Lexington hearing on preservation and growth plan emphasizes infill, jobs land and data-driven rules

Lexington planning staff on Sept. 16 reviewed a draft Preservation and Growth Management Program aimed at formalizing how the city measures residential need, prioritizes infill and redevelopment, and considers additions to the urban service area.

The program, presented by Hal Bailey, manager of long-range planning for the Division of Planning, would calculate a 20-year residential acreage need using official data sources and tie any consideration of new urban service area acreage to a required sequence of policy and regulatory changes and community review. Bailey told the committee the draft seeks to “codify long standing practices in a transparent way” and described a stepwise flow that begins with a five-year growth trends report and could limit expansion to a maximum acreage equivalent to 30 years of residential need.

Why it matters: Council and staff said the program is intended to make decisions about expansion more predictable and data-driven, to reduce ad hoc procedures and to provide guardrails against speculative large expansions. The draft also separates a parallel path for land needed specifically for job-creating development, called a special economic development need, which would require documentation and local community or economic development agency support before acreage is added for employment uses.

Public commenters at the special meeting largely supported prioritizing infill and redevelopment but urged changes and clarifications on the jobs-land process, the formula Bailey described for calculating housing acreage, and protections against displacement.

Carla Blanton, chair of Commerce Lexington and a Council District 5 resident, said Lexington has too few ready sites for major employers and urged the council to plan now for a “continuum of job‑ready land.” She told the committee that “companies are making decisions about relocation in 3 to 6 months, not years,” and said Legacy Business Park has taken years to develop and that available large sites are limited. Blanton said of the roughly 2,800 acres added previously to the urban service area, “less than half will be able to be developed” because of flood plains, topography and other constraints, and urged annual review and partnerships to bring jobs land online.

Britney Rothmeier, executive director of Fate Alliance, praised the draft’s annual tracking and its priority on infill and redevelopment while recommending the program account for redevelopment in its vacant‑land calculation and that locational criteria include infrastructure costs, soils, adjacent farming activity, proximity to conservation focus areas and historic districts. Rothmeier also urged additional guardrails for the special economic development path and said her organization would issue a formal position statement.

Speakers representing neighborhood and civic groups emphasized the need for clarity and safeguards. Walter Gaffield (spelled “Gafford” earlier in the meeting), representing neighborhood interests, asked the council to clarify how a new downtown boundary would be drawn and to provide timelines and criteria for when maps and public responses will be accepted. Alice Hilton, a District 11 resident, urged the council to pair zoning reform and infill with policies to prevent displacement and to set “ambitious density goals” coupled with protections.

Several commenters raised technical concerns about the draft formula Bailey described. The calculation, as presented, uses the Kentucky State Data Center population projection for 20 years, divides by average household size from the American Community Survey to estimate dwelling units needed, and then divides that total by the five‑year average of dwelling units per acre in existing residential zones from Lexington building permit data to estimate acres required. Richard Murphy, speaking as a lawyer with practice in surrounding counties, urged staff to compare Fayette County growth to neighboring counties and to account for an existing housing backlog, which Murphy said “now stands at 22,000 some units.” Murphy also recommended using a longer density look‑back (for example 10 years) if the community wants to influence future housing type outcomes (higher density versus homeownership patterns).

Nick Nicholson, a land‑use practitioner and District 1 resident, focused on language for the special economic development findings and urged the council to avoid mandatory phrasing—particularly the use of the word “shall”—that he said could make it harder to recruit prospective employers that require confidentiality during site negotiations.

The draft also proposes that before any acreage is added to the urban service area the council would be required to act on regulatory or policy changes aimed at increasing infill and redevelopment within the current urban service area. Bailey said the Planning Commission would administer a vacant‑land review subcommittee, oversee master plan development for any added areas and adopt comprehensive plan amendments if additions proceed. The Department of Law advised limiting removals from the urban service area to properties added after the program is established.

Vice Mayor Wu, who is sponsoring the item in committee, and staff reiterated that the draft is a work in progress and encouraged additional public comment through EngageLexington; Bailey said a final draft is planned for presentation to the committee on Dec. 2.

The meeting produced no formal council votes. Several speakers asked for additional specificity in the ordinance language, clearer public timelines, and explicit protections against displacement if downtown or other boundaries change. Planning staff and council members said those topics remain under development and that further public input will be accepted through the online EngageLexington page and at the Dec. 2 committee update.