby Lane Spears Road

Walnut Hill RoadYarnallton Road

roads

Expansion Area Rural Scenic Roads

The 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan identified several rural scenic road segments, which provide a unique cultural and scenic resource and are located within the Expansion Area:

Chilesburg Road Deer Haven LaneDelong Road

Newtown Pike Faulkner Avenue Walnut Grove Lane

Winchester Road

These roads have special design and traffic management considerations which are discussed in the Expansion Area Master Plan. Please see pages 32 through 38 of the EAMP for more information about the location of the road segments and preservation recommendations.

Archaeological Sites

There are currently six designated archaeological sites in Fayette County, all of which are within the northern half of the county, containing more than 35 acres. Due to the sensitive nature of these sites, the exact location and identifying information is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office.

State and Federal Historic Preservation Programs

Kentucky Heritage Council -- State Historic Preservation Office

The importance of the built environment and the cultural landscape of Lexington and Fayette County is evidenced by the 5,537 buildings (1,198 rural, 4,339 urban) and 17 archeological sites that have been surveyed as part of the Kentucky Heritage Council’s Historic Building Survey. Created in 1966, the Heritage Council is charged with identifying, preserving, and protecting the historic and prehistoric cultural resources of the State. The Council also maintains updated inventories of historic structures and archaeological sites and nominates properties to the National Register of Historic Places.

** These

are designated as Kentucky Scenic Byways and Highways (as of February 2007)

In Fayette County

1,198 rural and 4,339 urban historic sites or buildings and 17 archeological sites have been surveyed and are inventoried at the Kentucky Heritage Council.

In Fayette County there are:

25 National Register Districts including about 3,800 historic buildings.

Over 150 individual properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 16 members of the Council are appointed by the Governor. Council programs are implemented by a staff of professional historians, architectural historians, historic architects, archaeologists, and planners. As State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Council directs the federal preservation program in Kentucky, including the National Register of Historic Places, Historic Preservation Tax Credits, Section 106 Environmental Review, Certified Local Governments, and Preservation Grants-in-Aid.

National Register of Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places is the official federal list of significant cultural resources identified as worthy of preservation. Properties listed in the Register can include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. Additionally, properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP are eligible for Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credits and other federal funding and considerations.

To date Fayette County has over 25 National Register Districts in both urban and rural areas. These districts include over 3,800 significant properties in the urban areas and over 12,000 acres of significant farm land and their structures. In addition, over 100 sites are individually listed with the National Register. The Division of Historic Preservation reviews all projects in Fayette County for which federal funds are used on properties either listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The nomination of a property begins with the preparation of a nomination, which is reviewed by the Fayette County Historic Preservation Commission and forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Officer at the Kentucky Heritage Council. The nominations are considered by the state review board composed of professionals who make a recommendation to SHPO. Property owners and local officials are notified of the intent to nominate and public comment is solicited and the property owner may object to the nomination. The property may not be listed in the National Register if a property owner objects, nor can a district be listed if the majority of property owners object.

Levi Todd House, Levi Todd Boulevard

In 2006, 14 projects on historic properties in Fayette County had a total investment of $663,750 that resulted in $132,900 in federal tax credits. In 2006, 14 projects in Fayette County had a total investment of $1,812,515 that resulted in $390,285 in state tax credits.

There are a number of issues for National Register Properties that should be considered:

There are no federal historic property designations that place federal restrictions on private property owners.

Listing in the National Register honors the property by recognizing its importance to its community, state, or the nation.

Private property owners are not necessarily required to maintain their National Register properties to federal standards.

Owners have no obligation to open their properties to the public, to restore them, or even to maintain them, if they choose not to do so.

Property owners may object to the proposed nomination of their property to the National Register. If a majority of property owners in a proposed district object to a nomination, then the district cannot be listed in the National Register.

Owners of listed properties may be able to obtain federal historic preservation funding, when funds are available. In addition, federal investment tax credits for rehabilitation and other provisions may apply.

Federally funded projects or those that require federal permits or licenses that are on a National Register property are subject to additional review and consideration.

Historic Preservation Tax Credits Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive

The Historic Preservation Tax Incentives have helped revitalize communities and preserve the historic places that give cities, towns, and rural areas their special character. In 1976, the federal tax code became aligned with national historic preservation policy to encourage voluntary private sector investment in preserving historic buildings. The program fosters private sector rehabilitation of historic buildings and promotes economic revitalization. The incentives are available for buildings that are National Historic Landmarks, listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and contribute to a National Register Historic District and certain local historic districts. Properties must be income-producing and must be rehabilitated according to standards set by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Managed by the National Park Service and the Internal Revenue Service in partnership with State Historic Preservation Offices, the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives generate jobs, both during the construction phase and in the spin-off effects of increased earning and consumption. The program also creates moderate- and low-income housing in historic buildings.

Rehabilitation of historic buildings attracts new private investment to the historic core of cities and is crucial to the long-term economic health of many communities. Enhanced property values generated by the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program result in augmented revenues for local and state government through increased property, business, and income taxes.

Kentucky Historic Preservation Tax Credits

In 2005, after years of encouragement by the preservation community in Kentucky, a state tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenses was signed into law. Property owners who are eligible to apply for the credits include individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, governments, and first purchaser of a principal residence following rehabilitation. These credits are available for properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, including individually significant buildings and contributing buildings located within a national register district. The program is administered by the State Historic Preservation Office.

Other Local Historic Preservation Related Efforts Renaissance on Main

Lexington began participating in the Kentucky Main Street Program in 1996 through the Downtown Lexington Corporation. In 2002, the Lexington Downtown Development Authority applied to become a Renaissance Kentucky City and was designated as a Silver City. In 2004, Lexington became a Gold Level City with Renaissance Kentucky. Currently, Lexington is a Renaissance Kentucky Certified City. As a Main Street City, Lexington follows the comprehensive approach to downtown revitalization based on economic development within the context of historic preservation.

Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation

The Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation is among the oldest private non-profit historic preservation organizations in the country and is an organization at the forefront of the effort to preserve the Bluegrass cultural landscape. Through its programs, the BGT strives to embrace and preserve the cultural diversity of the Bluegrass landscape in order to communicate the value of historic preservation to the community.

The BGT offers educational events and specific programs for the community. Additionally, the BGT has educational programs targeted specifically at school age children, including the Heritage Education Program, an annual Visual Arts Contest with submissions focused on a historic property or architectural detail, and architectural history exhibits for loan to public and private schools.

Lexington has participated in the Kentucky Main Street Program since 1996.

The Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation exists to embrace and preserve the cultural diversity of the community.

The Fayette County Cemetery Trust has identified numerous undocumented historic cemeteries since its founding in 2006.

Historic Restoration, Henry Street

Fayette County Cemetery Trust

Founded in 2006, the Fayette County Cemetery Trust is a non-profit organization whose mission is to identify, protect, preserve, and restore historic cemeteries in Fayette County. The group has identified numerous undocumented cemeteries. The Fayette County Cemetery Trust seeks to:

Identify: Locate an estimated 200 historic/pioneer cemeteries in Fayette County. The cemeteries should be inventoried and included in the Fayette County Geographic Information System for location analysis.

Protect: Work with landowners and developers to keep headstones and graves safe from being destroyed.

Preserve: Educate developers, property owners, and local residents about the significance of pioneer/historic cemeteries and preserve cemeteries as green space or mini parks.

Restore: Maintain, remove brush and dead or problem trees, clean or repair headstones, find volunteers to help with the work, and have homeowners’ associations take overall responsibility once development is accomplished. Many of the historic/pioneer cemeteries are overgrown with vegetation.

Historic rural cemetery, eastern Fayette County

MPO meeting, Government Center

Infill Development Site

Patchen Wilkes Drive crossing Winchester Road

Winchester Road

Summary of 2030 Transportation Plan for Fayette and Jessamine Counties, Adopted in June 2004

Transportation planning for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government is carried out by a two-county Metropolitan Planning Organization, which also includes Jessamine County. The MPO’s transportation planning responsibilities, as defined under The Federal Highway Act of 1962 and subsequent legislation, include roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and air quality. The latest federal transportation authorization is SAFETEA-LU, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. This federal legislation, passed in 2005, requires all urbanized areas with populations greater than 50,000 to conduct a Continuing, Comprehensive, and Coordinated (3C) process for developing transportation improvements and increasing safety for all users. The legislation continues previous programs and adds new initiatives to meet the challenges of improving safety, security, consistency with growth and development plans, fiscal balance, environmental considerations, consultation and cooperation, air quality, transit planning, system operations and management, congestion management, public participation in the planning process and more. These new requirements are designed to help protect and enhance the area’s natural environment, provide transportation, and advance America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through an efficient and flexible transportation planning process.

Transportation planning documents require approval of state and federal agencies and are adopted by the Planning Commission by reference in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The Transportation Chapter is required by KRS 100 as part of a locally adopted comprehensive plan. Most of the chapter is a summary of the 2030 Transportation Plan for Fayette and Jessamine Counties approved in June 2004 by the appointed local, state, and federal agencies.

The MPO process is coordinated closely with land use planning, zoning, development, traffic operations, public works, and many other functions within LFUCG and Jessamine County. The MPO structure consists of a Policy Committee, Technical Committee, other specialized sub-committees, and staff that are housed within the LFUCG Division of Planning.

Planning efforts of the MPO must also consider the air quality impacts of Scott County. While Scott County is not part of the MPO planning area, it is part of the MPO Air Quality District designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Metropolitan Planning Organization includes Fayette and Jessamine Counties and consists of:

Staff Policy Committee Technical Committee

Specialized sub-committees

safetea-lu requires a comprehensive and coordinated process for developing transportation improvements and increasing safety. The 2030 Transportation Plan was approved in June 2004.

Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (mpo) Organizational Structure

Lexington Area mpo Transportation Policy Committee

Chairman: Wm. Neal Cassity Jessamine County Judge Executive

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government: Mayor Jim Newberry

Fayette County, Kentucky: Judge Executive Sandra M. Verellas

City of Nicholasville, Kentucky: Mayor Russ Meyer

City of Wilmore, Kentucky: Mayor Harold Rainwater

LFUCG Council Districts 1, 2, and 6 Representative: Councilmember Tom Blues

LFUCG Council Districts 3, 5, and 11 Representative: Councilmember Dick DeCamp

LFUCG Council Districts 4, 7, and 8 Representative: Councilmember K.C. Crosby

LFUCG Council Districts 9, 10, and 12 Representative: Councilmember Jay McChord

Vice-Mayor/Councilmember-at-Large: Jim Gray

Councilmembers-at-Large: Linda Gorton Chuck Ellinger II

LexTran Chairman or Representative: Mary Fister/Terry Garcia Crews, LexTran Dir.

KYTC Sec. of Transportation (Representative): William Nighbert, Secretary of Transportation Marc Williams, KY Commissioner of Highways

Non-Voting Members:

FHWA: Jose Sepulveda, Division Administrator

FHWA Representative: David Whitworth

FTA: Yvette Taylor

FTA Representative: Tony Dittmeier

Lexington Area mpo Staff

LFUCG Transportation Planning Manager/MPO Director Max Conyers

Senior Planners:

Roger Daman – Mobility, Public Involvement

Joseph David – Transit Planning, GIS

Rob Hammons, AICP – TIP, Traffic Impact, UPL, TE

Sam Hu – Congestion Management, Bike/Ped

David Schaars – Air Quality Planning, CMAQ

Harika Suklun – Travel Modeling, Freight

Administrative:

Brenda Whittington – Administrative Specialist

Lexington Area mpo Subcommittees

Transportation Technical Coordination Committee

Congestion Management Committee

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Transportation Project Coordination Committee

Special Committees

Traffic Safety Coalition

2030 Transportation Plan

The 2030 Transportation Plan describes the transportation improvements, programs, and strategies necessary to support the growing needs of Fayette and Jessamine Counties from 2004 through 2030. The transportation plan is updated every five years and is considered a working document that guides the implementation of actual transportation projects. As envisioned in the 2030 Plan, the adopted goals for the area’s future transportation system are:

• Provide a safe and secure transportation system;

• Provide accessibility and mobility for all people and goods;

• Invest in transportation infrastructure to enhance the vitality of the community;

• Protect and enhance the environment; and

• Promote public and stakeholder participation and awareness.

Since the 2030 Plan was adopted, the following planning factors have been identified within the 2005 SAFETEA-LU federal legislation. The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will:

• Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency

• Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users

• Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users

• Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight

• Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns

• Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight

• Promote efficient system management and operations

• Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system

The 2030 Plan updates and supersedes the 2025 Transportation Plan published in May 2001 and extends the planning horizon to 2030. It accounts for real and projected changes since the last transportation plan was published in 2001, including increased population, job-related development, future land-use plans, and significant increases in travel. The 2030 Plan is a reassessment of the goals, objectives, community values, and land-use plans. The update reaffirms the validity of projects not yet implemented from the 2030 Plan and anticipates transportation needs to year 2030. The previous plan was based upon land use forecasts contained in the 1996 Comprehensive Plan for Fayette County and similar comprehensive plans for Jessamine County and the cities of Nicholasville and Wilmore. The 2030 Plan is based upon the latest land use plans for the same areas.

The 2030 Plan: focuses on the major elements of the transportation system contains a list of unfunded transportation projects prescribes the best use of current funds to meet critical needs includes connector road planning contains a Transit Element contains a Bicycle/ Pedestrian Element

The 2030 Plan is in agreement with projects and programs in the following approved plans: State Six Year Highway Plan FY 2006 – 2012; a Highway Element with Federal Surface Transportation Program funds apportioned for LeXington, known as SLX, as well as Non-SLX Funded Projects; Transit Element; a Bicycle/Pedestrian Element; and others.

The 2030 Plan focuses on the major elements of the transportation system, particularly ones that may require state or federal funds for construction or operation. Local comprehensive planning requires consideration of local and collector street systems as well as the arterials. To this end, this chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan contains an additional section not in the 2030 Plan related to collector road planning. This has been added to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan because of its importance to local planning and implementation decisions. The adopted Land Use Map also shows the existing and proposed collector road network.

The 2030 Plan also contains a list of unscheduled (unfunded) transportation projects in an appendix, which was updated in 2005. These unscheduled projects are not part of the recommendations of the fiscally constrained/balanced and air quality conforming 2030 Plan. Not all transportation system deficiencies can be remedied with available and estimated funding. The 2030 Plan prescribes the best use of current funds to meet the most critical needs over the planning period.

All other transportation related needs that are identified through the Lexington Area Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process by the Transportation Technical Coordinating Committee, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and other MPO committees have been listed as unscheduled needs in the 2030 Plan’s Appendix 4. This list is referred to in future planning efforts and will be updated on a biennial basis as part of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s six-year planning process. For the latest updated Unscheduled Projects Listing, please contact the Lexington Area MPO office.

Six-Year Highway Plan FY 2006-2012

The State Six Year Highway Plan is developed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and revised every two years to coincide with the Kentucky State Legislative session. The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet uses the project lists from the rural counties and the Transportation Improvement Programs from urban areas with MPOs to develop this document. TIPs are four-year plans for the programmed funding and implementation of transportation improvement projects.

MPOs now have greater local authority than ever before; therefore it is important that the TIPs and the State Six Year Plan be in agreement. The source of all TIP projects must be the 2030 Plan. The current State Six Year Plan contains projects for this MPO area based on the previous TIP and the 2030 Plan. Both the TIP and the 2030 Plan are amended as necessary to document changes in projects, programs, and policies. During the plan update process, the projects found in the State Six Year Plan were tested to confirm their continued validity. Projects within the MPO area included in the State Six Year Plan and not yet implemented were reconfirmed to be

necessary for future travel demand, reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and enhance the transportation system. The 2030 Plan, therefore, includes all State Six Year Plan projects for Fayette and Jessamine Counties. Since the State Six Year Plan accounts for the fiscal years 2006through 2012, the rest of the 2030 Plan begins where the State Six Year Plan leaves off.

The MPO and the state have been required to initiate a review of all programmed projects in order to take full advantage of the new, more flexible FHWA and FTA programs. Major SAFETEA-LU programs that provide this added flexibility are listed below.

Surface Transportation Program provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intra-city and inter-city bus terminals and facilities. A portion of funds reserved for rural areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. Funds from this program may be used for any type of highway or transit capital project involving either mode.

National Highway System program provides funding for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the federally designated NHS, including the Interstate system and designated connections to major intermodal terminals. Under certain circumstances, NHS funds may also be used to fund transit improvements in NHS corridors. Up to 50 percent of NHS funds can be transferred to STP without federal approval.

Section 5307 Transit Capital Funds are used for highway projects with specific conditions.

Interstate Maintenance program provides funding for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating, and reconstructing (4R) on most routes of the Interstate system. The IM program allows states to transfer up to 20 percent to STP and NHS funds under certain conditions.

Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program provides funds to assist the states in their programs to replace or rehabilitate deficient highway bridges and to seismic retrofit bridges located on any public road. Up to 40 percent of HBRRP funds can be transferred to STP.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds can be used in ozone and carbon monoxide maintenance areas, such as Fayette and Scott Counties, for transportation projects and programs that are likely to contribute to the attainment of national ambient air quality standards.

Hazard Elimination and Safety projects are safety projects that demonstrate a positive benefit/cost ratio. HES projects are designed to eliminate specific transportation hazards.

High Priority (Demonstration) Projects are earmarked by Congress for high priority projects. Funding amounts vary and are consistent with federal law.

Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Program projects are eligible for NHS, STP (including Transportation Enhancements, and Sections 130 and 152), CMAQ, Federal Lands, Scenic Byways, and Recreational Trail funds.

Transportation Enhancements are transportation-related activities that are designed to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the nation’s intermodal transportation system. The TE program implements a variety of non-traditional transportation projects.

The FY 2006 -2009 Transportation Improvement Program is used to implement the 2030 Plan.

The TIP: shows a priority list of projects contains a financial plan demonstrates how TIP projects will be scheduled and financed

The Lexington Area Long Range Transit Plan 2030 serves as a guide for improving the transit system and includes:

potential improvement elements

demand analysis methods projects

implementation plan

operational and capital costs

transit funds forcast carpool/van program

paratransit

The adopted SLX projects will be funded with Federal Surface Transportation Program funds designated for the Lexington Area MPO. Non-SLX Projects will be funded from other sources, such as State Projects, Federal Surface Transportation Program (non SLX), National Highway System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds, and others. For more detailed descriptions of projects and their funding sources, please see the Year 2030 Transportation Plan at www.lexareampo. com/KeyDocuments/KeyDocuments.htm

Transportation Improvement Program Process

The document used to implement the 2030 Plan is the Fiscal Year 2006-2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is created by the Lexington Area MPO in cooperation with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Lexington Transit Authority and is amended according to a schedule and procedure established by the MPO staff and approved by the MPO Transportation Policy Committee. The purpose of the TIP is to develop a priority list of projects to be carried out within the current four-year period. The TIP is required to contain a financial plan that demonstrates how TIP projects will be scheduled and financed with the fiscal resources likely (or estimated) to be available. Projects that have been implemented are dropped from the TIP project listing as new projects are identified from the 2030 Plan (and future plan updates) and added to the list during the TIP update/revision process. Projects recommended by the other MPO committees are also included in the TIP.

The scheduled update of the TIP will be coordinated with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet so that the State Six Year Plan and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) are in agreement with the MPO’s TIP. It will also include public input as outlined in the MPO Public Participation Plan.

Transit

The Lexington Area Long Range Transit Plan 2030 serves as a guide for improving the transit system for the next 20 years. Procedures and methods outlined in the 2030 Transit Plan along with The Transit Authority of Lexington’s (LexTran’s) Comprehensive Operational Analysis present a complete picture for short- and longrange transit services and projects and how they will be funded.

Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI legislation are priority issues for transit and mobility planning. Recommendations for Paratransit and Mobility Coordination are outlined separately. Map 25 shows the current LexTran Routes. For detailed information about transit plans and implementation plans see the Lexington Area Long Range Transit Plan 2030 and LexTran Comprehensive Operational Analysis 2005 available at the Lexington Area MPO office and on-line at: www.lexareampo.com/KeyDocuments/KeyDocuments.htm

property tax increase was approved to fund the operations of LexTran which allowed for:

Increased routes

Reduced wait times

Acquisition of smaller busses

North and south circulator routes

Jobs Bus

LexTran is working with other agencies to develop possible routes between Lexington and Nicholasville.

LexTran provides paratranist service for people with disabilities.

The wheels program provides services for people in wheelchairs.

The Federated Transportation Services of the Bluegrass provides Medicare paratransit services in Fayette County.

Express Service and Regional Transit

LexTran is committed to and working with appropriate agencies to develop possible transit routes between Lexington and Nicholasville. Working through the MPO transportation planning process, Jessamine County, the city of Nicholasville, and LexTran conducted a survey to determine the interest and demand for inter-county transit service. The survey showed that a solid majority of Nicholasville residents supported a Nicholasville-to-Lexington route through the services of LexTran. Funding and logistical arrangements will continue to be investigated in support of regional transit service.

Paratransit

LexTran, through a contractual arrangement with the America Red Cross WHEELS program, provides paratransit services in Fayette County. The Red Cross WHEELS program was created for people with disabilities that prevent them from using regular LexTran bus service. WHEELS offers wheel chair lift-equipped mini-buses on a demand/response system for door-to-door service. In addition, all of the LexTran fixed route bus fleet is equipped with wheelchair lifts. Each bus can accommodate a maximum of two wheelchairs. However, three wheeled scooters can not be accommodated.

The Federated Transportation Services of the Bluegrass (FTSB) provides Medicare paratransit services in Fayette County. The FTSB receives federal and state funding to provide their transportation services. FTSB, LexTran, WHEELS, and the Lexington Area MPO have formed a Human Services Group to assist with the development of a federally required Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. FTSB will be the lead agency and the designated recipient for specific general grant funds to help people of all groups become more mobile, therefore improving the quality of their lives.

The last update of the local paratransit plan was completed in January 1996. The Federal Transit Administration determined that the Lexington area’s 1996 Americans with Disabilities Paratransit Plan Update was in compliance with federal regulations, and that future updates were not required. Instead, LexTran signs an annual assurance that shows continued compliance with requirements in order to receive FTA funding.

With revenue from the property tax increase approved by voters in November 2004, LexTran was able to expand the paratransit and fixed route services to seven days a week. The hours of operation have also been expanded and the fixed route stops receive bus service every 30 minutes. The WHEELS paratransit services have the same days and hours of service as the LexTran fixed routes. Consequently, the transportation services for disabled individuals have greatly improved.

In 2004 a

The Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office promotes:

Carpools

Mobility Coordination

Established in 1997, the Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office has helped expand transportation coordination efforts and the continued growth of the MPO’s ridesharing program. A number of activities should enable increased public participation in the services of the Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office. It is recommended that a marketing plan be continued. The plan is intended to generate increased participation and awareness of the services and initiatives of the Lexington Bluegrass Mobility Office. The plan will promote carpools, vanpools, transit, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. Marketing products will include such items as customized sitespecific surveys, information folders, ozone handbooks, brochures, and promotional items. Other promotional products include various media broadcasts for the public awareness campaigns. A primary component of marketing the Mobility Office is improved public awareness of the Rideshare matching services offered free to the public. The Mobility Office uses a software program that matches people with carpools and vanpools, and provides transit information.

Air Quality

Although ground level ozone is a significant problem in many U.S. cities, with automobiles producing more polluted air than any other source, the Lexington area is currently in attainment for federal ozone and particulate matter pollutants standards. These attainment designations mean that the counties in Central Kentucky will not be required to implement additional pollution reduction measures or conduct air quality conformity activities that are required in non-attainment counties. Through increased public awareness of the effects of ground level ozone and particulate matter pollution in conjunction with the Air Quality Advisory Committee, the MPO promotes a voluntary air pollution reduction program in order to maintain attainment for pollutant levels.

The Mobility Office promotes a variety of commute options that will reduce ozone and particulate matter. These include carpooling, vanpooling, transit, telecommuting, walking, and bicycling. The MPO staff works with federal, state, and local governments, the Air Quality Advisory Committee, and the public to help coordinate the completion of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality projects and other air pollution reduction activities. For more information on air quality, please see Chapter 6 of the 2030 Plan or the MPO Website at www.lexareampo.com/KeyDocuments/ KeyDocuments.htm.

The Mobility Office hopes to expand the very successful LexVan Commuter Vanpool Program. This includes the purchase of new vehicles for the expansion of the LexVan fleet. Since the transfer of the LexVan Program to the MPO Mobility Office/ LFUCG, the program will continue to benefit from the integration and coordination of maintenance activities, purchasing, accounting, risk management, and insurance coverage under the LFUCG administrative umbrella.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation

Bicycle-friendly streets and walkable neighborhoods can enhance the quality of life in Lexington-Fayette County and help achieve the goals for improving the environment, reducing congestion, and encouraging human interaction and community-building. While sidewalks and bike facilities along transportation corridors are necessary for safe travel, making bicycling and walking the preferred choice for short distance trips will require more emphasis on pedestrian-oriented design and land use patterns. After World War II, urban planning and development favored automobile-oriented design and use, parking needs, and safe traffic movement. Transportation planning has shifted to recognize that developing neighborhood centers, commercial districts, and transportation corridors that are pedestrian and transit-oriented will result in more wide-spread use of these travel modes thereby helping to preserve road capacity, mitigate congestion, and improve air quality. Many communities are adopting “Complete Streets” policies to ensure transportation projects are designed with all users in mind. Complete streets may include sidewalks, bike lanes, raised medians, bus stops, and traffic calming features depending upon the adjacent land uses, context, roadway classification, and expected users.

The 2030 Plan outlined various steps needed to increase bicycling and walking to achieve a more comprehensive transportation system. As recommended in the 2030 Plan, the Lexington Area MPO is currently developing a Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to outline community goals for bicycling and walking and actions necessary to implement these goals. The plan is expected to be added as an amendment to the 2030 Plan and the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. While the Bike-Ped Plan is still a draft, the following key issues and themes as they relate to land use were identified during the community visioning process and plan development:

Consider bicycling and walking as a primary means of travel during land-use decisionmaking and development processes.

Create compact, mixed-use neighborhoods that have pedestrian-oriented schools, parks, commercial sites, workplaces and other public facilities within walking distance of residential neighborhoods.

Provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities as basic infrastructure in community development and transportation improvement projects.

Provide “Complete Streets” that are safe, comfortable, and convenient for all travel modes including automobiles, bicycling, walking, and public transit. Provide transportation options (i.e.bicycling, walking, transit) to ensure independent mobility for all residents including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

Provide a seamless system of on-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities both within and between neighborhoods and which contribute to a regional bicycle, pedestrian, and transit network.

Reduce trip lengths and out-of-direction travel by improving street network connectivity and reducing barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel.

The draft Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan inventoried bicycle and pedestrian facilities and gave them suitability ratings.

The Bike Plan will incorporate greenway trails that are identified in the Greenway Master Plan.

The most heavily used truck routes in Fayette County are:

Newtown Pike North New Circle Road

U.S. 25, 27 and 60

Interstates

64 and 75

A community-wide inventory of bicycle and pedestrian facilities was conducted to develop the draft Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The inventory identified gaps in the sidewalk network as well as sidewalk condition. A bicycle suitability rating has also been assigned to existing collector and arterial streets in order to identify roadways in need of improvement. A number of key intersections have been studied to determine how well pedestrians are accommodated. Bicycle and pedestrian collisions and crash rates have been reviewed. Data from the US Census was used to determine current bicycle and pedestrian commuting trends since there has been no local survey of bike/pedestrian travel to date.

The bicycle and pedestrian facility inventory and public input will be used to develop the Bike Plan’s network and recommendations. The Bike Plan will incorporate the greenway trails as identified in the Greenway Master Plan and assign priority for implementing trail projects. The Plan will also identify on-road bicycle facility improvements and sidewalk needs. A list of policies, capital improvement projects, programs, and related actions will be provided as well as funding and implementation strategies.

A challenge to developing a county-wide bike and pedestrian network will be retrofitting existing streets and neighborhoods with adequate facilities since there is no dedicated funding source for stand alone bike/pedestrian improvement projects (i.e. projects not associated with vehicular roadway improvements). The provision of these facilities during new development and roadway construction will ensure that additional financial resources will not be required for future retrofit projects. In addition, the consideration of bicycling and walking in future small area plans, infill/ redevelopment projects and other land-use planning efforts can result in development patterns and design that have been shown to increase travel by these modes.

Goods Movement Plans

The adopted State Six Year Plan serves truck carriers in the efficient movement and supply of goods as well as to serve passenger automobiles and other types of vehicles. Newtown Pike, North New Circle Road, and U.S. 25, 27 and 60 as well as Interstates 64 and 75 are Fayette County’s most heavily used truck routes. Several improvements for Newtown Pike and North New Circle Road (including much needed ramp improvements at the radial interchanges) have been accelerated (or moved up) in anticipation of the 2010 World Equestrian Games. These accelerated improvements will enhance the ability of trucks to move and deliver goods safely in the MPO area.

The Lexington area does not appear to have severe and widespread freight movement problems and conflicts. There are, however, a few scattered railroad crossings where conflicts are being exacerbated by new development. To address conflict between truck and rail traffic and in areas of the community where truck and rail traffic are inappropriate, it is recommended to continue the existing methods explained in Chapter 3 of the 2030 Plan. These methods include sign restriction of truck movements; enforcement; established truck route systems (by city ordinances); on and off-street loading/unloading zones, facilities, restrictions, regulations; and rail

crossing treatments/improvements such as gates, lights, signage, and sight distance improvements.

Significant freight movement growth is expected in the future. As this freight movement demand increases, freight planning efforts must increase proportionately within the MPO transportation planning process. Truck traffic problems will be continually monitored through the transportation planning process in coordination with all appropriate stakeholders. All Lexington MPO area committees and government agencies involved with various aspects of transportation, as well as citizens, have input into the existing planning process. Further research should be conducted regarding federal regulations and overnight accommodation needs for truck drivers passing through Fayette County, as they may have an impact on land use plans near interchanges. In addition, the MPO will pursue funding to update the 1979 Trucking and Rail Goods Movement Study. For more information, please see Freight Coordination atwww.lexareampo.com/Freight/Freight.htm.

Aviation

Blue Grass Airport provides commercial and private air service to Lexington as well as a significant portion of Central Kentucky with connections to an array of major airline hubs and the domestic and international markets. The Airport has also continued as a key component in the economic and business growth within Fayette County and the region. The Airport began aviation services in 1927.

The Blue Grass Airport Master Plan Update was prepared for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport board in February 2005 and is available atwww.bluegrassairport. com/future.html. This document contains detailed information on the existing airport, future projections, plan alternatives, and recommendations. MPO staff and Blue Grass Airport staff coordinate on projects that impact both jurisdictions. For discussion of the Airport Rural Activity Center and related land use issues please see the Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The Versailles Road Corridor Study is also a resource for information about the Airport Rural Activity Center.

Passenger Rail

Analysis prepared for the previous two transportation plan updates indicated that passenger rail was not a feasible transportation alternative for the Lexington area at that time. That finding continues to hold true today and the outlook is expected to remain the same through the planning period. After the 2018 Plan, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet examined the possibility of inter-urban passenger rail service in more detail. As discussed in the full 2030 Plan, the consultant’s study in 1999 indicated that passenger rail was not a viable option for this area. This assessment is related to low population density and low concentration of urban development, combined with the high capital and operating costs associated with developing a passenger rail system. Transit promoting Websites report that throughout the United States only three of the 28 metropolitan areas with populations between one and two million people have, or are seriously planning commuter rail or light rail systems. No community with less than one million people (now or anticipated in the near future) is

Blue Grass Airport began aviation services in 1927.

The Airport provides commercial and private air service to Lexington and a significant portion of Central Kentucky.

A 1999 study indicated that passenger rail is not a viable option for the Lexington area.

A study of the feasibility of Rapid Bus Transit may be examined in the future.

The 2030 Plan recommends the study of the feasibility of developing amtrak and inter-urban passenger rail service in Central Kentucky.

reported to be proposing a new passenger rail system at this time. The feasibility of Rapid Bus Transit (or giving buses priority on the transportation system) may be examined in future updates of the transportation plan, as funding becomes available. This option would provide dedicated routes or bypass lanes, ensure the high level frequency of service, and eliminate traffic barriers to buses.

The 2030 Plan recommends that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Multimodal Programs should lead efforts to analyze the feasibility of developing AMTRAK and inter-urban passenger rail service in Central Kentucky.

Collector Road System

At the local planning level, important decisions are made about road locations and layout primarily during the comprehensive plan process and the development plan review process. To help assure adequate connections to the major road system, existing and proposed collector roads are shown on the detailed land use maps. They illustrate approximate locations that will be refined during the development review process and to be constructed as part of the development. For proper traffic flows within neighborhoods and for adequate pedestrian and bicycle movement opportunities, additional interconnecting streets and paths are critical and should be constructed during development. Good connectivity throughout all levels of the transportation system is essential; however, connectivity is not appropriate in all cases due to safety and other unique considerations. Access management of the transportation system is vital for function and safety. The comprehensive planning and development plan review processes in Fayette County are well suited to assess the appropriateness and context of proposed connections.

Proposed redevelopment of Vine Street

Other Important Transportation Considerations

There are other long term transportation considerations to address as part of a dynamic planning process for a better future for the Lexington area:

Regional Planning includes regional traffic operations management, deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (such as cameras, message boards, detection, and counting devices), revenue sharing, expanded planning coordination and jurisdictions, and more. There is a unanimous agreement that regional planning efforts must be pursued to deal with regional issues.

One-Way vs. Two-Way Streets is an issue raised as part of the implementation of the Downtown Lexington Masterplan and the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. To further analyze the two-way proposal, a Downtown Lexington Transportation Analysis was conducted. On the issue of one-way versus two-way streets, the analysis provides a peek into the future as to what could be expected if streets were converted back to two-way operation. Recognizing that there are many additional issues that must be addressed first, the analysis does not provide a recommendation as to the action that should be taken. It does serve as the starting point for a community-wide forum, one in which other voices and points of view can be considered.

Other important transportation issues include relocation of the downtown transit center; increased, enhanced, and safer pedestrian and bicycle facilities; parking issues; and funding for transportation improvements. These issues will be on the forefront of the transportation planning process. For key documents and detailed information on the Lexington Area MPO Transportation Planning Process please visit the Lexington Area MPO Website at www.lexareampo.com

Center Court, South Upper Street

Newtown Pike widening project

Mixed-use infill construction at Main Street and Elm Tree Lane

Bracktown Sewer Improvement

Implementation

Introduction

The success of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan will be measured in part by the application and practice of the principles that form its foundation—the Mission Statement and Goals and Objectives—as well as the implementation of programs and projects identified throughout all the elements. An open and inclusive public participation process that took planning into the community and invited participation in numerous public meetings resulted in recommendations and requests by citizens for improving the quality of life in Fayette County. These recommendations touched on major planning issues, such as expanding or not expanding the Urban Service Area boundary and protecting existing neighborhoods as well as more focused projects, such as Small Area Plans and burying utility lines.

The seminal decision of the 2007 Plan was made when the Planning Commission voted to maintain the existing boundary of the Urban Service Area, thereby directing that accommodations be made for growth and development within a boundary that was last substantially modified in 1996. Population projections show Fayette County adding more than 73,000 new residents over the next 23 years. Implementing the 2007 Plan, therefore, will challenge officials and professionals to craft solutions that accommodate growth while addressing the myriad issues, such as environmental protection, storm water management, community design, affordable housing, and open space that were raised during this planning process.

Hundreds of citizens participated in the comprehensive planning process, which attracted the attention of officials and policy makers from across the community. These officials in turn have shown keen interest in regional and small-area planning, community building, and reaching agreements on shared visions. Public interest in planning, therefore, has never seemed greater. Activities that address the visionary issues should be pursued and public interest in planning should continue to be fostered.

The success of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update shows the effectiveness of emphasizing projects as part of an implementation strategy. In the 2001 Plan Update, 58 specific projects for implementation were identified. For instance, the 2001 Plan Update called for the development of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan and the Greenway Plan, which were both completed; the creation of Infill and Redevelopment standards and mixed-use zoning categories, which were adopted; and coordination between LFUCG and the Fayette County Public Schools for facilities and neighborhoods, which has been formalized through several venues. Over the past five years, the Division of Planning periodically updated the Planning Commission on the status of the 58 projects. In the final report, 74 projects had been implemented or undertaken in support of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update.

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through the actions of the Urban County Council and Planning Commission as well as other Boards and Commissions, agencies outside the government and the day-to-day work of the Urban County

Government staff. Plan policies will be carried out through the adoption and revision of ordinances, such as the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations, and through annual budgeting and capital improvements programming. Partnerships with neighborhood and community groups will be essential components of many of the implementation tasks. Just as the implementation of the 2001 Plan Update resulted in additional implementation projects, the 2007 Comprehensive Plan is intended to be a dynamic document that grows and changes as Fayette County changes. Therefore, pressing and unforeseen events can significantly modify the prioritization and timing of various implementation proposals and lead to new tasks that further the Comprehensive Plan.

Post-Plan Critique

As implementation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan begins, it may be informative to review the process by which the 2007 Plan was created. The Planning Commission chose to have the entire Commission oversee the development of the 2007 Plan rather than create committees and receive reports. Likewise, the 2007 Plan and the public input process were constructed from start to finish by LFUCG staff, without consultants. Concentrated and unprecedented efforts were undertaken by the Commission and staff to provide a planning process that was transparent, informative, responsive, and accessible to the community. Numerous meetings were held during evening hours and at locations throughout the community. Virtually all meetings, including work sessions, were scheduled with wide notice and were televised on the local government television channel. Despite these efforts, the process was not immune from criticism. The major components of the process, which included public input, schedule, availability of and access to draft documents, quality and utility of data, and conduct of staff and officials should be evaluated. From this review process, new and better ideas for approaching the next Comprehensive Plan could be developed while the lessons of the past process are relatively fresh.

Downtown

By accepting the principles of the Downtown Lexington Masterplan in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission has committed to the success of Downtown. Issues related to adequate infrastructure, neighborhood preservation and revitalization, historic preservation, economic development, and leisure activities often compete for resources and consent. The Downtown Lexington Masterplan sets a number of goals in support of neighborhoods, civic spaces, and human interaction. And while the Masterplan emphasizes pedestrian activity, it states that vehicular traffic should be accommodated. Notable projects in the Masterplan include constructing a linear pedestrian park within the Vine Street right-of-way, converting one-way streets to two-way, and establishing form-based building guidelines. Implementation of these projects alone will require considerable additional study and public input. Development of a detailed implementation strategy focusing on all major plan principles should be developed in the immediate future. With its core mission to revitalize Lexington’s downtown, the Downtown Lexington Masterplan provides a framework for development that should be pursued as part of Lexington’s growth strategy.

Densification and Infill and Redevelopment

Vacant, undeveloped, and underused properties exist throughout the Urban Service Area. Free-standing parking lots, dilapidated buildings, remnant parcels, and small buildings on big lots dot the landscape of the urban area. Over the past few years, infill and redevelopment efforts have seen success in and near downtown. In just four years, streetscapes and entire blocks have been redeveloped with high-density residential and mixed-use development, in many cases utilizing highly innovative approaches. The Downtown Lexington Masterplan projects that downtown will accommodate about 10 percent of the County’s population, which generously would only be half the growth that is expected over the next two decades. In order to maximize the opportunities for infill and redevelopment, it will be necessary to enable and provide incentives for near-urban and suburban infill, redevelopment, and densification.

As residential infill opportunities are considered for the entire Urban Service Area, it is also important to understand the opportunities for non-residential infill and redevelopment, both downtown and throughout the urban area. The expected benefits include employment and neighborhood-supporting commercial uses that could serve a variety of public purposes, including those related to transportation efficiencies and air quality. A non-residential infill and redevelopment study has been proposed for funding. This study would help identify the issues, including obstacles and expected outcomes.

There is substantial literature on best practice methods for infill and redevelopment and densification. The local challenges lie in addressing inadequate infrastructure, including storm and sanitary sewers and roads and open space as well as the adequacy of public schools. Neighborhood residents and historic preservation officials have expressed concern about the design, use, and density of new construction and the compatibility with existing conditions in developed areas. In order to honor neighborhood character, protect the environment, and provide for growth, a concerted effort that involves government officials and citizens will be necessary.

Small Area Planning and Neighborhood Assistance

During the development of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, several areas were identified for further study and consideration. It was determined that the issues in these areas, such as traffic, land use, and zoning should be addressed through a more deliberate and focused process, one that has been successful for decades in Fayette County to guide and direct development for a targeted area—the Small Area Plan. The Planning Commission identified several areas where small area planning, which involves residents, property owners, and other stakeholders, could be successful, most notably the Central Sector. The Central Sector, as defined by its residents, covers 2,600 acres north of and adjacent to downtown Lexington. Through a series of neighborhood meetings, the residents identified common concerns, such as traffic and land use, as well as more particular issues related to safety, neighborhood stabilization or revitalization, and neighborhood business activities. Given the size of this area and its diverse social complexion, it may be necessary to define subset areas within the Central Sector for targeted study while considering other issues that affect the entire area.

In response to citizen proposals for land use changes as a prelude to proposed redevelopment, the Planning Commission flagged other areas that should be studied in depth, including sections of Nicholasville Road near Central Baptist Hospital, and a separate area near Man o’ War Boulevard and the Jessamine County line. Major issues in these areas involve traffic and arterial access, as well as impact on existing residential areas and the potential loss of residential development and land use.

The Small Area Plan process involves substantial public input, research and analysis, and approval by the Planning Commission. Not all neighborhood issues, however, rise to this level of study. A formal neighborhood assistance program that expands the capacity of the Urban County Government to work with neighborhoods may be an appropriate response to certain neighborhood conditions.

Rural Settlements and Rural Land Management Plan

From 2003 through 2006, the Planning Staff worked with the University of Kentucky’s Center for Historic Architecture and Preservation and the LFUCG Rural Settlement Alliance to evaluate 18 rural settlements across the County. This undertaking, recommended by the adopted 1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan, yielded a comprehensive analysis of the history and purpose of the rural settlements as well as an inventory of land uses, structures, and development patterns. In response to data that described the historic boundaries and land use patterns, the Planning Commission adjusted the boundaries of nine rural settlements.

Some rural settlements are distinct and important residential and social centers. Others include, are near, or are adjacent to employment. Some rural settlements are within or close to the Urban Service Area while others are hardly discernable from the surrounding rural development. However, issues related to zoning, land use, infrastructure, and traffic are common concerns among many of the settlements. The influence and compatibility of the PDR program on rural settlements is considerable as well. Having served its purpose to gather stakeholders and champion the Rural Settlement Study, the Rural Settlement Alliance has been retired. In its place, the Urban County Council created the Rural Settlement Committee as part of the Council Planning Committee to further address the issues raised by the rural settlement study.

It is anticipated that the Rural Land Management Board may consider amendments to the PDR ordinance in the foreseeable future. The RLMB is encouraged to consult with the Planning Commission on proposed changes as an integral part of such update efforts.

Affordable Housing

The Affordable Housing section of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan outlines a variety of tools that other communities have employed in an effort to increase the supply of affordable housing to low-income households. Before extensive solutions can be implemented, however, the nature of the affordable housing issue in Fayette County should be thoroughly considered and understood. Affordable housing can be provided through a variety of initiatives, both public and private, based on local needs. It will be important, therefore, to identify the affordable housing issues and the appropriate solutions, a process that includes such stakeholders as affordable housing providers, homebuilders, low-income advocates, neighborhoods, economic development officials, and government. The entire community should be engaged in the process to better enable broad understanding of the needs and support for the solutions.

Green Infrastructure

The Environmental and Green Infrastructure Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan represents a new approach for environmental protection, as called for in the Goals and Objectives. This chapter goes to great lengths to define green infrastructure and explain its application. Both as a stand-alone chapter and as a component of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Environmental and Green Infrastructure Chapter is a valuable tool for analyzing new development proposals. For it to be most effective, however, a separate Green Infrastructure Plan should be created that prescribes implementation, much like other approved plans. The Green Infrastructure Plan should be developed under the guidance of the Greenspace Commission and should include the input of stakeholders from the community and within LFUCG. The Planning Commission should expect to receive a Plan that has been informed by best practice methods and local experience and expectation.

Innovative Development Regulation

Affordable housing, environmental protection, traffic congestion management, commercial and neighborhood design, and a host of other development issues are influenced by the government’s regulatory process. Time and again, development professionals cite development regulations as obstacles to achieving community goals, especially as they relate to affordability, mixed-use, design, and aesthetics. It is important to investigate these claims and other trends to determine what role the regulatory process plays in furthering or inhibiting the kinds of solutions that have been ratified throughout a host of plans. A process should be created to determine whether these regulations should be upgraded or improved, streamlined or bolstered, eliminated or augmented. Development professionals as well as neighborhoods and other appropriate stakeholders should be part of this process.

Transportation

The Transportation Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan reports on a number of plans and programs that are managed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, most notably the Long-Range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program. These federally-mandated programs must be updated and managed in accordance with federal regulations and will, therefore, be addressed over the next few years under the supervision of the MPO and state and federal transportation officials. The Transportation Chapter also addresses issues and plans related to transit, bicycle and pedestrian initiatives, and freight movement. It is worthy to note that numerous implementation efforts focus on non-vehicular system improvements designed to foster increased use of bicycle and pedestrian modes as viable transportation alternatives. The staff and officials that oversee these programs should continue to consider the local impact of decisions and the importance of the “three C process” that addresses the Continuing, Comprehensive, and Coordinated process for the development of transportation improvements and increased safety for all users.

Expanded Scope of the Planning Program

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan process revealed the strong desire for planning solutions that could be accomplished through an expansion of the Planning program. This expansion would elevate the mission of the Division of Planning, and in a few cases, ensure the completion of already-identified projects in a timely and quality manner. New programs could include an Urban Design Program that would not only focus on private sector development, such as shopping centers and subdivisions, but also community imaging and public sector development such as public buildings, street scapes, and public utility structures (bridges, culverts, street lights, etc.) A regional coordination function would permit local expertise on regional issues, regional growth patterns and development, and could serve as a liaison to other local and regional planning agencies. A neighborhood assistance program, as described in the Small Area Planning and Neighborhood Assistance section of the Implementation chapter, would develop ongoing relationships and provide planning activities designed to support neighborhoods, including the development of Small Area Plans. Developing these expanded programs would of course depend primarily upon support and funding from LFUCG Administration and Council as programs are evaluated and budgets are adopted.

2010 Census

Data from the decennial census provide invaluable information for comprehensive plans. Aggregate population data provide a basis for overall density and population distribution. Information related to household characteristics, including age, race, household size, and income, inform many public policy decisions. Interim reports and updates from the American Community Survey, a product of the Census, provide reasonable updated estimates on these data. Population projections that are developed by a variety of sources inform recommendations for action. These data, therefore, are profoundly important to officials and professionals who seek to obligate resources and direct policy. The preparation of the next comprehensive plan should be timed

The 2007 Comprehensive plan

to take the greatest advantage of new data gathered as part of the 2010 Census. Preparation for the next plan will likely begin before new Census data are finalized. To the greatest extent possible, however, the major recommendations should be based on official 2010 data.

Interpretation of the Land Use Map and Categories

Among the most significant day-to-day planning tools is zoning, and evaluation of the zoning map for possible amendments. Traditionally, the Land Use Map has been considered by many as the central determinant for review of compliance of a zone change or map amendment proposal with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The Map, however, is not the only determinant of compliance. It is a fundamental of Kentucky law that a zone change proposal is to be evaluated for agreement with the entire 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Other plan elements, not just the Land Use Chapter, should be carefully and judiciously considered when evaluating development proposals. The purpose of this section is to articulate the guiding principles for interpretation of other plan elements in determining when, in fact, a proposal may be found “in agreement” with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

Plan interpretation should take into consideration the following outcomes:

• and compatible with existing nearby development.

Support increased residential density in a manner complementary to

•

Serve to create a cohesive urban form.

• Ensure timely provision and/or upgrade of community infrastructure.

Promote environmental responsibility and sustainability.

• Promote development that links, rather than isolates, the community

• and neighborhood.

Further adopted Goals and Objectives of the Plan while not hindering

• or seriously conflicting with other adopted goals or objectives. Typically must address the basic use recommendations of the Land

• Use Map, especially where residential use is recommended.

These evaluations should be typically considered primarily for older areas of the community, in particular, those areas within New Circle Road and especially within the defined Infill and Redevelopment Area. Such evaluations are particularly relevant in these areas due to the existing diversity of land use patterns, inherent challenges to redevelopment, and the opportunity for creative redevelopment of sites or adaptive reuse of existing structures. However, these determinations should typically not be made in areas where a small area planning process has identified specific land uses and a valid Small Area Plan is in force. In such cases, deference should be given to the existing Small Area Plan.

The following characteristics of development proposals should be emphasized in demonstration of support of the above outcomes:

Proposals that respect and adapt historic structures or elements into the • project.

Projects that incorporate the recommendations of the Land Use Chapter • and, in addition, provide needed uses or services to the immediate neighborhood.

Projects for which the design is not driven by surface parking lots.

• Projects that provide for housing diversity and incorporate affordable • housing as an inherent component.

• Projects that maximize the availability of transit services.

Projects that use green building and site design principles.

• Projects designed to promote walkability, both in terms of the site, and its • integration into surrounding neighborhoods and destinations.

In making such a review and determination in the absence of compliance with the Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Commission should carefully review the proposal to determine whether it:

• Would not destabilize the surrounding area or raise the risk of unintended precedents; and

• Would not threaten or compromise historic areas, sites, or resources. When, after careful consideration, the Planning Commission can make findings of this nature, and after considering the relevant elements of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, development proposals that do not strictly comply with the Land Use Map recommendations may still be found in agreement with the entire 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

Performance Indicators

Evaluating a plan and its implementation is a basic component of any planning process. The future cannot be successfully addressed without a comprehensive and critical look at the effectiveness of ongoing or past actions. Goal 21 of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan—the Implementation Goal—calls for “strategies to effectively implement the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan and other adopted community plans.” To better understand the success of implementation, a monitoring system of performance indicators should be developed to help assess which implementation measures, laws, plans, and other programs are effective in addressing key plan principles. The system should be simple and easy to administer and interpret, and one that relies on a coordinated approach to record keeping and information management.

Conclusion and Implementation Table

As often noted, a plan is useless unless it is implemented. Implementation is difficult, focused work which is often undertaken in a climate of seemingly unending distractions as the community’s focus on issues undergoes the inevitable and dynamic process of change - changes caused by events both natural and human-made; changes in political and citizen leadership; changes mandated by outside agencies beyond the control of local government; and countless other diversions. In its final review of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update implementation list, the Planning Commission noted how many changes the community had undergone in government leadership, Commission membership, and staff during the relatively short five-year time span since the 2001 Plan Update was adopted.

Developing a road map for implementing the key principles and decisions of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan helps ensure that the Plan is indeed a living document with relevance to future community initiatives. The Implementation Table describes a relatively extensive and perhaps daunting series of plans, projects, programs, studies, and other actions designed to carry out the community vision espoused by the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

First undertaken as a part of the 2001 Plan Update, inclusion of a table of this type as part of the comprehensive plan has proven to be an effective tool in helping to keep the community on track during the five-year period between major community plan review and update. It must be understood that it is likely that these projects may evolve, some may expand, and some may even, in the final analysis, receive little or no attention as new and shifting priorities arise throughout the time period. This list, however, as a starting point, with a guarantee of periodic status review by the Planning Commission and others, ensures that the process of continuous planning remains an essential piece of the overall planning program for the community. All who are interested in the future of the community are encouraged to review the list, and to understand how this series of projects are, in fact, designed to be the moving parts of a larger engine designed to move the community forward in new and exciting directions in keeping with the principles espoused in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Planning Staff review of development plans

Description/Comments

I. Planning Process Review/Analysis

Announced as a community priority for new Administration and Council. It is assumed that this project would involve a major community-based, facilitated process.

The scope of this project would be to review the process utilized for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan While many aspects of the process worked as anticipated, certain other parts of the process may not have succeeded as a forum for public discussion of the issues and the Planning Commission’s review and decision making process. This project would include a review and critique of the process, and would consider alternative process models for the next update process.

Listed due to creation of Council Ad-Hoc Committee in January 2007. Scope, intent and duration of group not articulated as of date of adoption of Implementation.

Project is listed due to announcement of Mayor’s intent to initiate broad policy-based discussions centered on regional cooperation. Full scope, duration, and intent of group not articulated as of date of adoption of Implementation.

II. Plans

A desirable element designed to complement the principle of continuous planning and evaluation of effectiveness of initiatives undertaken.

A major plan study identified as a priority area for a major small area plan effort. Encompasses the area roughly from Downtown to New Circle Road, between the Winchester Road and Georgetown Street corridors.

Implementation Table

Description/Comments

II. Plans

Essentially a subset of the Central Sector; this area may be studied as a separate, but related small area plan effort due to Council identification of funds for the Third Street area in the fall of 2006.

In response to various land use plan requests, the Planning Commission identified this corridor between Waller Avenue and Southland Drive as an area warranting a small area plan study.

In response to various land use plan requests, the Planning Commission identified this corridor generally between Wilson-Downing Road and the Jessamine County line as an area warranting a small area plan study.

Evaluate Rural Corridor Studies undertaken in past for update and possible inclusion as elements of the 2007

III. Recommended Studies

Building upon the decision to not expand the Urban Service Area, the scope of this project is to examine all possible approaches to increasing population. The goal should be to systematically identify the most productive methods, and follow with an implementation program. Benchmarking and tracking to quantify the results should be an inherent part of this project. B

This project would build upon the study recommendations in III-A by providing analysis of population absorption and land use. C

Intended as a companion study to the successful Residential Infill and Redevelopment study from 2002. This study is intended to provide recommendations for regulatory and other changes necessary to spur compatible commercial development opportunities within the near-downtown area of the community. Project has been requested in numerous LFUCG budgeting cycles. D

This project proposes a broad-based housing market assessment for the Infill/Redevelopment area. It would build upon a similar (but more limited study) conducted as a part of the Downtown Planning effort to identify target markets, preferred housing types, and price points for infill and redevelopment housing in the Lexington market. A second, related study would design a marketing strategy to attract development based upon the market assessment. E

This study will complement the recently completed vacant land inventory by identifying parcels that seem to have a very high potential for redevelopment. Taken together, this information will provide a potent tool for facilitating redevelopment. The information has intrinsic value in the land market, and can also assist in identifying barriers to redevelopment and/or opportunities for focused incentives.

Implementation Table

III. Recommended Studies

Description/Comments

This project advocates further review and public discussion of the proposal to revise one- and two-way street systems in downtown Lexington. The scope of this discussion would include cost estimates, traffic impact, required approval from state and federal agencies, and similar information that is needed prior to implementation of changes.

IV. Core Base Studies for Next Comprehensive Plan

Develop an ongoing program of analyzing the priorities and funding of sanitary sewer construction and improvements. Help ensure information is current as the Planning Commission considers updating its comprehensive plans. Develop a static hydraulic model of the entire sewage conveyance system and maintain model as a normal course of work within the Division of Water and Air Quality.

Implementation Effort

Implementation

Fiscal Year, Subject to Annual Work Program

Lead Agency or Section of the Division of Planning (* Consultant Recommended)

V. Projects/Programs

A Develop neighborhood assistance program/activities Pending budget support Planning

Description/Comments

(FOR INFORMATION ONLY)

Develop a program specifically aimed at providing neighborhood planning support at various levels, including small area plans, sketch plans, conservation plans, problem identification and solving, communication to other LFUCG agencies, and similar activities.

B Affordable housing program Begin 2008 Planning

Create a program designed to address barriers to affordable housing. Consider and implement various mitigating techniques, including those described within the 2007 Comprehensive Plan text as well as other local studies that have identified housing affordability issues.

C Create urban design section Pending budget support LFUCG

D Complete Streets project 2008 Planning

This project would propose to create an urban design section within the Division of Planning. Intended scope recommended to include activities related both to public and private sector projects.

Continuation of current effort to review street cross section and propose new regulations.

Pursue local regulations designed to better address/ preserve cemeteries, in particular, small-scale family or community burial sites encountered in the land development process. F

E Implement enhanced cemetery protection measures

G Develop multiple in-house population projection models

Project scope would include evaluation of key recommendations and developing a specific action plan, to be followed with zoning maps and text amendments as deemed appropriate.

This project would seek to expand in-house staff population projections to reduce reliance on outside sources of data and provide comparative pictures of population growth and absorption.

A wide range of potential activities to be determined as a part of Central Sector Small Area Plan process.

A wide range of potential activities to be determined as a part of the East End Small Area Plan process.

Implementation Table

Description/Comments

V. Projects/Programs

VI. Possible Ordinance or Text Amendment Items

Implementation Table

Description/Comments

VI. Possible Ordinance or Text Amendment Items

C

D Urban/rural corridor enhancement (Setbacks, Landscaping, etc.) Per Plan (See II-H)

E Screening/buffering at USA and RAC boundaries 2008 Planning Services

F Regulations/incentives for revitalization of underutilized commercial areas

G Expansion of affordable housing incentives and/or mandates

H Building/development and zoning code revisions for expanded adaptive reuse of downtown buildings

Ongoing Strategic and Planning Services

Per Program (See V-B) Planning Services

Continuation of current project. At the adoption of the 2007 Plan, a draft manual is under community review.

Potential regulatory changes pursuant to described study.

Continuation of current project. At the adoption of the 2007 Plan, the matter is pending before Council Planning Committee.

Continuation of efforts undertaken as part of Infill/ Redevelopment initiatives. Consider additional approaches pending results of Underutilized Property Survey project (See Project III-E).

Potential implementation of regulations related to promotion of affordable housing if recommended by program described in V-B.

Ongoing Planning Services

I New development neighborhood-building provisions Per Study (See III-G) Strategic and Planning Services

Continue review and analysis of potential code impediments to adaptive reuse; mitigate where possible.

Potential regulatory changes pursuant to described study in III-G.

Plan Data

Public Hearing, 2007 at Government Center

Horse Farm, eastern Fayette County

Courthouse Plaza, Limestone and Church Street

New utility poles behind Henry Clay High School

Plan Data

Summary

The Plan Data Chapter details much of the information that advised the development of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The reports in this chapter show how the community developed its vacant land since 2000 and how many people are expected to live in Fayette County in the future. The data include analyses of demographic trends and past growth as well as a snapshot of Fayette County’s economic condition. With these reports, both the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council were able to evaluate the potential impact of their decisions about the 2007 Comprehensive Plan against other inputs, including community values and standards as well as progressive planning practices. The research is summarized in tables and text that were derived from data collected in field surveys, analysis of a variety of Census and other government reports, and consultation with the Kentucky State Data Center.

From July through December 2005, the Planning staff conducted an inventory of all parcels within the Urban Service Area to determine current land use and identify vacancies. With assistance from student interns, the staff drove or walked by every parcel in the USA and coded a parcel map with land use data. The coding on the paper maps was then digitized in GIS using ArcView software. From the digital files, vacant land was singled out and further classified for its expected short- and longterm development potential. This analysis culled certain parcels that, while vacant to the eye, were already committed to development through approved development plans. The analysis also pointed out parcels that, for a variety of reasons would likely remain vacant for the foreseeable future.

Annual absorption rates were calculated from the difference in vacant land totals between 2000 and 2005 to estimate when the USA would likely be fully developed. The analysis also revealed the rate at which the Expansion Area as a subset of the USA was developing.

Population data reveals past growth rates and projections. Past data were derived from U.S. Census summary files while projections came from the Kentucky State Data Center at the University of Louisville and LFUCG building permits, among others. An exercise that apportioned vacant land by potential densities estimated how many people the current Urban Service Area could accommodate. Demographic characteristics were also identified. An economic analysis looked at federal, state, and local data to show labor and income characteristics, including the role of tourism in the local economy.

Data from these reports are depicted in a variety of tables, charts, and graphs. Many of these reports were considered by officials and citizens throughout the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process. The strategic decision to keep the USA at its 2001 boundary challenges the community to accommodate the expected growth, respond to changing demographics, and remain the economic engine of the Bluegrass. A number of initiatives discussed throughout this Plan provide a framework and path to meeting these challenges.

a c a n t L a n d D a t a

Vacant Land

The following table shows that within just over 10 years, the community could use all of its 8,959 acres of vacant land in the Urban Service Area if development continues at its current rate. Vacant residential land has the least amount of supply remaining while public/semi public land was used the fastest since 2000. Conversely, the industrial land uses had the lowest absorption rate along with the longest time until consumption.

Vacant Land and Absorption Rates - January 2000 - December 2005

There was no vacant HI land in 2001.

12001 Comp Plan vacant acres = 2000 Existing Land Use Inventory January 2000. 2Land Uses RO, DT, IMU1, IMU2, RTHD, RTPS, and OW were not included in this table. The 2000 inventory of vacant land was completed prior to the adoption of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan 3UK owned land (211.9 acres) not counted as vacant in 2000 was counted as vacant in 2005. OPU calculations revised 3-30-06 reflects UK property of 211.9 acres not in absorption.

Vacant Land and Absorption Rates - Expansion Area January 2000 - December 2005

Vacant Land and Absorption Rates - Non-Expansion Area January 2000 - December 2005

12001 Comp Plan vacant acres = 2000 Existing Land Use Inventory January 2000.

2Land Uses RO, DT, IMU1, IMU2, RTHD, RTPS, and OW were not included in this table. The 2000 inventory of vacant land was completed prior to the adoption of the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan

3UK owned land (211.9 acres) not counted as vacant in 2000 was counted as vacant in 2005. OPU calculations revised 3-30-06 reflects UK property of 211.9 acres not in absorption.

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Fayette County’s Population Past and Present

In July 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated Fayette County’s population to be 266,358, up 2.2 percent from the 2000 report of 260,512. Over the same period, the Census Bureau estimated that the population of the United States increased by 4.3 percent and Kentucky’s by 2.6 percent. While Fayette County is not among the Census Bureau’s 100 Fastest Growing Counties where county populations increased by 15.9 percent to 41 percent, the estimates do show a greater increase than Jefferson County at 0.9 percent and much faster than Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio which lost 30,692 people during the same time period.

Decennial Census data indicates that the population of Fayette County has doubled since the 1960 Census. The population increased 32.2 percent from 1960 to 1970, 17.1 percent between 1970 and 1980, and 10.4 percent from 1980 to 1990. The population increased 15.6 percent from 1990 to 2000.

Between 1990 and 2000, the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for Lexington, which includes Fayette, Bourbon, Clark, Jessamine, Madison, Scott, and Woodford Counties, showed significant population growth. In 1990, the MSA’s total population was 405,936 and in 2000 it was 479,198, an increase of 18 percent. The United States experienced a population increase of 13.2 percent between that same period and Kentucky showed an increase of 9.7 percent. Therefore, both Fayette County’s and Lexington’s MSA population grew at a faster rate than the state of Kentucky and the United States between 1990 and 2000. The Census Bureau did not include Madison County as a part of the Lexington MSA for the 1990 Census. Madison County’s 1990 population is included in this report to show a comparison against the 2000 Lexington MSA, in which the Census Bureau did include Madison County. The following chart shows the percentage of increase in population for Fayette and surrounding six counties.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population Growth Rate 1990 to 2000

The following table shows the population for each MSA county over the last 40 years. The populations of Jessamine, Madison, Scott, and Woodford Counties more than doubled while Fayette County’s population very nearly doubled. Bourbon County’s population rose and fell, and Clark County’s population rose at a steady rate but not as fast as the other counties.

Seven-County Population ~ Decennial Census 1960 -

Source : US Census Bureau

Source : US Census Bureau

Since 1960, Fayette County’s population grew at a greater rate than the U.S. and Kentucky, yet the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Fayette County’s growth rate since the 2000 Census is less than the U.S. and Kentucky. The following table contains the total population for the United States, Kentucky, and Fayette County over the past five decennial censuses.

The components of population change are births, deaths, and net migration. Birth and death are natural causes of population change. Population migration is the dynamic process of people moving their residences from one place to another. Domestic migration is the movement from one county to another county within the same state, or from one county to a county in another state within the United States. International migration or immigration is movement from another country into the U.S. Net migration is the balance of all the people moving in and out of Fayette County, whether it was due to domestic migration or international migration. The table below displays the history of births, deaths, and migration from 1960-1999, which produced the population for the Decennial Censuses for Fayette County.

Components of Population Change

Sources: Kentucky Vital Statistics (1960-1997)

Kentucky State Data Center estimates for 1990s

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

In June 2005, time series data was obtained from the Kentucky State Data Center for the years 2000 through 2004. These components of population change are shown on the following table along with the population estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau for each of those years.

Time Series Data

Source: Kentucky State Data Center, 2005

Population Estimates and Future Forecasts

The Kentucky State Data Center’s population estimate and projections for Fayette County, released November 2004, show a 2004 population of 266,358 and a 2010 population projection of 281,613. This would provide an increase of 8.1 percent between the 2000 Census and the 2010 Census. Forty years of history show that Fayette County’s lowest population increase was between 1980 and 1990 at 10.5 percent. In 1999, the KSDC projected the 2000 population of Fayette County to be 242,564. At the 2000 census, there were actually 260,512 persons residing in Fayette County. The 1999 KSDC population estimate for 2000 for Fayette County was 17,948 lower than the actual census taken in 2000. Using the median value between the 1980 to 1990 increase and the 1990 to 2000 increase of 12.99 percent, Fayette County’s population in 2010 would be 294,352. This is 12,739 persons higher than KSDC’s 2004 release of their population projection of 281,613 for 2010.

The residential building permit data and new residential lot data for Fayette County tell a different story for the future population trend. According to a 2004 Division of Planning estimate using residential building permits, demolition permits, vacancy rate, and average household size, Fayette County’s 2004 population was about 14,000 to 15,000 higher than the estimate released for 2004 by both the KSDC and the U.S. Census Bureau. Looking at newly created residential lots, including a small number of new agricultural lots, the number of new residential lots is over 2,000 per year for 2004 and 2005. It should also be noted some of these lots are for multi-family units.

There were 13,930 new residential lots created over these seven years. A majority of these lots are single-family units although some are duplexes and apartments. Simply treating the entire group as single-family lots, using a household size of two and the vacancy rate from the most recent census produces a population increase of over 25,000. This population increase estimated by the creation of new residential lots does not take into account the number of new dwelling units built on existing lots through infill and redevelopment. For example, a parking lot in the downtown area was redeveloped recently into a 54-unit condominium development.

Newly Created Residential Lots 2000 - 2006

The population estimate using residential building permit data reflects a similar increase in population. The following includes building permit data for June 2000 through August 2004. An estimated population of 281,131 for 2004 is indicated using the average household size of 2.29 per the 2000 Census and a vacancy rate of 6.8 percent, also from the 2000 Census.

Fayette County Population Estimate Building Permit Data - August 2004

Source: LFUCG Division of Planning, Plat Logs

Source: LFUCG, Division of Building Inspection, and U.S. Census Bureau

Fayette County Population Estimates

Fayette County Population Projections

This building permit-based population estimate was performed again more recently by Long Range Planning. Using residential permits and demolitions up to October 31, 2005 resulted in a population estimate of 285,156 persons. This 2005 estimate used an even higher vacancy rate of 11 percent and a smaller household size of 2.14, both from the 2004 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau.

In 2003, as part of a “Travel Model Development-Geographic Component” in the Lexington Area TransCAD Model Upgrade Study for the Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Bernardin-Lochmueller & Associates projected Fayette County’s population in 2030 to be 353,484 using a “labor force linkage-cohort survival population” technique. In 2004, the Lexington Area MPO released the 2030 Transportation Plan for Fayette and Jessamine County with a 2030 population forecast of 333,000. The MPO methodology involved using socioeconomic control totals forecasted from 1990, 1995, and 2000 data for labor and population, derived from labor force linkage-cohort survival population technique, households, employment sectors, median household incomes, and personal vehicles. These controls then were used in trip generations for the travel model and disaggregated to the individual Traffic Analysis Zones and population projections from different sources. The following table summarizes the population projections and their sources.

In the Population Projections Table, the population estimates using the residential building permit data were calculated using the increase between 2004 and 2005 as the trend. This trend is assuming that vacancy rate, household size, ratio of residential structure types, demolition rate, and existing land constraints remain constant. Caveats to such trend estimations are to be taken into account. A projected increase in persons age 65 and older will most likely have an impact on housing types, which in turn could alter the trend. Another factor to consider is the nation’s economy. A change in interest rates could modify Fayette County’s housing market as it did in 2003 when the number of new residential lots decreased. Also, with the Urban Service Area residential land availability being lessened due to development, it would be assumed that residential development would slow down. As the available land in the Urban Service Area diminishes, the number of permits for new residential dwelling units would likely slow.

Over the last five decades, Fayette County’s population has almost tripled with the percentage of its population living within the rural area decreasing from 25.3 percent to 4.6 percent. The Urban Service Area boundary has expanded over the years and zoning ordinances have restricted residential development within the Rural Service Area, which have reduced the percentage of the population living within the rural area.

Urban/Rural Population Distribution Fayette County

With the 2001 USA boundary as the limit of urban growth and the remaining vacant residential land within the boundary, population capacity can be estimated. To estimate population capacity, the 2000 Census population was used as a starting point. Then the vacant residential land acres from the 2000 Existing Land Use Inventory was used to derive an estimate on how many dwelling units could be built and an estimate on how many people could live in those additional dwelling units. The additional population was added to the 2000 Census population of Fayette County to arrive at the estimate of 333,048.

Source: US Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1950-2000.

1Total urban population as reported by 1950 Census; New Circle Rd. not complete. Total urban population for 1950, 1960, and 1970 is greater than the population of city of Lexington, based on census definition of urbanized area.

Not included in the inventory of vacant residential land are some land uses that allow a mixed land use in which residential is designated as only a portion of the total land use. It is impossible to know what percentage of each mixed land use may be developed as residential until the final development plan is certified. Infill situations where non-residential land is developed as residential are not included in the vacant land totals. However, these situations do provide new dwelling units. Also, there are a small number of homes being built in the Rural Service Area on agriculturally designated land where one single-family detached home is allowed on a lot. Therefore, the total estimated population capacity could be higher.

Population Capacity Estimate from 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update Land Use Designations

1Dwelling Units per gross acre were used in the calculations and these densities reflect that portions of the land were developed as right of way and greenways.

2The projection was adjusted by the 6.8% residential dwelling unit vacancy rate from 2000 Census.

3 Sources: Tables H32 and H33, Summary File 3, 2000 Census. Note: The Community Center (CC), Transition Area (TA), Scenic Resource Area (SRA), and Scenic Design Area Overlay (SDA) categories were not included in the calculations due to unknown resulting development. They would have a small effect on density allowed.

Daytime Population

The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2000 a daytime population of 290,847 in Fayette County. To derive this number, the census subtracted the number of Lexington residents that commuted out of Fayette County to work and added the number of workers that commuted in from other counties where they reside. This resulted in a 30,335 population increase due to workplace commute.

Source: U.S. Census, Summary File 3

Population Growth by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin

According to the U. S. Census Bureau’s 2000 Census, 20,381 of the 244,455 persons aged 5 years and over living in Lexington-Fayette County spoke a language other than English at home. There were 224,074 people who spoke English, which was the top ranked language. Spanish or Spanish Creole had the second highest number at 9,778. Chinese, French, and German, which were third, fourth, and fifth respectively, ranged from 1,588 to 1,048 each. In addition, there were 31 other languages reporting to be the language spoken at home. This diversity of languages indicates a diversity of races and ethnicities living in Lexington.

The 2000 Census demonstrates that in Fayette County there were more than 40 different race categories. The ethnicity mix of the population and how it changes over time are important factors when considering the needs within the community. While race and Hispanic origin data are provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Kentucky State Data Center, it is not clear if these reports account for all immigrants in Fayette County. Yet immigrants can have a great impact on the social needs of a community.

From 1970 to 1990, Fayette County’s population ethnicity increased gradually in diversity. Between the 1990 and 2000 censuses, the Hispanic population tripled. The Asian population increased at a greater rate than the African American/Black population but the African American/Black population remains the largest population of a minority race in Fayette County.

Woodford

2000 Census, Lexington msa % Workers Working in Fayette

Population by Race

Source: US Census Bureau, Census of Population, 1970-2000. LFUCG 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update

1Hispanic population counts overlap with white and black race counts and are not included in total.

2Count is for 1970 Census category “Persons of Spanish Language.”

32000 Census data figures for “Other” reflect the following race categories: American Indian and Alaska Native (507 persons); Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (83 persons); “some other race” (3,165 persons), and persons with “Two or more races” (4,114 persons).

The highest rates of growth of persons reporting to be of one race were for the Asian, Native Hawaiian, and American Indian/Alaskan Native race. However, the percentage of the overall population for each of these minority races is small, at 2.5, 0.03, and 0.2 respectively. It is more important to look at the change in population ethnicity mix and the increase in population numbers of each race to determine the impact on the cultural needs of the community.

Fayette County Race and Hispanic Origin

Source: Kentucky State Data Center

The increase in the non-White race between 1990 and 2000 made up 41.2 percent of the increase in population. The increase in White Hispanics made up 9.3 percent of the increase in population for that period, while the increase in non-Hispanic Whites made up 49.6 percent of the population increase. These numbers point to the specific trend that Fayette County’s population mix is changing in measurable ways. Fayette County is becoming more ethnically diverse at a gradual pace.

Population Mix: Non-Hispanic White, Hispanic White, and Non-White Population

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Censuses Table: Long Range Planning

Of the 8,561 Hispanics in the 2000 Census, 57.7 percent were white, 31.4 percent were of some other race, and 6.7 percent were of a two or more race combination. Almost three percent of the Hispanics were Black or African-American. The largest non-Hispanic minority group was the Black or African American category at 34,876 persons. In comparison, the population of non-Hispanic Blacks or African Americans was about five times larger than the non-Hispanic Asian population.

The ethnicity of Fayette County’s population is changing gradually over time. From 1990 to 2000, the percentage of persons reporting to be non-White has risen slightly, and the percentage of persons reporting to be Hispanic is slightly higher. The Kentucky Data Center projects the Hispanic population to increase to 40,823 in Fayette County by 2030.

Kentucky State Data Center Projections

Source: Kentucky State Data Center, February 2006.

Economic Analysis

Introduction

Analyzing regional elements related to economic activity provides a critical component to the structuring of a local community’s Comprehensive Plan. Economic activity and established economic trends are both strong indicators of a community’s long-term viability. Activities involved in economic transactions, such as employment, generate the fiscal basis upon which a community can both function and grow. In addition to sustaining the lives of its residents, a region’s economic behaviors influence the way an area’s land use is considered in terms of both the pace of its land development and the specific choices made in land development. The correlation between economic trends and land use is of utmost importance for the future vitality of any forwardthinking community. Correctly identifying economic trends can assist a local community in making the best decisions concerning land use and the promotion of land adaptability when economic trends demand it well into the future.

Two key factors are to be examined when determining a region’s economic health: stability and balance. Stability is an indication of the ability of a local economy to withstand fluctuations in the regional and national economies. Balance refers to the level of diversification of the economy. The more diversified the local economic and employment base, the more difficult it is to disrupt the local economy. As the national economy expands its demand into emerging sectors, a local community’s ability to respond with adequate resources and skills will determine its functional impact in these future sectors.

The following economic analysis, when combined with the studies of population, community facilities, transportation, and land use, supports decisions made related to the location and intensity of growth in Fayette County. The economic vitality of the County is contingent upon wise management of the existing resources and planning to meet future needs.

Labor Force and Employment Characteristics

The Labor Force Characteristics table shows the basic employment characteristics of Fayette County residents from 1975 to 2004. Fayette County’s employment rate has fluctuated somewhat over the years with the changes in the state and national economies, but employment in Fayette County has been stable and generally above state averages. In the years depicted in this table, Fayette County’s highest unemployment rate was 4.9 percent in 1985. While the civilian labor force and total employment in Fayette County has increased steadily since 1975, agricultural employment has fluctuated somewhat and comprised approximately 2.4 percent of the employment in Fayette County in 2004.

Fayette County’s steady growth in civilian labor force numbers indicates a continuing trend in the growth of skilled workers participating in the labor force market. Although Fayette County has seen a fluctuating percentage of its population claiming to be a member of the labor force, as indicated in the Percentage of Population table, these numbers also show that more than half of Lexington’s population claims to be a

member of the labor force since 1980. Such a trend indicates that a steady growth in the county’s population will be mimicked in a steady growth of the labor force. Although such anticipated growth is indicative of a community that must be able to accommodate labor-based activities in the future, it does not reveal what types of economic activities in which the labor force is participating. An examination of industry diversity will tell how Fayette County can better prepare itself for an anticipated future growth in the labor market with correctly identified industry trends and their accompanying land use demands.

Labor Force Characteristics Residents of

Percentage of the Population in the Labor Force Residents of Fayette County

Source: Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development, Kentucky Deskbook for Economic Statistics, Workforce Kentucky.

Source: Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development, Kentucky Deskbook for Economic Statistics. & U.S. Bureau of Census.

Diversification

It is critical to the health of Fayette County’s economy to have diversified employment opportunities to bring about stability and balance. If a community relies too heavily on a single sector of the economy, changes can potentially have negative effects on the economy. A stable local economy can withstand fluctuations in regional and national economies. A balanced economy and work force is diversified, enabling expansion and growth of the economic base. Diversity is achieved through a mixture of job types, skill levels, and company sizes. This helps the local economy stabilize itself and minimizes the impact of plant closings, relocations, or layoffs. While manufacturing has shown a declining role in Fayette County’s economy, it is still a significant part of the regional economy. Although manufacturing employs only 9.1 percent of the workforce in Fayette County, it represents a much larger percentage of wages and salaries. Fayette County’s economy also continues to show the strength of being the regional trade and service center for Central Kentucky. The Non-Agricultural Employment table displays the number of Fayette County’s non-agricultural workers employed in the various sections of the economy since 1986 and the percent change by employment sector from 1996 to 2004. Starting in 2001 the industry category coding system changed from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) as shown in the table below.

Non-Agricultural Employment by Industry Category by Place of

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Source: Cabinet for Economic Development; Kentucky Deskbook of Economic Statistics, 2004, 1998, 1992, and 1988 combined with data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment, and Workforce Kentucky; Quarterly Workforce Indicators, 2004.

Although Mining & Quarrying showed significant gains overall since 1996, this category still comprises the smallest portion of Fayette County’s overall nonagricultural industry sector. While it appears that State and Local Government suffered a great setback from 1996 to 2004, the difference was actually a result of the change in industry classification systems and how positions were categorized. Manufacturing employment suffered a 17.4 percent setback, with fewer jobs than in 1986. Conversely, the trend of the category of Services shows dominance in employment numbers at more than 40 percent of all industries, and a steady growth reveals that there is less potential for development. Although such strong numbers reveal a healthy industry category, it should be noted that services also comprise a relatively low marginal rate of wages and salaries. A greater focus on diversification away from this category is necessary if Fayette County is to continue to be a leader in employment opportunity.

While trends in the labor force are indicative of employment opportunities provided by specific industry employers, another equally important employment trend is also on the rise in Fayette County – self-employment. The U.S. Census Bureau categorizes self-employed workers as non-employers. A non-employer business is defined as one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries), and is subject to federal income taxes. The U.S. Census Bureau tracks non-employers through received business income tax returns and does not attempt to distinguish filings. Thus, it is possible, a single filer may be filing on behalf of more than one non-employer venture.

The U.S. Census Bureau states that many non-employer ventures are also considered part-time and does not attempt to distinguish part-time non-employers from full-time. In this sense, it is possible that a part-time non-employer is filing both as a nonemployer and as an employee of another industry. Although these limitations point to the intractability of specific non-employers, this should not diminish the significance of the overall non-employer population count. As a member of Fayette County’s skilled labor force, these non-employers are contributing their entrepreneurial knowhow to the development of Lexington’s economic stability.

Caveats in the non-employer population count are balanced by examining the overall receipts claimed by this specific community. A steady growth in receipts claimed by this community reflects that non-employers’ overall economic contribution to Fayette County is growing. The population counts may be inflated considering double counting by a single filer. Analyzing non-employer receipts can give a clear picture of the fiscal impact the self-employment categories are having on Fayette County’s economic health.

The Non-employer Force Characteristics table examines the non-employer industry as a whole, as well as a breakdown of the individual employment characteristics for non-employers from 1997 to 2003. Encompassing such a small time frame of six years, this chart serves as a snapshot of Fayette County’s current non-employer statistics. Showing the strongest growth of employers claiming non-employer status from 1997 to 2003 are the categories of Educational Services; Real Estate, Rental,

and Leasing; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation; and Administrative, Support, Waste Management, and Remediation Service.

Given the short-term timeframe that Fayette County’s non-employer statistics cover, it is reasonable to assume that trends in non-employer industry growth should be analyzed for their immediate impacts on projected land use. However, examining the overall industry growth in terms of receipts received by non-employers, it is apparent that there is economic opportunity to be found in the non-employer sector as the Total Receipts table shows. This particular employment sector has exhibited steady economic growth since local statistics were first recorded in 1997, except for a small decline from 1998-1999.

Non-employer Force Characteristics

Total Receipts Received in Fayette County

An economic overview of trends in Fayette County’s employment sectors would not be complete without looking at resident incomes. The Median Household Income table charts the median income levels for Fayette County from 1989 to 2003. The median household income means that half of Fayette County’s households earn more than the median amount and half earn less. The median income data also provides a comparison with the national and state data.

Although Fayette County did experience a spike in median income as compared to the national median income in 2003, Fayette County’s median income once again was below the national median. This comparison is balanced by the data showing Kentucky’s statewide median income. Historically, Fayette County’s median income levels have been significantly higher than the State. As an anomaly of the statewide income performance, Fayette County serves as regional performer in providing nationally competing income levels to its residents. The trend of Fayette County’s median income levels comprising 94 percent or more of the national median income level for nearly 15 years is indicative of the region’s responsiveness to national, rather than state economic fluctuations.

Median Household Income

Fayette County

However, median income levels fail to reveal completely the income status for a region. By looking at the composition of an area’s population living in poverty (as shown in the Poverty Levels table), incomes are better understood as a spread between poverty and sustainable incomes. Looking at the data in the Poverty Levels table, it is noteworthy that Fayette County’s poverty population percentage has shown relatively little fluctuation in nearly 15 years. Although the percentage of the overall population has remained within a range of 12 to 13 percent, the population of those living in poverty has grown as the overall population of Fayette County has grown.

Fayette County Poverty Levels by Percentage of Population

Source: Small Area and Area Poverty Estimate, U.S. Census Bureau.

Source: Small Area and Area Poverty Estimate, U.S. Census Bureau.

Fayette County, Kentucky, and the U.S. have all shown declines in the percentage of those living in poverty from 1995 to 2003, with Fayette County’s decline being the smallest at a .3 percent reduction. Although it is difficult to forecast a trend in poverty rates without a more substantial economic study, these numbers do depict a region with a significant amount of its population living in poverty.

Commuting Patterns

The commuting patterns into and out of a county for employment purposes can be a significant factor in the county’s economy. Fayette County’s workforce commuting patterns describe what portion of residents are traveling out of the County to find work, as well as what portion of other counties’ and states’ residents are traveling to Fayette County for employment. These outflows and inflows can give an overall view of how well Fayette County’s employers are meeting both in- and out-of-county demand. The Commuting Patterns table depicts commuting patterns for Fayette County residents as well as Fayette County workers for 1990 and 2000.

Commuting Patterns

Approximately 30 percent of the workers in Fayette County commute in from another county or state as of the 2000 U.S. Census, an increase of two percent of the total of workers commuting from outside the county in the 1990 Census. Additionally, the data in the Commuting Patterns table indicates that 14 percent of workers residing in Fayette County commuted out of Fayette County into other Kentucky counties or states in 2000. This is an increase of four percent from the total percentage of workers commuting out of Fayette County for work in 1990. An increase such as this indicates that while the total number of workers residing in

Source: 1990 U.S. Census Data: Journey to Work Characteristics; 2000 U.S. Census Data: County – to County Worker Flow Files.

Fayette County had increased from 1990 to 2000, so had the number of workers lost to employers in areas outside of Fayette County. The increase of four percent is not so large as to point to an alarming trend. However, a continued effort to keep employees living and working in Fayette County is still a means to creating economic viability.

Major Employers

The Major Employers table lists Fayette County’s 25 largest employers. These employers include university, hospital, and government offices as well as manufacturing employers. The Major Employers MSA table lists the top 15 major employers in the Fayette County Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Fayette County MSA consists of Scott, Bourbon, Clark, Madison, Jessamine, and Woodford Counties. While manufacturing represents only approximately nine percent of Fayette County’s workers, significant manufacturing jobs exist in the MSA.

Major Employers in Fayette County

January 2006

* Excludes Hospital and Auxiliary Employees

Source: Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce combined with data from the 2005-2006 University of Kentucky Fact Booklet (published by the University of Kentucky Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness).

Source: Data from the Greater Lexington Chamber of Commerce Tourism

The Travel Expenditures table depicts the direct impact travel expenditures have on Fayette County. Using an application of the Traveler and Tourism Satellite Accounts (TTSA) first developed by the Bureau of Economic Activity in 1997, this methodology attempts to quantify traveler spending at the local level. TTSAs attempt to track information about economic activities that cut across one or more industry sectors, yet still directly apply to the specific financial transactions that occur with traveling and tourism.

Noted as the “Horse Capital of the World” and located in the prime agricultural region of the Bluegrass state, Fayette County is a viable tourist destination. Located at the juncture of the two main Interstate arteries, I-75 and I-64, Lexington is also a main thoroughfare point for the ground travel industry. Within a day’s drive of 75 percent of the country and home to many recreational activities, Lexington is an alluring tourist destination that continues to grow in popularity.

Recent years have shown a rapid rise in tourism growth for Fayette County, both in number of visitors and dollars spent on tourism-associated activities. In 1997, the Bureau of Economic Activity developed the Industry Ratios. These ratios were established as general portions to be applied by local entities to an industry’s overall receipt total in order to develop a more accurate picture of tourism economic activity. Local tourism activity is currently not tracked by the U.S. Economic Census, which

means lapses in accuracy may exist for ratios that truly reflect Fayette County’s travel economics. Still, these ratios applied to an economic sector’s total receipts offer a best-fit picture of how travelers spend money in a specific region. Travel Expenditures examines the breakdown of receipts by specific travel-related industries after the TTSA ratios have been applied in 1997 and 2002. A decline in the category of Hotels and Lodging Places reflect a larger national trend of an overall decline in travel in the U.S. As hotels are most often frequented by visitors traveling longer distances, this decline is reflective of the larger, national decline in long-distance, domestic travel during this time period. The terrorist events of September 11, 2001 and the enforced air restrictions led to a well-documented, immediate drop in all travel both into and out of the U.S., as well as domestic travel in 2001. In this sense, these events led to an unnatural trend that is difficult to account for in a time-trend analysis.

This theory is held true by the gains made in the categories of Eating and Drinking, Amusement and Recreation, Spectator Sports, Retail Trade, and Auto Repair and Services. These categories are reflective of activities that can be enjoyed both by long-distance domestic and international travelers, and by short-distance domestic travelers. Given the relative decline in hotel usage, but the upsurge in most other categories, it is easy to assume that Fayette County experienced a high level of shortdistance, domestic travel tourism even during the national decline in domestic travel. Experiencing such a trend in short-distance tourism should not negate the importance of planning for a large influx of both long and short-distance tourism expected with the 2010 World Equestrian Games to be held in Lexington. This multi-day, globally recognized event is expected to attract thousands of visitors and bring international recognition to Lexington through the Games’ worldwide telecast. Further analysis of the Games’ impact should be done in conjunction with the already high volume of short-distance, domestic travel Fayette County receives.

Source: 1997 and 2002 U.S. Economic Census combined with U.S. Travel and Tourism Satellite Accounts for 20012004, Pete Kuhbach and Bradlee A Herauf, published in the Survey of Current Business.

Public Participation

Public Input 2006 - Beaumont Library

Public Input 2005 Eagle Creek Library

Central Library, Main Street

MPO Public Input meeting

Public Participation

Introduction

Public participation was a hallmark of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process. From January 2005 to April 2007, the Planning Commission held 47 work sessions, public hearings, and community public input meetings to seek and consider public comments and staff presentations. All of the work sessions and public hearings were televised on cable’s GTV3. Throughout this span of meetings, hundreds of citizens addressed the Planning Commission and submitted emails, letters, and comment forms. The Urban County Council Planning Committee and Urban County Council held 17 meetings regarding the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, with most of the meetings concentrating on the Goals and Objectives. The Council Planning Committee held four public workshops to collect public input for the Goals and Objectives and the Urban County Council accepted public comment at all of its Comprehensive Plan meetings. Public input, neighborhood involvement, and citizen comments were specifically recommended by the 2007 Goals and Objectives in four of the goals and five of the objectives.

Public input 2005, Eagle Creek Library

the Goals and Objectives consisted of five public input meetings at the public libraries in February 2005 and one regional input meeting at the Bluegrass Area Development District hosted by the ADD’s Regional Planning Council in March 2005.

Each of the library meetings was held from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m. and followed the same format for presentations and participation. The purpose of these meetings was to introduce the 2007 Comprehensive Plan process, collect opinions about the attributes and shortcomings of Lexington, and gather input for the Goals and Objectives. Over 200 people attended the meetings, including members of the Urban County Council, Planning Commission, Fayette County Board of Education, and numerous citizens. These meetings were publicized on the LFUCG Web site, the GTV3 calendar, and in a GTV3 Close-Up feature. Press releases resulted in articles in the Lexington Herald-Leader, ACE, and features on commercial and public radio stations. Sign-in sheets at each meeting were used to collect contact information to add to a growing email/mailing list for notification of upcoming Comprehensive Plan meetings and newsletters.

During the 2005 library public outreach meetings, staff provided an overview of the comprehensive plan process and showed population projections for Fayette County. This was followed by group exercises to collect public opinion for the Goals and Objectives, as well as for use in other elements of the comprehensive plan. In one of the exercises, participants were asked to define three likes and dislikes about Lexington-Fayette County. The audience was given blank index cards to write their top likes and dislikes anonymously. These were collected and read to the audience. There was also an open comments session at these meetings. The comments of many of the speakers clustered around the theme of rural preservation for economic, environmental, and aesthetic reasons.

The Bluegrass Area Development District Regional Planning Council (BGADD RPC) invited the Division of Planning to conduct a similar presentation at its March 2005 meeting. The presentation format used at the libraries, including, group exercises, and open discussions, was used at the RPC meeting. Likes and dislikes about LexingtonFayette County were collected from representatives of cities and counties within the 17-county ADD, which the staff later reported to the Planning Commission.

Top five likes

Top Five dislikes

The Planning Division met with a variety of interest groups throughout the development of the Goals and Objectives and later during development of the other elements of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan to seek input and to keep the groups informed about the process. These groups included:

Fayette County Neighborhood CouncilLFUCG Rural Settlement Alliance

Fayette County Public Schools LFUCG Tree Board

BGADD Regional Planning CouncilLFUCG Council Planning Committee

Home Builders Association of LexingtonBlue Grass Airport

Commerce Lexington YMCA of Central Kentucky

Fayette County Farm Bureau Leadership Central Kentucky

Human Rights CommissionAffordable Housing Leadership Lexington

LFUCG Greenspace Commission

Ministers’ Meeting of Area Independent Christian Churches

These organizations were invited to prepare issue statements and attend public meetings related to the Goals and Objectives for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. Throughout the entire process of developing the Goals and Objectives, the Planning Commission received hundreds of comments from individuals and groups in various forms, including emails and comment forms. These comments are on file in the Division of Planning.

Besides GTV3 coverage and editorials and articles in the local press, the Planning staff contacted hundreds of citizens and interest groups to inform them about the Planning Commission meetings and the availability of the draft Goals and Objectives. When possible, email was used to contact constituents.

Public Hearings for the Goals and Objectives

Over the spring and summer of 2005, the Planning Commission studied the feedback from the public meetings and the issues raised by the local organizations as they drafted the Goals and Objectives. In July 2005, the Planning Commission completed the draft and scheduled public hearings to take comments on the draft.

The Planning Commission conducted three public hearings to consider the Goals and Objectives. The first hearing was on September 15, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing, which was televised live on GTV3, was to receive citizen comment about the draft Goals and Objectives. Over 40 citizens attended, of which 14 spoke, with some of the speakers offering amendments to the draft. The second televised public hearing was on September 29, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. At that meeting, the Planning Commission considered 60 proposed changes by citizens and organizations and decided whether to include them in the draft Goals and Objectives. On October 20, 2005 at 1:30 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a third televised public hearing and unanimously adopted the Goals and Objectives.

These three meetings were publicized through news and community events, local press articles, and legal ads in the Lexington Herald-Leader. They were also announced on the GTV3 calendar and in a Close-Up feature. Notice was posted on the LFUCG Web site along with a readable and printable version of the draft Goals and Objectives. Notice about the September 2005 public hearings was sent to all participants who registered their contact information at the February 2005 public input meetings and to citizens, agents, attorneys, and others who expressed a particular interest in changing a land use or modifying the Urban Service Area boundary. Notice was also sent to the interest groups that had met with the Planning staff throughout the year. Per state statutory requirements, Planning Commissions for all jurisdictions in adjacent counties were notified about all three public hearings. In addition, notice of the September public hearings was sent to:

• Lexington-Bluegrass Association of Realtors

• Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau

• Keeneland Association, Inc

• SOIL, LLC

• Bluegrass Conservancy

• Blue Grass Army Depot

Urban County Council

In November 2005, the Urban County Council Planning Committee began considering the Goals and Objectives recommended by the Planning Commission, including the previously collected public comments. The Council Planning Committee held four public workshops in December 2005 and January 2006 to take comment about the Goals and Objectives. Overall, the Council Planning Committee met 10 times from August 2005 to February 2006, with four meetings being public work sessions, to review the Goals and Objectives before presenting their final draft to the Council for consideration. The Urban County Council held five public meetings, accepting public comment at all with one being a public forum, before adopting the Goals and Objectives at the Council Meeting on March 9, 2006.

Timeline for Goals and Objectives Development and Approval

Urban Service Area Boundary Criteria

In June 2006, the Planning Commission began reviewing the Urban Service Area Boundary Criteria adopted as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. The Planning Commission received public comment about the Urban Service Area boundary and its criteria at a public comment meeting on June 29, 2006. Prior to this public comment meeting a letter of notice was sent to 796 citizens and organizations. Public comments on the USA boundary criteria are on file in the Division of Planning. After considering the Urban Service Area boundary criteria at four work sessions and a public comment meeting, the Planning Commission approved the final Criteria for the Urban Service Area boundary at a work session on August 17, 2006, which resulted in a new “Urban Service Area Boundary Criteria Statement” and the addition of two new criteria, which is also in the Appendix.

Public Outreach for Land Use and Other Plan Elements

For past Comprehensive Plans, landowners were given the opportunity to formally file an application to change their land use designations, which were reviewed and individually considered during the development of the Land Use Chapter and Map. For the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission asked citizens to complete a Citizen Proposal form that would be used to gauge community interest in changing land uses in areas throughout the community. The Citizen Proposal form was made available to the public both by printed copy and via the LFUCG Website with a submittal deadline of December 16, 2005. Eighty citizen proposals were received and both a list of those proposals and a map of the approximate locations of those proposals were published on the Website and featured in the Lexington Herald-Leader. Several additional citizen proposals were presented to the Planning Commission after the deadline at work sessions and hearings. Staff used the proposal information to create maps and collect relevant information for presentation to the Planning Commission for discussion. Staff presented the proposals in terms of their overall effect on general areas, or Fayette County as a whole. Some proposals led to land use changes and others to the designation of future small area plans.

Between January and August 2006, the Planning Commission held 11 work sessions and nine public comment meetings. During the summer 2006 meetings, the Planning Commission reviewed Citizen Proposals to expand the Urban Service Area and took public comments on the proposals. By the beginning of September 2006, the Planning Commission had received over 130 written comments, and more than 80 citizen proposals for land use changes, with about 40 percent of the proposals being for land outside the Urban Service Area. With information from work sessions, discussions, and public comment meetings during summer 2006, the Planning Commission developed a draft map of future land uses to present at another round of public outreach meetings at local libraries in September and October 2006. The Division of Planning had over 900 people in its contacts database by this time, which was used to notify the public of these public input meetings.

At these public input meetings held in the public libraries, Planning staff presented the relationship between population growth and land absorption, and the land use changes being considered by the Planning Commission, including possible Urban Service Area boundary expansions. The focus of these meetings was to invite

comment about land use and any other issues of concern relating to other elements of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, such as Community Facilities, Transportation, and Historic Preservation.

Comment forms received at the public meetings along with emails received by staff were available on the LFUCG Website. The Planning Commission received copies of the comment forms and emails along with a summation completed by staff. The main topic of interest at these public meetings was whether to expand the Urban Service Area boundary and related issues. Below is a summary of these comments favoring and opposing expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary.

Expand the usa: Affordability, Housing Options and the Building Industry as an Employer

Proponents of expansion saw sanitary sewer and storm water infrastructure as significant issues that should be addressed. They contended, however, that green field development does not contribute to the existing problems. Expansion proponents also cited the changing demographics and household makeup as a need for more houses, noting that household size is decreasing and demand is increasing for a wide variety of housing types that address needs and desires based on the homeowner’s age, income, family status, and lifestyle.

Homebuilder representatives stated that as an industry, they are among the largest employers in Fayette County and contribute significantly to the local economy through taxes and investments. They also noted that affordability was affected by the cost of land and that a tightly constrained supply greatly increases the cost of land and houses.

Other proponents of expansion noted the desire of families to live in a community that afforded their children a place to work and live.

Do not expand the usa: Sanitary Sewers, Storm Water and New Development

Citizens who opposed expanding the Urban Service Area boundary reasoned that problems with existing infrastructure, in particular sanitary and storm water conveyance systems should be addressed first. There were numerous references to the declining housing market and several questions about the population projections.

There were concerns about the high cost of housing and the lack of affordable housing. There were numerous questions raised about development design and the need for more options in the development codes. There was also the belief that citizens in existing developments bear a disproportionate share of the cost of new development.

Public input 2005, Northside Library

Public Hearings for Land Use

In January 2007, the Planning Commission held two hearings for public comment concerning drafts of the Land Use Map and the Land Use Chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. These drafts were available for public review at the Division of Planning, the Public Libraries, and the LFUCG Website. After hearing comments from 54 citizens, the Planning Commission adopted the Land Use Map and text with a vote of eight to one at the January 22, 2007 public hearing.

Public Hearings for Remaining Plan Elements

The public outreach meetings held in February 2005 and again in September 2006 revealed issues related to other elements of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission considered this public input along with additional comments received in 2007. As a response to public input, the Planning Commission addressed affordable housing and historic preservation in Housing and Neighborhoods; environmental concerns, including storm water, water quality, and environmentallyfriendly buildings, in Environmental and Green Infrastructure; and concerns for adequate schools and public safety in Community Facilities. The newly required consideration for Military Installations is addressed in the 2007 Comprehensive Plan.

Additional public comment was received regarding Community Facilities, Environmental and Green Infrastructure, Affordable Housing, Historic Preservation, Military Installations, and Transportation over three public meetings in March 2007. Notification for these meetings included a legal ad, letters to Planning Commissions in surrounding counties, and notice to 1,189 citizens and organizations. A public hearing to adopt these elements was held on March 29, 2007. At a public hearing on April 16, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted the Implementation chapter.

Public Meetings for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Public Meetings for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Public Meetings for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Meeting Topic Date Type Host

Goals and Objectives

Goals and Objectives

January 26, 2006Public Forum Council Planning Committee

February 21, 2006 Review of Goals and Objectives Council Planning Committee

Adoption of Goals and ObjectivesMarch 9, 2006Public Hearing Urban County Council

Population Projections and Land Use Absorption

March 16, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

Land Use and Rural Sewer StudyApril 20, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

Land Use

Land Use

Land Use

Land Use and USA Boundary Criteria

Update on the Comprehensive Plan Process

USA Boundary Criteria

Land Use and USA Boundary Criteria

Land Use

USA Boundary Review and Land Use

USA Boundary Review and Land Use

USA Boundary Review and Land Use

May 15, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

May 18, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

June 12, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

June 15, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

June 20, 2006Work Session Council Planning Committee

June 29, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

July 17, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

July 20, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

August 14, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

August 17, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

August 31, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

Land Use and USA BoundarySeptember 11, 2006Public OutreachDivision of Planning

Land Use and USA BoundarySeptember 18, 2006Public OutreachDivision of Planning

Downtown Master Plan and RecapSeptember 21, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

Land Use and USA BoundarySeptember 25, 2006Public OutreachDivision of Planning

Land Use and USA BoundaryOctober 2, 2006Public OutreachDivision of Planning

Land Use and USA BoundaryOctober 9, 2006Public OutreachDivision of Planning

Review of Community Input from Public Outreach

USA Boundary Considerations and Introduction of Green Infrastructure Draft

Housing Vacancy

October 16, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

October 19, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

October 23, 2006Public Comment Planning Commission

Public Meetings for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

Land Use Plan

Land Use and Expansion Alternatives

Land Use Text and Map

November 13, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

November 16, 2006Work Session Planning Commission

January 18, 2007Public Comment Planning Commission

Adoption of Land Use Text and MapJanuary 22, 2007Public Hearing Planning Commission

Land Use

Community Facilities, Green Infrastructure, Historic Preservation, and Transportation

Adoption of: Environment & Green Infrastructure

Community Facilities

Transportation

Military Installations

Housing & Neighborhoods –Historic Preservation

Adoption of Housing & Neighborhoods - Affordable Housing

Adoption of Implementation

February 15, 2007Work Session Planning Commission

March 12, 2007Public Hearing Planning Commission

March 15, 2007Public Hearing Planning Commission

March 29, 2007Public Hearing Planning Commission

April 16, 2007Public Hearing Planning Commission

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Four members of the Urban County Planning Commission

Bluegrass 10K, Vine Street

Reclaimed flood plain, Maywick Drive

Mixed-use development from Avenue of Champions

Lexington-Fayette County’s Planning History

Lexington-Fayette County is located in the heart of the Bluegrass Region of Central Kentucky and is the center of the region’s economic, educational, health and cultural activities. Surrounding the urban area, scenic vistas of expansive farmland and horse farms, gently rolling hills, and slow meandering streams characterize the countryside. Lexington-Fayette County measures 285 square miles, with a developing urban core of 85 square miles, surrounded by 200 square miles of rural land.

Lexington has grown over the years -- from a small cabin constructed in 1775 by William McConnell along Town Branch, to the thriving primary urban center of Central Kentucky that it is today. In 1781, the Virginia Legislature ratified Lexington’s first town plat which covered 710 acres of land laid out in a gridiron street pattern, with one-half acre urban lots and five-acre rural lots. The urban settlement’s centrally located town commons provided open space for meetings, markets, and recreation, while protecting the town’s water supply. Horse racing on the commons was an early indication that Lexington would become the “Horse Capital of the World.”

In 1792, when Kentucky became the 15th state of the Union by separating from Virginia, Lexington was the state’s largest city and one of the leading manufacturing centers in the west. By the 1880s, with numerous public buildings, including a university and a public library, as well as hundreds of business establishments, Lexington was commonly referred to as the “Athens of the West” and was the most elegant and fashionable city west of the Alleghenies. Transylvania University was training many of the nation’s leaders and promoting educational and cultural activities, while town trustees were initiating such public improvements as paving streets and sidewalks with brick, expanding the town’s water supply, and installing street lighting. In 1832, Lexington was incorporated as a city by the Kentucky Legislature. Throughout this period of growth, Lexington was fortunate to have had prudent, insightful planning.

Lexington’s evolution from a colonial town to a modern urban community has relied on its rich tradition of planning to cope with the significant problems posed by rapid urban development, expansion, and population growth. During the first decades of this century, city planning emerged as an organized and recognized special discipline, with Lexington playing an active role in this field from the beginning. A significant example of early planning efforts is the Ashland Park Subdivision. Designed by the firm founded by the internationally known landscape architect and planner Frederick Law Olmsted, this subdivision is known for its well-maintained stately homes, intricate street pattern, and landscaped open spaces. Built during the 1920s through the 1940s, the area still retains its beautiful woodland residential character. Several other established neighborhoods are also noted for attractive tree-lined streets and yards, which help define Lexington’s special sense of place.

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Old Fayette County Courthouse, Main Street

The first Fayette County Planning and Zoning Commission was created in 1928 by the City Charter. It consisted of seven members, including the Mayor, the Commissioner of Public Works, the County Road Engineer, three appointed members from the City, and one appointed member from the County. The City Engineer was substituted for the Commissioner of Public Works in 1932 when the Mayor-Commission form of government was replaced by the City Manager form of government.

State legislation changed the composition of the Planning and Zoning Commission from seven to ten members in 1958, which consisted of the City Manager, City Engineer, County Commissioner, County Road Engineer, three appointed members from the City, and three appointed members from the County. This arrangement remained in effect until 1966, when a new agreement between the City and County was signed that established an eight-member City-County Planning Commission, consisting of the City Engineer, County Engineer, three appointed members from the city and three appointed members from the county. In 1972, a citizen member replaced the City Engineer. By October 1974, following the merger of the City and County governments on January 1, 1974, a citizen member replaced the County Engineer.

First subdivision considered by the City Planning Commission, Oldham Avenue

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission was created by charter under the merged form of government and was declared the official planning unit of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. By October 1974, the Planning Commission consisted entirely of lay members. From this time forward, all vacancies have been filled through a combined effort of a nomination by the Mayor and confirmation by the Council. In 1986, membership on the Planning Commission increased from eight members to its current eleven-member composition.

One of the most significant duties of the Planning Commission is the adoption of a long-range vision and plan for the community, as well as various regulatory documents which guide the development of the area. The first Subdivision Control Regulations were adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1929, and the first Zoning Ordinance was adopted by the Board of City Commissioners in 1930. This was followed in 1931 by the adoption of the first Comprehensive Plan by the City-County Planning and Zoning Commission. (All of these documents were prepared by the highly respected consulting firm of Ladislas Segoe from Cincinnati.) Current State Law requires the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan prior to enactment of regulatory ordinances by a local community.

In 1958, the City-County Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a comprehensive plan amendment that dramatically influenced planning in Lexington. Upon the advice of the city planning consulting firm, Ladislas Segoe, the Commission defined and established the first Urban Service Area in the United States. This concept delineated the location of urban growth by dividing the county into an Urban Service Area, where development is encouraged, and a Rural Service Area, where urban-oriented activities are not permitted. Areas of future growth within the Urban Service Area were identified so that complex urban services and facilities, public and private, could be developed logically and economically. In 1991, the American Institute of Certified Planners recognized the Urban Service Area of Lexington as a National Historic Planning Landmark. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the City began to develop detailed neighborhood area plans for all land in the Urban Service Area. Detailed economic and demographic projections were prepared, as were plans for expansion of public and private facilities throughout the Urban Service Area.

The 1980 Comprehensive Plan focused on the evolving perspective of the growth management process as a tool to guide and coordinate the many public and private development activities that impact the community’s urban fabric. Lexington-Fayette County has long been aware of the problems associated with uncontrolled sprawl development, particularly with regard to the potentially devastating effects of urban growth on valuable agricultural, horse farm, natural, cultural, and scenic resources. Looking toward the future of Lexington-Fayette County from 1980 to 2000, the community formulated a Growth Planning System to accommodate the projected population, while simultaneously preventing sprawl and maintaining horse farms, agricultural lands, and environmentally sensitive areas.

The 1988 Comprehensive Plan provided direction to shape the growth, maintenance, and redevelopment of the community. The 1988 Plan refinements first focused the overall growth projection for Lexington and confirmed the adequacy of land within the Urban Service Area to serve future needs. It also refined policies and strategies to influence the character of future development and redevelopment and updated specific land use and public facility plans to guide Lexington’s vision of the future.

In 1996, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government was once again on the cutting edge of land use planning. During the preparation of the 1996 Comprehensive Plan, new concepts for growth management emerged. The Expansion Area Master Plan (EAMP) was developed in response to the development pressures experienced by the community and the resultant expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary. The detailed EAMP is intended to provide lands for development and conservation in the designated planning areas. Density and design criteria for housing, town center oriented shopping areas, public facilities, infrastructure, boulevards, greenways, and open space are defined for each of the Expansion Areas in order to create livable, cost effective, aesthetic, safe, and travel-efficient neighborhoods with a clear sense of community identity.

The combined process of developing the 1996 Comprehensive Plan and the EAMP made the community aware of the necessity of looking at the County as a whole. These two planning efforts took place in tandem with the development of a parallel Rural Service Area Land Management Plan (RLMP), which includes a strategy to define areas in the County appropriate for development and areas to be preserved in perpetuity. Planning and preservation of the Bluegrass cultural landscape were strengthened through these efforts and have continued to help achieve the community’s vision as the necessary implementation tools have been enacted.

While considered a minor update, the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update process included a careful review of the policies and strategies set forth in the 1996 Plan and its amendments. It was also a resource document for the community that included an expanded data inventory and analysis section, a detailed community facilities section and a more detailed environmental conditions discussion.

The focus of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan became set on the issue of expanding the Urban Service Area, which the Planning Commission chose not to do. The 2007 Plan addresses the Rural Settlements and sets revised boundaries. The Plan also provides data on development in the Expansion and Infill and Redevelopment Areas as a prelude to development tracking. Finally, the adopted principles from the Downtown Lexington Masterplan embody the wishes of the Planning Commission for a vibrant downtown.

Urban Service Area Boundary Criteria Statement

The following statement and criteria were approved at Planning Commission Work Session, August 17, 2006.

Urban Service Area boundary criteria have been used since the 1988 Comprehensive Plan to assure efficiency and effectiveness in determining the boundary. The criteria for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan are derived from the criteria used in earlier plans and reflect the diversity of issues that should be considered when adjusting the boundary. The criteria address issues related to boundary design and location, rural and environmental protection, public facilities, cost efficiency, and quantity of land. No single element of the criteria, therefore, stands alone as a determinant of boundary adjustment. These criteria have value both as a group and as individual points to assist the Planning Commission in making specific judgments. When used together, however, the criteria interact to offer a comprehensive guide for making effective boundary decisions.

Criteria:

A. The USA boundary should be located so as to achieve or enhance major plan themes and goals.

B. The USA boundary should be located to encourage cost effective and efficient use of public facilities.

C. The land within the USA boundary should be sufficient in quantity to accommodate 20 years of projected population growth and economic development.

D. Land to be brought within the USA boundary should be economically suitable for development.

E. The USA boundary should be located to direct development away from significant or scenic landscapes, as defined in the Greenspace Plan and the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan

Masterson Station Subdivision and Park, Leestown Road

F. The USA boundary should be located to direct development away from prime agricultural land and horse farms.

G. The USA boundary should be located to direct development away from major environmentally sensitive and geologic hazard areas.

H. The USA boundary should be located so as to exclude public facilities that conflict with or inhibit urban development.

I. The USA boundary should follow significant natural or man-made features, such as large lakes; minor and major drainage boundaries; parks; railroads and principal arterials or freeways, wherever appropriate.

J. Urban development should be compact and must be contiguous.

K. The USA boundary line should be located along the tops of ridgelines within drainage basins to allow sewering of the USA in an efficient and economical way, while not putting development pressure on land outside the USA.

L. The USA boundary should include existing development that is contiguous to the existing or planned urban areas.

M. The USA boundary may, but does not have to, follow property lines.

N. The USA boundary should be located to enable, encourage, and stabilize and not conflict with evolving patterns of rural land preservation and protection.

O. There should be a linkage between the expansion of the USA boundary and effective and sustained implementation of the Purchase of Development Rights program, Infill and Redevelopment initiatives, capital funding for expansion, and repair of critical infrastructure.

Notes for Areas of Special Consideration

Owner AddressAcreage

VA Hospital 2250 Leestown Road 141

Land Use Notes

The continued use of this property as a VA Hospital is preferred, including upgrades to the site and facilities. If the property is redeveloped, it should include an integration of high-density residential, professional services, and neighborhood commercial. If a proposed redevelopment is extensive, additional study will be required.

Downing Property NW of Greendale Road and Citation Boulevard intersection

< 10

A Neighborhood Center, which is a mixed-use development with limited retail, creating and enhancing a sense of neighborhood and community including a community focus and common areas including: located near, but not bordering, a major arterial to provide ease of access by vehicles with safety for pedestrians and bicycles; vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle friendly facilities; interconnected streets with adjacent residential areas; human scale architectural or urban design features; encourage a vertical and horizontal mixture of retail, office and residential uses; buildings aligned with street and parking in rear to allow for ease of pedestrian use community focus or common areas; provision of adequate sites nearby for public or semi-public community amenities which contribute to community character such as schools, places of worship, parks or common open space; limiting retail establishments to those with a neighborhood focus and character that provide opportunities for employment and essential services closer to nearby residents, including but not limited to corner groceries, dry cleaners, delicatessens, and barbershops.

University of Kentucky Portion of Coldstream Farm east of Ky. River Coal; Citation Boulevard.

63Medium Density Residential would be appropriate as an alternative use.

15 EAR-1 with appropriate Semi-Public (SP) land use. Design creativity is suggested in the implementation of the redevelopment of these properties.

1

The existing service road from Regency Shopping Center should be extended to Pasadena Drive if the property is redeveloped.

Mixed Use with office and limited neighborhood retail. Should be considered as part of the Central Sector Small Area Plan. Red Mile

4

132

This property should be reviewed through a Small Area Plan, with strong consideration for high-density residential and mixed-use.

Land-Use Summary of Urban Service Area in Acres

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Future Use of Vacant usa Land Comparison

a n d U s e S u m m a r i e s

Residential Building Permits 1960 to 2006

Lexington - Fayette County, Kentucky

Five-Year Building Permit Averages 1960-2004

10-Year Building Permit Averages

Residential Building Permits by Type

Historic Districts and Landmarks

Local Historic Districts

Seven Parks (Arcadia Park)

Local Historic District (1997), National Register of Historic Places

The Arcadia Park neighborhood was developed between 1928 and 1950 and consists of five middle class subdivisions along Nicholasville Road. The neighborhood contains a blend of prevalent architectural styles from its development period along with street patterns and pocket parks that were typical of subdivisions at that time.

Aylesford

Local Historic District (1998), National Register of Historic Places

Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this neighborhood is an example of the expansion of the original city limits, a direct result of the availability of streetcar lines. The subdivisions which make up the district were developed on remnants of large country estates. The neighborhood includes a variety of architectural and building styles, from large estate houses to small turn-of-the-century cottages to Arts and Crafts bungalows of the 1920s. In addition, the landscape features illustrate the changing design of suburban neighborhoods at the beginning of the 20th century.

Bell Court

Local Historic District (1990), National Register of Historic Places

Developed around the turn of the 20th century as a middle class neighborhood near the heart of downtown, Bell Court was conveniently located for residents who walked to work. There are 155 buildings in the district, nearly all of which are residential in nature. Most of the homes in the district reflect the Victorian and Queen Anne architectural styles as well as the Arts and Crafts style. The cul-de-sac-like street pattern, tree lined streets, and architectural forms and styles give the neighborhood a special sense of place.

Cadentown

Local Historic District (2001)

Cadentown began as a rural settlement but is now surrounded by urban development. The community retains its unique rural settlement landscape of large rectangular lots used by its original African American residents for self-sustaining gardens and livestock along with some cash crops. The first land purchase in what became Cadentown was in 1869, and development continued until about 1880. Although few historic residences remain in the neighborhood, several community buildings, including a Rosenwald School (named for the Sears, Roebuck and Co. executive who funded the construction of schools for African Americans through the early 1930s) stands to reinforce the uniqueness of the community.

Constitution

Local Historic District (1976), National Register of Historic Places

The Constitution Historic District, established about 1820, is one of the earliest middle class residential neighborhoods in Lexington. The lot pattern was created in the early to mid-19th century with houses surrounded by commercial buildings and educational institutions. The majority of houses are simple ante-bellum townhouses, built for middle class residents of the district, including merchants, carpenters, carriage makers and other craftsmen. One of the oldest buildings is the Brand-Kennedy House built in 1813 in the Federal style. The district is significant for its architecture and its association with the development of the city of Lexington.

Elsmere Park

Local Historic District (1976), National Register of Historic Places

Elsmere Park was one of the early cul-de-sac developments in the City and is a distinguished part of the Northside neighborhood. The residences were built for middle to upper class Lexingtonians in the early 20th century. The west side of the park was primarily developed by John Buckner with houses of the same basic floor plan. The district includes 29 properties with dates of construction from 1881 to 1913. While the residences are not of significant architectural styles, the physical layout of the houses and the boulevard give the neighborhood a distinctive, unique, and significant sense of place.

Fayette Park

Local Historic District (1985), National Register of Historic Places

Platted in 1888-89, this cul-de-sac neighborhood was developed by Stephen A. Charles, a civil engineer and was most likely associated with the development of the street railway along North Broadway. The construction of the first structures began about 1890. The district consists of 16 residences mostly constructed in the Richardsonian architectural style and on a grand scale. The district is significant for its architecture, neighborhood design, and its association with many prominent members and community leaders in the city of Lexington.

Gratz Park

Local Historic District (1958, 1965), National Register of Historic Places

The Gratz Park Historic District was designated in 1958 as the “Old and Historic Lexington District.” For unknown reasons, however, the ordinance to establish the district and the zoning map were never voted upon by the Planning Commission. In 1965, this error was discovered and a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was passed by the Planning Commission.

Named for Lexington businessman Benjamin Gratz whose home stands on the corner of Mill and New Streets, the Gratz Park Historic District includes the first city park in Lexington (1915) surrounded by numerous large residences. The historic district has 14 residences, including the Civil War era Hunt-Morgan and Bodley-Bullock Houses. The Carnegie Library (1906) occupies the southern end of the park. The architectural styles of Federal and Greek Revival reflect the tastes of prominent Lexingtonians between 1800 and 1820.

Mulberry Hill

Local Historic District (1985), National Register of Historic Places

As with Aylesford, this neighborhood was associated with the development of the street railway along North Broadway and was developed between 1890 and 1910. The subdivision was laid out by Stephen A. Charles and was one of Lexington’s early cul-de-sac developments.

Northside

Local Historic District (1986), National Register of Historic Places

The Northside Historic District developed over a period of about 100 years as the result of the division of many of Lexington’s original town outlots. It is an example of development over a long period of time and contains the work of local architects and designers. In addition, a large number of early prominent community leaders were residents of the district.

South Ashland/Central Avenue

Local Historic District (1989), National Register of Historic Places

Developed on part of the Woodland Farm, the South Ashland/Central Avenue Historic District is an early 20th century residential neighborhood that at the time of development was located at the eastern edge of the City. Constructed over a period of 15 years, the plans for the neighborhood were completed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr. and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., and designed according to City Beautiful planning ideals. The neighborhood is significant for its variety of architectural styles, attesting to the varied tastes of the day.

South Hill

Local Historic District (1972, 1976), National Register of Historic Places

The South Hill Historic District is a neighborhood of early residential homes adjacent to downtown Lexington. The homes in this district were built over a period spanning more than 100 years. The earliest homes were built during the early 19th century and are mainly Federal and Greek Revival styles. The district also includes homes with construction dates as late as 1890 and residences designed by two Lexington architects, John McMurtry and Cincinnatus Shyrock. This district contains homes that were once owned by prosperous free African Americans as well as the oldest residence in Lexington, the Adam Rankin House.

Western Suburb

Local Historic District (1975), National Register of Historic Places

The Western Suburb was developed between 1820 and 1890 as one of Lexington’s first working class neighborhoods. Its residences were built in the Federal, Greek Revival, Gothic Revival and Italianate architectural styles.

Woodward Heights

Local Historic District (1987), National Register of Historic Places

Developed by J. C. Woodward in about 1890, the neighborhood displays the character and architectural styles of a working class neighborhood made up of tradesmen and industrialists.

Local Historic Landmarks

Helm Place

Local Historic Landmark (1990), National Register of Historic Places

Located on Bowman Mill Road, Helm Place covers 53 acres that include a main house, a garden house, formal gardens, and Todd’s Station, along with several other significant buildings. The main house was built in 1853 in the Greek Revival style. The garden house is located in the formal garden and is surrounded with sections of Victorian wrought iron fence. Helm Place is considered significant for both the archeological remains of Todd’s Station and the buildings and landscape that convey both traditional settlement and agricultural associations in the Bluegrass over a historical period of 200 years.

Saint Paul ame Church

Local Historic Landmark (1991), National Register of Historic Places – Northside Residential Historic District (1979/82)

Located at 251-253 North Upper Street, the Saint Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church includes the sanctuary building of the church which has occupied the site for over 170 years. Built about 1827 and renovated in 1877 and 1906, the church is the oldest AME church in Fayette County. The church is considered significant for its value as a part of the cultural heritage of Lexington, the association of persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, its value as a building which shows the growth and change of the church through its architecture, and the architectural characteristics of the structure itself.

Kentucky State Historic Sites in Fayette County Waveland

Built in 1847, Waveland was constructed in the Greek Revival architectural style by Joseph Bryan, a grandnephew of Daniel Boone. The Bryan family accompanied Daniel Boone through the Cumberland Gap to the Bluegrass Region and established Bryan’s Station in 1779, one of Kentucky’s first settlements. Family tradition holds that Daniel Boone surveyed this land for his nephew and namesake, Daniel Boone Bryan. Bryan began developing the land when he built a simple stone house on the 2,000-acre site. By the time of his death in 1845, he had built a plantation that included a blacksmith shop, a gunsmith shop, a powder mill for producing gunpowder, a distillery, a gristmill, a paper mill, a female seminary, and a Baptist church. In 1845, Joseph Bryan inherited his father’s home place and built Waveland where the stone house once stood, along with a racecourse and amphitheater near the estate. The Commonwealth acquired ownership of the site in 1956.

Boone Station

After leaving Fort Boonesboro in 1779, Daniel Boone established Boone Station just north of the Kentucky River near the rural settlement of Athens, which was home to 10 to 15 families. During the three years the Boone family spent at the station they suffered many hardships including the deaths of Daniel and Rebecca’s son Israel, and their nephew, Thomas, at the Battle of Blue Licks. Samuel Boone, Daniel Boone’s brother, is buried at Boone Station.

National Historic Landmarks

National Historic Landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior and the United States Congress because they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States. Today, fewer than 2,500 historic places bear this national distinction. Lexington-Fayette County has three National Historic Landmarks.

Ashland (The Henry Clay Estate)

First constructed by Kentucky statesman Henry Clay in 1812, Ashland was designated a National Historic Landmark on December 19, 1960. Clay began acquiring the 600acre Ashland Estate in 1811 and built his mansion the following year. A portion of the original home was designed by famed architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe, who is also responsible for the design of the United States Capitol building in Washington D.C. as well as the Pope Villa, also in Lexington. Following Clay’s death, the house was deemed structurally unsound. Clay’s son razed the structure in 1857 and rebuilt the home on its original foundation, replicating the original design, which has been little altered since. This site was home to five generations of the Clay family. Twenty acres of the original estate remain, which contain the gardens and dependencies of Ashland.

Keeneland Racetrack

Keenland was developed by Jack Keene in 1916. The main track, constructed in 1936, is one and 1/16th miles in circumference and has retained this length since its inception by Keene. The grounds also include Keene’s mansion and training center. In 1936, Keene sold the complex to the newly formed non-profit Keeneland Association. A large stone and wood grandstand, which seated 2,500 spectators was completed in 1936. By the 1940s, Keenland was one of the most successful tracks in the country. The grandstand has been expanded over the years to seat 5,000 people. Keeneland is host to the Blue Grass Stakes, which precedes the Kentucky Derby, and the Phoenix Breeders’ Cup Stakes, the oldest stakes race in the country. The annual horse sales are world-renowned.

Old Morrison Hall

Old Morrison Hall is located on the campus of Transylvania University. Kentucky architect Gideon Shyrock designed and oversaw construction of the building which was completed in 1834 following the destruction of the earlier Transylvania main building by fire in 1829. The building was named for Colonel James Morrison who bequeathed a sum of $40,000-$50,000 to the University for the purpose of constructing a new building. The building also holds the crypts of two of Transylvania’s esteemed faculty: botanist Constantine Samuel Rafinesque and St. Saveur Francois Bonfils.

Old Morrison was restored to its 1834 appearance following an extensive renovation in 1961. Unfortunately, the building was gutted by fire in 1969 and a second restoration was undertaken, which included further interior renovation to provide more administrative space. The building still holds the administrative offices of the University and is open to the public year round.

Keeneland Race Course, Versailles Road

National Register of Historic Places Listings

James McConnell House190 South Forbes

James Pettit’s Mill 7463 AthensBoonesboro Rd.

John Bell House460 Greendale

John Burrier HouseDEMOLISHED

Lewis O’Neal Tavern5023 Old Versailles Rd.

Robert Russel House4675 Russell Cave Rd.

Individually Listed Properties Addresses

Abraham Barton House200 N. Upper St.

African Cemetery No. 2419 E. Seventh St.

Ashland (Henry Clay House) 120 Sycamore Rd.

Bates Log House5143 Spurr Rd.

Bell Place 545 Sayre Ave.

Benjamin McCann House4851 Old Richmond Rd.

Botherum 341 Madison Place

Brand-Barrow House203 E. 4th St.

Cave Place 2601 Old Cave Hill Ln.

Cave Spring 5500 Athens Walnut Hill Rd.

Central Christian Church207 E. Short St.

Chandler Normal School Building and Webster Hall 548 Georgetown St.

Charles McPheeters House352 S. Mill St.

Christ Church Episcopal166 Market St.

Clark Hardware Company Building 367-369 W. Short St. and 142 N. Broadway

Cleveland-Rogers House8151 Richmond Rd.

Cloud House 3740 Versailles Rd.

DeLong Agricultural Implements Warehouse DEMOLISHED

Delta 2450 Armstrong Mill Rd.

Douglass School 465 Price Rd.

Dr. John McGarvey House362 S. Mill St.

Dr. Walter Warfield Building 122-124 N. Upper St. / 140-160 W. Short St.

Drewsilla Stelle House3951 Old Frankfort Pike

Elley Villa 320 Linden Walk Episcopal Burying Ground and Chapel 251 E. 3rd St.

F.W. Woolworth BuildingDEMOLISHED

Fayette National Bank Building 159-167 W. Main St.

Moore-Redd-Frazer House1475 Georgetown Rd.

Fayette Safety Vault and Trust Company Building

First African Baptist Church

E. Short St. First Presbyterian Church174 N. Mill St.

Floral Hall 1201 Red Mile Rd.

George Headley House4435 Old Frankfort Pike

George W. Grant House519 W. 4th St.

Individually Listed Properties Addresses

Grimes House and Mill Complex

Higgins Block 145--151 W. Main St. Hurricane Hall 3899 Georgetown Rd.

James Allen House1020 Lane Allen Rd.

James Burnie Beck House209 E. High St.

James Lemon Houses329--331 S.

Individually Listed Properties Addresses

Poplar Grove 2088 Parkers Mill Rd. Pugh Price House2245 Liberty Rd.

Randall Building Bogaert’s Jewelry 127-129 W. Main St.

Ridgely House 190 Market St.

Rose Hill 461 N. Limestone St.

Samuel T. Hayes House5390 Sulphur Well Rd.

Sayre Female Institute194 N. Limestone St.

Scott and Wilson Houses 318, 324, 328, 330, 336 Mill St.

Second Presbyterian Church 460 E. Main St.

Shady Side/Clifton 3030 Paris Pike

Smith, Mitchell Baker Company Bldg. 230-232 W. Main St. Southern Railway Passenger Depot DEMOLISHED Spring Hill Farm/Glenrose 1401 Old Frankfort Pike

Individually Listed Properties Addresses

Stony Point 4935 Parkers Mill Rd.

T.D. BasyeHouse3501 Georgetown Rd.

Thomas B.Watkins House1008 S. Broadway

Thomas Hughes House Greentree / Fairlawn 4434 Paris Pike

Thomas January House437 W. 2nd St.

Trotter’s WarehouseDEMOLISHED

United States Post Office and Court House 101 Barr St.

Walnut Hill Presbyterian Church 575 Walnut Hill Rd.

Waveland 225 Waveland Museum Ln.

Will Morton Tavern Stand137 S. Limestone St.

William Conant House1701 Elkchester Rd.

William Lytle Todd House3725 Bowman Mill Rd.

William Morton House518 Limestone St.

William Poindexter House359 S. Mill St.

Williamson Price House2497 Liberty Rd.

Wolf Wile Department Store Building 248-250 E. Main St.

Woodland 3388 Squire Creek Way

Woodstock 5266 Todds Rd.

Worley, Allen, and Foushee Houses 355, 361, and 367 S. Broadway

Floral Hall, Red Mile Road

Summary of Public Comments about the Future of Lexington

Horse Farms

• Protect horse farms

• Keep development away from horse farms

• Do not expand the USA in the vicinity of horse farms

• Keep subdivisions away from horse farms

• Provide buffering land uses around horse farms

• Ensure USA Boundary Criteria provide for horse farm protection

Infrastructure within Existing Urban Service Area Boundary

• Address inadequate infrastructure first

• Address storm water and sewer problems

• Determine the extent of infrastructure needs

• Ensure there is adequate revenue to improve infrastructure

Economic Value of Agricultural Land

• Protect the agricultural industry

• Preserve farms for economic development, including tourism

• Protect farms for food production

• Protect soils

• Preserve farms of all types

• Provide land for industry that supports agriculture

• Keep Lexington the Horse Capital of the World

• Protect scenic beauty

Rural Settlements and Rural Conservation

• Protect historic rural settlements

• Protect rural conservation easements, including PDR

• Consider PDR program when considering rural sewerability

• Direct development away from PDR and other conservation easements

Environmental Quality

• Ensure environmental quality within existing USA before expanding

• Comply with EPA standards

• Maintain green space in the Urban Service Area

• Comply with FEMA floodplain standards

Long-Term Vision

• Look 20, 30, and 50 years into the future

• Consider what will be sustainable for the next 50 years

Infill and Redevelopment

• Consider infill and redevelopment within the USA

• Support downtown revitalization efforts

• Redevelop underutilized and vacant sites and buildings

• Evaluate development potential of empty buildings and shopping centers

• Expand the USA because infill and redevelopment will be inadequate

Housing Supply and Affordability

• Do not expand USA as a solution to affordable housing

• Ensure housing affordability through adequate supply of land

• Retain residents in Fayette County with competitive housing prices

• Protect housing industry

• Provide workforce housing

• Improve homeownership rates

• Maintain homeownership levels

• Provide enough land to meet the strongest markets for housing

• Provide enough land to meet housing needs of all demographics

• Provide residential land for two percent growth per year

Water Supply adequate water supply for 20 years growth

• Provide adequate sewage treatment for economic development

• Build a third treatment plant

Land Supply for Population Growth and Economic Development

• Establish 250 contiguous acres for a business park

• Ensure adequate land supply for new industries

• Provide enough land for 20 years growth

• Provide enough land for 10 years growth

• Consider down zonings when projecting land needs

• Tie expansion to increased funding for PDR

• Include only parcels that are greater than 40 acres in vacant inventor

P u b l i c c o m m e n t s S u m m a r y

Military Installations

During the preparation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, consideration was given for the accommodation of all military installations within Fayette County and the surrounding counties. The goal of providing for the accommodation of these military installations is to minimize conflicts between the installation and Fayette County’s residential population. Prior to decisions about the Goals and Objectives, the Land Use Chapter, and all other Plan elements, the Division of Planning contacted the command authority at Blue Grass Army Depot in Madison County as well as a representative of Fayette County’s Bluegrass Station at Avon, even though Bluegrass Station is no longer a military installation.

The issues of particular concern to the military installations include questions of installation expansion, environmental impact, issues of installation safety, and issues related to air space usage, to include noise pollution, air pollution, and air safety concerns.

The Command Authority at Blue Grass Army Depot did not report any conflicts between their operations and the Goals and Objectives or the Land Use chapter of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. This does not propose any expansion of the Urban Service Area nor does it propose any changes to residential development in the Rural Service Area.

Bluegrass Station at Avon Rural Activity Center

Access - The ability of the general public to gain entry to a parcel of land for a specific use. There are, in general, three different techniques to provide the public with access: 1) hold title to a parcel of land; 2) purchase the right of public access; 3) negotiate the right of public access, using easements or other techniques.

Active Recreation - Recreational activities that require the use of organized play areas, such as playing fields, swimming pools, and basketball courts.

Adaptive Reuse - The process by which structurally sound older buildings are rehabilitated and/or developed for economically viable new uses. Such buildings may be historically important, architecturally distinctive, or simply underutilized structures.

Adjacent and Surrounding - Those properties next to and near the property under review.

Adverse Impact/Negative Impact - Used interchangeably to describe the result of changes in historic and architecturally significant areas that do not reinforce the character and characteristics of individual elements, sites, structures, streets, or whole districts.

Affordable Housing - Housing that can be rented or purchased by a household with very low, low, or moderate income for less than 30 percent of that household’s gross monthly income.

Agricultural Use - The use of a tract of land of at least five contiguous acres for the production of agricultural or horticultural crops. Please see KRS 100.111 as amended for a complete definition, including provisions for horses and wineries.

Aquifer Recharge Area - An area that has soils and geological features that are conducive to allowing significant amounts of surface water to percolate into groundwater, and where additions are made to an aquifer by infiltration of water through the land surface.

Bicycle Facilities - A general term denoting improvements and provisions made by public agencies to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking facilities, maps, all bikeways, and shared roadways not specially designed for bicycle use.

Bike Lane - A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, signing, and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists.

Bike Path - A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way.

Bike Route - A segment of a system of bikeways designated by the jurisdiction having authority with appropriate directional and informational markers, with or without a specific bicycle route number.

Bikeway - Any road, path, or way which, in some manner, is specifically designated as open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or is to be shared with other transportation modes.

Biodiversity - Pertains to species diversity, ecosystem complexity, and genetic variation.

Biotic - Of, relating to, or caused by living organisms.

Buffer - Any type of natural or constructed barrier (trees, shrubs, berms, or wooden fences) used between the trail and adjacent lands to minimize impact (physical or visual). Buffers provide a transition between adjacent land uses.

Build-out - Development of a site to the point where the construction of buildings on a development plan is complete.

Central Business District (cbd) - Major commercial downtown center of a community, and specifically referred to in Lexington-Fayette County as the downtown core, or area zoned B-2.

Certified Final Development Plan - A final development plan that has met all the requirements and conditions set forth in the approval by the Planning Commission at a Subdivision hearing held after the plan has been reviewed by Planning staff, Technical Committee, Subdivision Committee, and the Planning Commission, and signed by the Planning Commission’s Secretary.

Certified Local Government - A local government officially certified to carry out some of the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Cluster Development - A development design technique that concentrates buildings in specific areas on a site to preserve the remaining land as common open space, agricultural land, environmentally sensitive land, or recreational land.

Cohesiveness - Unity of composition between design elements.

Community - A body of people sharing common interests and living in a particular area, comprised of many neighborhoods and united, in part, by the public facilities and services they share.

Community Facilities - Public and semipublic facilities which may include, without being limited to, parks and recreation, schools and other educational or cultural facilities, libraries, churches, hospitals, social welfare and medical facilities, utilities, fire stations, police stations, jails, or other public office or administrative facilities. (KRS 100.187)

Compatibility - Harmony in the appearance of two or more external design features in the same vicinity.

Comprehensive Plan - The Comprehensive Plan serves as a guide for public and private actions and decisions to assure the development of public and private property in the most appropriate relationships. Such plan shall include all elements required in KRS 100.

Conservation - The protection and care that prevent destruction or deterioration of historical or otherwise significant structures, buildings or natural resources.

Conservation Easement - A non-possessory interest in real property, which is acquired in perpetuity for the purpose of retaining and enhancing agriculture; preserving natural, scenic or open space values of real property; preserving areas or structures of architectural or historical interest; restricting or preventing the development or improvement of the land for purposes other than agricultural production; or other like or similar purposes, but does not include any real property owned or leased by the Government for the purpose of or devoted to parks and recreation. (PDR Ordinance, Article I, Sec. 26-1)

Context - The setting in which an historic element, site, structure, street or district exists.

Context-Sensitive Design - An interdisciplinary approach to development/ redevelopment design which fits its physical setting and surrounding architecture while it preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources.

Corridor - Any major transportation or utility route, including freeways, expressways, arterials, or transit lines. Streams and their associated riparian vegetation along a stream may also be used to describe land uses along these routes.

County - The use of the term County shall refer to the entirety of Lexington-Fayette Urban County.

Cultural/Historic Context - An organizing system for interpreting history that groups information about historic or cultural properties, which share a common theme, geographical location, and time period. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Cultural/Historic Resource - Building, site, structure, object, or district evaluated as having significance in prehistory or history. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Cultural/Historic Significance - The importance of a historic property as defined by the National Register criteria in one or more areas of significance. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Density - The average number of families, persons or housing units per acre of land.

Design Standards - Development objectives relating to considerations, such as site organization, landscaping, architecture, and site details of projects under review.

Determination of Eligibility - An action through which the eligibility of a property for National Register listing is decided but the property is not actually listed. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Develop - To bring about growth or availability to construct or alter a structure, to make a physical change in the use or appearance of land, or to divide land into parcels.

Development Plan - Written and graphic material for the provision of a development, including any or all of the following: location and bulk of buildings and other structures, intensity of use, density of development, streets, ways, parking facilities, signs, drainage of surface water, access points, a plan for screening or buffering, utilities, existing manmade and natural conditions, and all other conditions agreed to by the applicant. (KRS 100.111)

Downtown - The downtown is the location of the most intense and diverse land uses in the urban area and the region. The downtown functions as the hub of government, professional, commercial, and cultural activities, as well as being the terminus of the transit system. The downtown core is a concentration of buildings of varied height and mass, which are linked by public open spaces and thoroughfares. The built environment contains structures representing a diverse mix of historic architectural styles and new contemporary design. High density residential and retail uses support the downtown neighborhood population. Surrounding the downtown core is a mixed use transition area, merging into residential neighborhoods at the edges of the downtown.

Easement - The right to use another person’s property, but only for a limited and specifically named purpose. The owner generally may continue to make restricted use of such land since he has given up only certain, and not all, ownership rights.

Eco-system - A complex set of relationships among living resources, habitats, and residents of an area. It includes plant life, animal life, microorganisms, people, air, water, and soil.

Eligibility - The ability of a property to meet the National Register of Historic Places criteria. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Eligible for inclusion (National Register of Historic Places) - Includes both properties formally determined as such in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and all other properties that meet the National Register criteria. (36 CFR §200.16)

Employment Centers - Major planned concentrations of higher intensity nonresidential uses providing diverse work opportunities for the community’s labor force. Retail uses are not necessarily considered as part of employment centers.

Environmental Health - Characteristics of health that result from the aggregate impact of both natural and man-made surroundings, including health effects of air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, solid waste disposal, and housing; occupational disease and injuries; and those diseases related to unsanitary surroundings.

Environmentally Sensitive Area - Any area which, due to its natural or physical setting, may have environmental problems with regard to development. Areas included are, but are not limited to, areas of steep slope (over 15%), floodplains, sinkholes, areas of poor soil, improper fills, wetlands, any significant tree or significant tree stands, aquifer recharge areas, and similar areas. (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Subdivision Regulations, Section 1-12)

Essential Public Facilities - Essential public facilities consist of the basic infrastructure to support development. These facilities include the following: storm and sanitary sewer systems, roadways and transportation systems, and utilities.

Exaction/Impact Fee - A method of allocating, in a roughly proportional manner, the cost of capital or public facilities which are needed to accommodate new growth and development.

Expansion of the Urban Service Area - The addition of rural land, or land within the Rural Service Area, to the Urban Service Area, causing a change in the boundary line of the Urban Service Area which results in a larger area designated as the Urban Service Area.

Fauna - The animals characteristic of a region, period, or special environment.

Final Development Plan - A final development plan is a development plan from which a building permit will be sought. A final development plan is intended to deal with site design issues at a detailed level and to actually dictate the approved locations of buildings, parking areas, open spaces, access points, and other site design features. (Article 21 – Zoning Ordinance)

Final Record Plat, or Final Subdivision Plan (see also Subdivision) - Major subdivisions shall receive their last official consideration by the Planning Commission as a final subdivision plan. Upon approval of the final subdivision plan by the Planning Commission and subsequent recordation, lots may be sold or transferred and building permits obtained in accordance with the approved final subdivision plan. This plan may also be referred to as the final record plan, final plan, or the subdivision plat. (Subdivision Regulations)

Flood - A temporary rise in stream flow or stage that results in water overtopping its bank and inundating areas adjacent to the channel. (Article 19 – Zoning Ordinance)

Floodplain - That land adjacent to a stream, channel, or a body of water that has been or may be hereafter covered by flood water including, but not limited to, the regulatory flood. Floodplain shall include those lands which are included in the special flood hazard areas and those lands that are determined to be included within the post-development floodplain. (Article 19 – Zoning Ordinance)

Flora - Plant or bacterial life characteristic of a region, period, or special environment.

Full Development - The ultimate future use of all land inside the Urban Service Area boundary, including the potential redevelopment of horse farms; private golf courses; other semi-public lands; and other properties that may redevelop according to Small Area Plans. Full Development does not include the redevelopment of publicly owned lands, such as parks.

Geographic Information System (gis) - A method of storing geographic information on computers that is obtained from a variety of sources. The information is then used to create maps and perform various levels of analysis. GIS systems are also used to inventory and maintain land use and other types of public agency maps.

Geologic Hazard Area - An area in which environmental problems are so numerous that even severely limited development/use could pose a serious problem to the immediate or surrounding areas. Examples include excessive floodplain areas, clustering of sinkholes, cliff areas, areas that have potential collapse problems due to underground caves near the surface, and similar areas. (Lexington-Fayette Urban County Subdivision Regulations, Section 1-12)

Goal - A general end toward which the Urban County Government will direct effort.

Grade - The inclination, with the horizontal, of a road, unimproved land, etc., which is generally expressed by stating the vertical rise or fall as a percentage of the horizontal distance.

Greenspace - The essential natural and cultural characteristics that give the Bluegrass its special identity and qualify of life. (Greenspace Plan). Examples may include: open spaces in natural, undisturbed or revegetated condition, natural areas, natural resource areas, urban forests, scenic vistas, parks, parkways, sports fields, scenic corridors, farms, greenways, greenbelts, community gardens, cemeteries, arboretums, golf courses, school grounds, or scenic resource areas.

Greenway - A linear open space established along a natural corridor, such as a river, stream, ridgeline, rail-trail, utility corridor, scenic road, or other route for conservation, recreation, health, economic, or alternative transportation purposes.

Historic District - A significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A multi-property district may also comprise individual elements separated geographically but linked by association or history. (NRHP Bulletin 16A)

Holistic - Emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. Concerned with wholes rather than analysis or separation into parts.

home Program - Federal program enacted in 1990 that distributes funds on a formula basis to qualifying local jurisdictions. Funds may be used for rehabilitation, new construction, acquisition and tenant-based rental assistance.

Housing and Urban Development (hud) - A cabinet level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Indigenous - Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.

Infill - The development of vacant or bypassed land within the existing development area. Infill does not include the revision or replacement of an existing building. Most frequently, infill involves small-scale development of scattered vacant or bypassed land, but it can encompass the assemblage and development of larger tracts of land.

Infrastructure - The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community or society, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.

Integrity - The ability of a cultural or historic property or cultural resource to convey its significance. Generally evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period.

Intensity - The degree to which land is used, generally measured by a combination of the type of land use and the amount of land or floor area devoted to that use.

Land Use Definitions - Definitions of Land Use correspond to the categories on the Land Use Map. A complete definition of each category is contained in the Land Use Chapter.

leed - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is a rating system that sets voluntary standards and a certified program for high performance, environmentally responsible buildings. The LEED system includes all building types and is based on site planning, water management and efficiency, energy management, and materials used.

Linkage - Linkages are open space connections between two geographic points. They may be greenways, parkways, landscaped boulevards, linear parks, median green strips, trailways, or drainage courses available for hiking, bicycling, or horseback riding. Historically they include park, recreation, or ornamental facilities along their length. They are also used to conserve drainage courses and natural areas.

Linkage/Density Bonus - Zoning provides additional density in exchange for desired residential units, urban design amenities, or park land. These zoning techniques are commonly used in downtowns and urban infill areas.

Maintain - Support, keep, and continue in an existing state or condition without decline.

Major Ridge - A ridge backed primarily by sky as viewed from the right-of-way.

Metropolitan Planning Organization - A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a transportation policy-making organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1973 required the formation of a MPO for any urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000. MPOs were created in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures for transportation projects and programs were based on a comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing (3-C) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process.

Multi-modal - Capable of accommodating multiple modes of transportation, including but not limited to automobile, bicycle facilities, pedestrian, public transit, and rail.

National Register of Historic Places - The official federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The list is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.

National Scenic Byway - Certain roads recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation based on their archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities.

Natural Area - Any area of land or water, or both land and water, in public or private ownership, which either retains or has reestablished its natural character, though it need not be completely natural and undisturbed; or which has natural flora, fauna, biological, ecological, scenic or archaeological features of scientific, aesthetic, cultural, or educational interest. (KRS 146.415)

Natural Habitat - The area or environment where an organism or ecological community normally lives or occurs.

Natural Preserve - A natural area and land necessary for its protection; any estate, in interest of right which has been formally dedicated under the provision of KRS 146.410 to 146.53 to be maintained as nearly as possible in its natural condition, and to be used in a manner and under limitations consistent with its continued preservation, without impairment, disturbance or artificial development, and future scientific research, education, aesthetic enjoyment and habitat for plant and animal species and other natural objects. (KRS 146.415)

Natural Resource - The natural resources and landforms that are significant to the rural Bluegrass identity and way of life; environmentally sensitive resources that are indigenous or distinctive to the rural Bluegrass; and the remaining natural areas and environmentally sensitive resources within the Urban Service Area that show the natural identity of Lexington before it was developed and provide open spaces and experiences of nature within the urban environment. (Greenspace Plan)

Neighborhood - A generally walkable, and primarily residential, district or area with an interconnected street network and distinctive characteristics and/or the people who live in such an area.

Open Space - Land set aside as greenspace or other open air areas (e.g. plazas, special design areas, stormwater ponds, reservoirs, rail and utility corridors, or cultural landscapes.)

Paratransit - Form of transit serving persons with disabilities in which vehicles are dispatched on an as-needed basis instead of following a fixed route and schedule.

Parkway - A boulevard that links parks or other points of interest.

Pedestrian - An individual who travels on foot.

Plat - Map of a subdivision. (KRS 100.111)

Preservation of historic buildings or sites - The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. (Federal Regulation 36CFR68.2)

Public Facilities - These facilities include parks, schools, libraries, museums, health and medical facilities, public rest rooms, street lights, police, fire, emergency medical, and social services, which are publicly owned, developed, and maintained and render service to the public.

Purchase of Development Rights (pdr) - Purchase of the right to develop from owners of specific parcels, leaving the owner all other rights of ownership. The price of the rights is the diminution in the market value of the land as a result of the removal of the development rights. The remaining value of the land is the farm use value.

Recreational Bikeway - Generally environmentally and aesthetically pleasing routes totally separate from motorized transportation facilities. Particularly appealing are corridors along greenways, rivers, streams, and utility rights-of-way. In most cases, recreational bikeways are to be shared with joggers and walkers.

Redevelopment - Redevelopment is the revision or replacement of an existing building through acquisition, clearance, or rebuilding of a previously developed area according to the Comprehensive Plan where positive long-range land use and social goals are to be achieved. Redevelopment of a structure refers to the physical upgrading of materials and support systems, while retaining a building’s original use.

Regional Planning Council - Kentucky Revised Statutes require establishment of a Regional Planning Council in each Area Development District in Kentucky. The Bluegrass Area Regional Planning Council includes representatives of every planning unit in the seventeen-county region. Their primary functions are coordination, education, and regional policy planning.

Regulatory Flood - A flood of a magnitude having a one percent chance of occurring in any given year and which, over a long period of time, can be expected to be equaled or exceeded, on the average, once every 100 years.

Rehabilitation - The process of restoring a building or buildings to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient use while preserving those portions and features of the building and its site and environment which is significant to historic, architectural, and cultural values as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. (Federal Regulation 36CFR67.2)

Restoration of Historic Structures or Sites - The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. (Federal Regulation 36CFR67.2)

Restore - Revitalizing, returning, or replacing original attributes and amenities, such as natural biological productivity or aesthetic and cultural resources which have been diminished or lost by past alterations, activities or catastrophic events.

Right-of-Way - Land used generally for streets, sidewalks, alleys or other public uses.

Riparian - Relating to, living, or located on the bank of a natural watercourse.

Rural Activity Center - Rural Activity Centers are the only locations where intensive non-residential uses are allowed in the rural area. These areas were in existence prior to merger and are limited to four existing rural employment centers where public facilities serve the development.

Rural Settlement - A relatively small clustered settlement, which may be located in either the Rural or Urban Service Areas. The following are characteristics typically associated with rural settlements in Fayette County: often located at a crossroads; small compact development pattern; usually small or narrow lots; pre-twentieth century in origin; and nuclear origin, along with a community store, church, or tavern.

Scale - Proportional relationship of the size of parts to one another and to the human figure.

Scenic Byway - A highway maintained by a local government that has roadsides or view sheds of aesthetic, cultural, historical, or archaeological value worthy of preservation, restoration, protection, or enhancement. (KRS 177.572)

Scenic Corridor - A thoroughfare that includes outstanding scenic vistas which may be along the right-of-way or part of a sweeping panorama.

Scenic Highway - A state-maintained highway that has roadsides or view sheds of aesthetic, cultural, historical, or archaeological value worthy of preservation, restoration, protection, or enhancement. (KRS 177.572)

Scenic Roadway - A roadway may be considered scenic because 1) it is dependent on the land features and may have an aesthetic element itself, or because 2) of the views or features seen from the road while traveling. (U.S. Department of Transportation)

Screening - A method of visually shielding or obscuring one abutting or nearby structure or use from another by fencing, walls, berms or mounding, or densely planted vegetation. (Please see Buffer.)

Shared Roadway - Any roadway which may be legally used for bicycle travel, regardless of whether a bicycle facility is specifically designated for preferential or exclusive use by bicycles.

Sinkhole - Any closed depression formed by removal (typically underground) of water, superficial soil, rock or other material. The existence of a sinkhole shall be as indicated by the closed depression contour lines on the Unified Mapping Program topographic maps or other documents as approved by the Urban County Engineer. (LFUC Subdivision Regulations, 1-12)

Site - The piece of land on which something is located or is to be located.

Slope - Any inclined exposed surface of a fill, excavation, or natural terrain.

Soluble Limestone - Limestone with its high calcium carbonate content is easily dissolved by organic materials. About 10 percent of the earth’s land (and 15 percent of the United States) surface consists of soluble limestone, which can be easily dissolved by the weak solution of carbonic acid found in underground water.

Stone Fence or Wall (Rock Wall) - A wall built of stones or rocks which have been gathered from fields or creek bottoms or quarried stones or rocks. (LFUCG Code of Ordinances: Sec. 14-83)

Stream - A watercourse, having a source, terminus, banks, and channels, through which water flows at least periodically. (Engineering Manuals, page 1-3)

Street Trees - Trees planted in medians or along streets within the public right-ofway that are intended to enhance the visual quality of a street, provide shade, absorb pollutants and noise, and provide habitat for wildlife.

Street - Any vehicular way. A general term used to describe right-of-way that provides a channel for vehicular and pedestrian movement between certain points in the community, which may provide for vehicular and pedestrian access to properties adjacent to it, and which may also provide space for the location of under or aboveground utilities.

Subdivision - The division of a parcel of land into two or more lots or parcels for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, lease, or building development; or if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land, providing that a division of land for agricultural purposes into lots or parcels of five acres or more and not involving a new street shall not be deemed a subdivision. The term includes re-subdivision and, when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdivision or to the land subdivided. (Subdivision Regulations)

Sustainability - The level at which a development or community meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

Undeveloped Land - Land in its natural state before development.

Urban Activity Center - Planned concentration of mixed land uses which are designed to provide necessary services to a multi-neighborhood area. Urban activity centers have a retail core, along with a concentration of higher density residential uses. Other supporting uses include office, public facilities, and recreation. These intense uses are planned for specifically designated locations on arterial roadways to complement the transportation system, to effectively serve adjacent areas, and to reduce the impact of commercial sprawl.

Urban Design - The architecture and planning of open spaces and common areas, including streetscape design, site planning, corridor design, etc., including an emphasis on the aesthetic relationships among and between structures and neighborhoods.

Urban Service Area - A defined area for existing and planned growth. The Urban Service Area concept, which originated in 1958, is still a progressive model for growth management. For years, Lexington-Fayette County has relied on this planning principle to provide for urban growth and to preserve areas for agricultural activities.

Vacant Land Inside the Urban Service Area Boundary - Land that is in agricultural use or other undeveloped land inside the Urban Service Area Boundary.

Viewshed - A visual field; the area of land and structures that is visible from a particular location or linear corridor, such as a road.

Watershed - The total area included within a watershed will vary depending on the drainage system being considered, but usually the total area above a given point on a stream, channel, or lake that contributes runoff water to the stream, channel, or lake at that point is called a watershed. (1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan)

Wetlands - Wetlands are transitional areas between terrestrial and aquatic environments where the water table (the level of groundwater) is at or near the ground surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands provide habitat for numerous fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife, many of which have economic value. In short, given the great variety of species that depend on wetlands directly or indirectly, there are few ecosystems that are more important. In some communities wetlands are the primary water-supply or recharge areas for aquifers. Wetlands also help to purify the water passing through them by filtering out silt and nutrients. (1999 Rural Service Area Land Management Plan)

Wildlife corridor - A relatively narrow area — land, water, or both — used by wildlife to travel or migrate from one larger habitat area to another. Also called “wildlife linkage” and “wildlife movement corridor.”

Christopher D. King, AICP, Director, Division of Planning

Staff

Brad Biliter Planner

Frank Boateng GIS Specialist

Peter Bourne GIS Specialist

Sharon Buford Planner

Strategic Planning

Long-Range Planning

Long-Range Planning

Long-Range Planning

Denice Bullock Administrative Specialist Planning Services

Max Conyers Manager

Stephanie Cunningham Administrative Specialist

Roger Daman Senior Planner

Joey David GIS Specialist

Cynthia Deitz, RLA Senior Planner

Jim Duncan Manager

Transportation Planning

Planning Services

Transportation Planning

Long-Range Planning

Strategic Planning

Long-Range Planning

Jimmy Emmons Senior Planner Planning Services

Cheryl Gallt Planner

Kenzie Gleason Senior Planner

Robin Hammons, AICP Senior Planner

Planning Services

Strategic Planning

Transportation Planning

Della Horton Principal Admin. Specialist Director’s Office

Wanda Howard Administrative Specialist Planning Services

Sam Hu Senior Planner Transportation Planning

Henry Jackson, AICP Manager

Rob Johnson Planning Technician

Thomas A. Martin Senior Planner

Jim Marx Senior Planner

Rachel Phillips, AICP Senior Planner

Barbara Rackers Administrative Officer

Jim Rebmann Senior Planner

David Schaars Senior Planner

Harika Suklun Senior Planner

Strategic Planning

Long-Range Planning

Planning Services

Planning Services

Strategic Planning

Planning Services

Long-Range Planning

Transportation Planning

Transportation Planning

Chris Taylor Planner Planning Services

Traci Wade, AICP Senior Planner

Patricia Wallace Staff Assistant

Janice Westlund Senior Planner

Pam Whitaker Administrative Specialist

Brenda Whittington Administrative Specialist

Andrea Weddle, Esq.

Senior Attorney

Interns

Louis Clayton Lea Gardner

Ted Houlehan Melissa Naylor

Patrick Hostetter

Lisa Park

Brian Schoester Suzann Vogel Ashley Yingling

Planning Services

Strategic Planning

Long-Range Planning

Long-Range Planning

Transportation Planning

Department of Law

Creation of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan

The 2007 Comprehensive Plan is a product of the ideas and experiences of the members of the Urban County Planning Commission and Council as well as invaluable input from citizen leaders across Fayette County. The Plan was informed by and crafted from venerable and emerging practices within the cannon of professionally accepted planning principles.

The Division of Water and Air Quality provided significant input and analysis related to the capacity of the existing wastewater system and potential for expansion of the system. The Lexington Downtown Development Authority examined and described the future of Downtown Lexington for economic and residential development. Numerous other public and private agencies, including staff from throughout the Urban County Government, contributed consequential data.

The entire staff of the Division of Planning worked collaboratively to assemble and present information for the 2007 Comprehensive Plan. This effort included staff input at numerous division-wide brainstorming sessions, leadership at public meetings, research, analysis, and writing, and editorial review of draft text and maps.

The staff of the Long-Range Planning section is responsible for the content and style of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, including all data, the creation of all maps, and the design and layout of the printed document.

Cover Photos