Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Planning Commission hearing today. Our first order on the agenda is approval of minutes. I believe we have minutes of three meetings, March 23rd, March 8th, and March 22nd. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of all three sets, March 22nd, March 8th, and February 23rd. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made for approval of the minutes February 23, March 8, and March 22. The motion has been seconded. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. I like this mouse. Thank you. The motion did pass. Our next would be sounding the agenda, Mr. Salley. Mr. Charles. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. postponements or withdrawals. Good afternoon. I'm Chris Westover. I represent Red Mile, also known as Lexington Trots Breeders' Association. This matter appears on page 3 of your agenda. We request one month of postponement of MAR 2012-4 and ZDP 2012-13 to your May 24th meeting agenda. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak towards this postponement? Thank you. If not, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I recommend postponement to the May 24th meeting of MAR 12-4 and ZDP 2012-13. Thank you. Motion has been made for postponement. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and second for postponement of MAR 2012-4 and ZDP 2012-13 until May 24th. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Staff? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. There is another postponement request on your agenda? Yes, sir. It is on page two of your agenda? DP 2012-23, the George West Estate property, also known as the Howard property, amended. This is for property located at 4538, 4568, and 4578 Georgetown Road. That applicant has requested a two-week postponement, I believe, Mr. Salley. That is correct. Yes, a two-week postponement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salley. What is the date of that? Mr. Chairman, your meeting in May for subdivision development plans is the 10th. We spoke with the applicant's engineer yesterday, and they told us they were agreeable to this. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak on this request for postponement? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I move postponement of DP 2012-23 to May 10th. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded for postponement for two weeks until May 10th. Please vote when he comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Next, I think we're going to look at the Sable Holdings LLC, MAR 2012-7, on page 4 of your agenda. and see if we can have an abbreviated hearing on this possibly. Mr. Salley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would just ask at this time if anyone is present for the item on page 4, number 2 of the meeting agenda, MAR 2012-7, a request by Sable Holdings, LLC, for rezoning of property at 763 Lane Allen Road. Again, at this time we would ask if anyone is present who wishes to discuss this proposed zone change on Lane Allen Road. Seeing none, Mr. Chairman, we can have this an abbreviated hearing. Okay. Take just a few minutes. Thank you, sir. Ready to set up. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ms. Wright. Chairman Owens, members of the Commission, the first item on your agenda today is MAR 2012-7. It's a request by Sable Holdings, LLC, to rezone property on Lane Allen Road from an R1C zone to a B1 zone. R1C is a single-family residential zone, and our B1 zone is the neighborhood business. I'll use my pointer for you all. Lane Allen Road connects to Harrodsburg Road, to the east, sorry, southeast of the subject property here on Lane Allen. It is bordered on both the west and east by neighborhood business zoning. And across Lane Allen is the Turflin Mall property, specifically Home Depot location along Harrodsburg Road. Much of this area is zoned for business, either B1 or B6P along Lane Allen. With the exception of one other property to the east closer to Harrodsburg Road, all of the properties between, I believe it's Garden Spring and Harrodsburg Road have been rezoned to a business zone. Again, with the exception of the subject property and one other parcel to the rear of this area, these properties that front onto Lane Allen, is Allendale, and that is a neighborhood that is still zoned R1C. And I believe that's it in terms of zoning within the area. The subject parcel does have a duplex that is currently vacant located on it, and as many of the other parcels along here were originally developed with a residential land use. In the aerial photograph, you can see the footprint of the mall and Home Depot across Lane Allen and the smaller lots here. Several have been utilized by the government for flood protection, so the structures there have been removed. Thanks. This is a frontal view of the subject property with the duplex in place. An applicant is asking for the neighborhood business zone, the comprehensive plan at this location. Sorry about that. The comprehensive plan at this location, I'm going to use my pointer again. At the top of our map is Lane Allen here, Turflin Mall, Harrodsburg Road, New Circle. Turflin Mall, as well as the properties along Lane Allen, are recommended for a retail trade and personal service land use, which is typically implemented with a B-1 zone or another business zone that we have in our ordinance. So the B-1 requested by the applicant is in agreement with our comprehensive plans land use element. The one thing that the staff would mention and did mention in our staff report is the applicant's configuration on site because of parking limitations and the size of the property may limit the use of the property in the future, particularly offices and restaurants, would be difficult to locate in this particular structure due to the parking limitations, although the site itself could probably accommodate a larger building or more parking if it were reconfigured. The zoning committee did recommend approval of this request three weeks ago at their meeting, and again, the staff is recommending approval. subject, well, actually, no conditional zoning restrictions are recommended at this time. The recommendation is made subject to the approval of the associated zoning development plan. I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions for Ms. White? Yes. Tracy, the zoning that is for the property that's contiguous between said parcel and Territzburg Road, what is the zoning classification there? There is any of the red is B1. The yellow is R1C, which is similar to behind. The turquoise is a P1, so there is one P1 lot there. So we can go back on them. So we basically have business zoning except for these two R1C lots? Correct. Thank you. And they are nonconforming with duplexes on them. Thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? If not, I think Mr. Martin is coming from behind the postal boards. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, on page 4 of your agenda is the final development plan that is associated with this zone change request. It is ZDP 2012-21, Allendale Subdivision, Block A, Lot 18. The development plan that you do see on the board before you is for an existing duplex. The first floor is just over 1,800 square feet. The basement is approximately 1,700 square feet. They are proposing eight parking spaces. I don't have my microphone. I don't know where it ran off to. Is it not? Are we without one? Okay, well, I know you'll be able to hear me. That's not really a problem. Do you want to go? I was just going to very briefly point out a couple. Pardon? Move the plan. Oh, move the plan to me, sir. Yeah, there you go. That worked. Thank you, sir. All righty. Thank you. Again, develop the plan that you see. The property fronts on Lane Island here. This is the existing building. They are proposing no physical changes to the structure. This is the existing driveway that takes you to the rear of the property. They are proposing parking in this location. There is a handicapped parking space proposed at this location. They moved that at the request of traffic engineering and building inspection because of the great issues in the rear and the inability to meet ADA requirements. they have on this plan that you see before you it's a revised plan addressed two discussion items that are you'll see on your agenda today one is they've shown an area for proposed detention and this is the area they'll be able it's the low point they'll be able to utilize should detention be necessary until improvement plans and the permits are issued for the grading and for this parking lot. They won't determine the extent, if any, actual detention that may be required, but this area could also complement any water quality features that they are required to put in for the parking lot development. This is the most significant physical change that they are proposing on the property. The creek is back here, and the floodplain is significantly back here, So the property does drop in that direction. The staff had been concerned about the screening along the Allendale properties, and we had a discussion item on enhancing the Article 18 buffer requirements along this property. The distance here is 68 feet would only require two trees. They also required a hedge, or they can put in a fence. staff was concerned that they enhance that buffer for these properties. This plan does show a considerable number of trees. In fact, they promote 11 trees along this rear at this point. So that is an improvement, we believe, over just the simple Article 18 requirements. And again, on your agenda, you will see the 15 conditions. The subdivision committee did recommend approval. They are standard conditions with just two or three small cleanup conditions. And again, as I just discussed with you, the two discussion items have been addressed with this new submission. And should you accept this plan, then you could strike 14 and 15 from your conditions of approval. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Real quick, I did not hear. Is this a final development plan? Yes, sir, it is. And it's due to the fact that very little physical changes are proposed to the property. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Martin? You're welcome. Yes, sir. Tom, is the reason for the screening as dense as it is because the elevation of the property that joins it in the back, is that higher than the property that we're seeing right now? the elevation at the very back of the property is it higher are those homes higher than the property on lane allen both in general this area slants this way so there's kind of a drop parallel and again just because of the residential nature and because of that we felt enhanced screening would be necessary thank you i didn't move the microphone so yeah yes miss phillips um tom how How come we don't know yet if retention or detention is going to be required on site? It's a very small lot, and we have discussed this in engineering. When you have lots under an acre, it's not automatically required, so they review each circumstance on its own merits, and it just depends on what they figure out once the study is done. Again, just as an example, and I'm not saying it applies in this case, A lot of times when you're in close proximity to a creek, they choose to get the water quicker to the creek. And other times they may choose to hold it back and control the rate. And that's based on a calculation of the runoff. Is it because we're uncertain of the expanse of parking that we can't make that determination yet? It normally is done at improvement plan stage, the actual determination. And this way, what you are seeing on your development plan is an area that will be used for detention should it be required. But do we have an idea as to whether or not that area will contain the volume? I mean, that's what I don't understand. We should maybe have a little more homework done on the front end before we're approving a final development plan. Well, again, Article 21 requires that these areas be identified on a site plan. But at this point of the approval process does not require an actual volume calculation. That comes, again, at the improvement plan stage. Thank you. Any other questions? Yep. Ms. Blanton? It seems like at the committee meeting there was a thought that there might be a pipe running from another property through that property that they would be able to plug into. There was some thought along those lines. We have not seen any supporting data for that. There was some indication that something may have been required in the past, but I don't believe that was ever verified. Anyone else have any questions? No? Okay. Thank you. Ms. Wade? Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I mentioned that the Zoning Committee recommended approval. They actually did not because they did not have a quorum. So there was no recommendation from the Zoning Committee three weeks ago. I apologize for that. Okay, thank you. Applicant? I believe this zoning didn't recommend approval because it wasn't a quorum, but are you in agreement with everything? Yes, sir. Anything to add? Not particularly, no. Just besides the changes that were made. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What is your name, please? I'm Justin Drury. Thank you, Justin. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just as Tom was saying, the changes have been made since the first filing of it with the extra screening that was mentioned in the technical committee meeting and then the moving of the handicap space to the front of the lot, those are the two biggest changes since the first submission of the plan. All right. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. And I think sounding the agenda, there was no one else in the audience that wanted to speak on this. If not, I'll go ahead and close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion from the Commission. Yes, ma'am. I want to talk about the zone-to-zone screening. Mr. Query, I see you back there. Have you looked at the trees at the back of this site that are on the property line? Of course, it's all existing vegetation. Yes. Yes, I have seen the property. I was there also, and it started out as a windshield survey. Then it got to be a sidewalk survey. Then it got to be a driveway survey. Okay, and I don't recall that many significant trees. Was it just trash trees? Volunteers, right, just young volunteer trees. So there's nothing there that we ought to put down as, please save this tree. Okay. Right, they'll fulfill the canopy requirement through their plantings. Okay. Okay. Because the lots do not line up against each other, in other words, the property that's on Allendale, the property line between the two lots hits in the middle of this red box lot. so that, and one of those lots on Allendale that backs up to two-thirds of the red box lot here on Lane Allen has a four-foot fence, and one of them has a six-foot fence, board fences, privacy fences, that look in reasonably good shape. It seems to me we should not put up a fence in front of a fence and then have more of an up-and-down, haphazard look. For the property owners on Allendale, I'm looking out for them. And I would think a hedge that is something similar to a burning bush hedge planted there along that fence row would enhance that zone-to-zone screening. a euonimus the latest compacta that goes about six feet tall the property owner could cut it if it wanted to reach over and cut it or it could but it wouldn't be up like pine trees or something is that okay with you since you've been on the site i could only go so far actually i must say that that would be a sign off of building inspection and not the urban forester and and And I'm not real clear on what the requirement of Article 18 in this situation, since it is zoned as own screening. The petitioner will just have to get with building inspection to decide whether they're going to use a wood privacy fence or if they can use a hedge or an earthen berm. I'm not sure really what the requirement is. Maybe Tom, Mr. Martin, could elaborate on that. Okay. Mr. Martin, is it okay if we request that there be some sort of deciduous plant material along that property line that doesn't go higher than six feet, something similar to a burning bush? Yes, ma'am. If you wanted to request a specific type, you certainly could place that requirement on this development plan. What Article 18 specifically requires in this case is one tree per 40 feet and a double row of a 6-foot hedge. If you would like to substitute a 10-foot hedge, for instance, that would certainly be acceptable. The trees are selected from a Group A or Group B listing, which allows them to pick among a variety of trees of sizes and heights. Well, I think there should be zone-to-zone screening. I do not feel comfortable putting exactly what should be there, but it should not be another fence. I don't think that's fair to the property owners because each property owner wants its own fence, and it already has the perfectly good-looking fence. So let's just say that we suggest. Again, if you would like to specify a hedge that would obtain 10 feet in height but leave some variety there, That would be perfectly acceptable, I believe, if the applicant is certainly willing to accept it. No greater than 10 feet. Yeah. That'd be fine. Great. Could you fix that up for us so we know what we're voting for? Ms. Copeland, I have a condition that I'm going to offer to that on the overhead. I think we'll modify condition 14 to try and address your issue. Okay. Because of all the fences, I can only get so close. Rather than delete 14, I might suggest keep it but change it to read. Zone-to-zone screening details shall include a hedge. That's great. And we can still delete number 15. Justin, Mr. Maloney, would you all be in agreement with that? Absolutely. I think it's a great suggestion. Okay. Okay. So at this point we've got 14 conditions, 14th reading, zone-to-zone screening shall include a hedge. Is that okay with you, Mrs. Copeland? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Any other discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. And I believe from what I heard, number 15 is being deleted. Or would be deleted. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2012-21, deleting 15, and changing 14 to read zone-to-zone screening details. She'll include a hedge. Okay. I'm supposed to do mark 2012-7. Let's start with that first. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I move for approval of 2012-7 Sable Holdings, LLC, for approval. Okay. Further reasons mentioned by the staff? Right. A motion has been made for approval of MAR 2012-7. Is there a second? Second. A motion has been made and seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it shows up on the screen. The motion passes, and now we'll take a motion for the development plan. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of ZDP 2012-21 and deleting number 15, changing 14 to zone-to-zone screening details shall include a hedge. I move for approval. Okay. Thank you. Motion has been made for approval with 14 conditions of ZDP 2012-21. Is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you, folks. Thank you all very much. Our next, we'll back up one, I guess, to Central Baptist or Baptist Health Care Systems, DP 2012-4. I will remind everyone this is a continuation. Public comments were closed as of the last meeting. Just a brief outline as to what will take place here. The staff will provide some brief information as to any possible new information. At that time, the applicant will have a chance to respond, and we're going to allow one person from the neighborhood to provide any sort of opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. Mr. Berkeley? I have to reuse myself on this. Okay. Thank you. And I will mention that all the minutes from the previous meetings have been distributed to everyone as a refresher. Mr. Sally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, this next item is on the bottom of page one of your agenda, DP 2012-4 Baptist Health Care System, also known as Central Baptist Hospital. This is Amendment No. 27 to their final development plan. Mr. Martin is going to update the Planning Commission on information we've received in the past four weeks, pardon me, five weeks since your last meeting on this matter. I did at this time want to circulate the correspondence that the staff has had on this application. We want to distribute to you the petition that was garnered at your meeting last time. There are 218 signatures of residents of this area in opposition to this development plan. Further, we want to enter into the record all of our email correspondence regarding this application. We have separated them with the highlighted sheets by month from January to the present. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I'll carry you through the chamber. Thank you, Mr. Salley. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, again, as you all are well aware, this is a proposed amendment to the Central Baptist Hospital. What you see on the overhead is an aerial, Again, just to, I'm aware that everyone is probably very much aware of where Central Baptist Hospital is located, but just to give you a quick general overview, again, the hospital is at the top of the photograph that you see. To the rear of the hospital, which runs on Nicholasville Road, to my right would be the U.K. property, Shawnee Town, Greg Page. Beyond that, you see the Arboretum. To the bottom of the page, immediately below Central Baptist Hospital, you see the neighborhood and the street system that is associated in this area. The amendment to this plan, and it's the second overhead, please. There we go. Thank you very much. Again, as you all are aware, here is the development plan for the overall property. Here is your Nicholasville Road frontage. This is UK to the rear. It is down here along Hiltonia Park, this frontage of the property. It is this area that you see circled and that we have indicated to you on the overhead. This is the area of the amendment. This is the area where they are proposing to add the 745 square feet to the emergency room. They're also changing the canopy in this area and the drive aisle slightly for their emergency vehicles as a part of this proposal. The new information that we have received most recently is the next overhead, please. It, too, is in the area of the amendment. Again, here's your area of the square footage. This is the parking area. The applicant has sent this detail that you see on the overhead to add trees in this location here and here. Along with the vehicular use hedge here, they are proposing to have a six-foot hedge in this area. And this is their response to the concern for additional screening of the parking area. In addition to the change that you see there, the applicant's engineer, your planning staff, as well as the University of Kentucky met to discuss the overall traffic issues that have been brought before you on this plan. One item that was specifically discussed was the rear connection to the University of Kentucky. It was a very productive meeting, a very genial meeting, and everyone agreed to they wanted to look at this problem. And it is staff's understanding that Central Baptist Hospital has, in fact, engaged their firm to do a traffic study. And they're willing to pay for that and see what the study says, and it will address, hopefully provide information for the overall pattern. and obviously that does take some time, and they are here to answer any questions about that particular issue for you if you have any questions for them. The amendment itself, as you can see, the staff did prepare for you last time an amended recommendation. It was in blue last time. The copy that you had before you was in white. I kept the blue one. But you do have the conditions for approval that staff has recommended are very standard conditions with our standard sign-offs for a final development plan. There are a couple of cleanup conditions, but of particular importance, starting with number 10 of those conditions, would be to denote compliance with Article 18-3 of the zoning ordinance. And that, again, specifically addresses the previous overhead that you saw. In this area of vehicular use screening, staff believes that additional trees would be required. And you may put that overhead back up quickly for me, please, if you don't mind. It's a little bit hard to see, but you can see circles. And those, we believe, would be the minimum necessary to be added to this to meet Article 18. What they are showing you in the rear, now that's above and beyond, but that goes directly to that condition along with the need for them to address the Article 18 requirements as they apply along the boundary with the property adjacent to them. It's Mr. Yannick's property in particular. The final conditions are resolved, the exterior lighting spillage. I believe you received a handout from the applicant at the last meeting to address that issue, where they agreed to do that. And then the 12th and last condition is the addition of the landscape details along the southern property line from the 23rd amended development plan. And again, that is this area in here and along Mr. Yannick's property. There was a previous development plan that showed greater detail. And as I think we explained before, that information does occasionally drop off of plans. We want that information back on this plan. And again, just to summarize quickly, the only new information that staff has received, other than the meeting and the agreement to work towards a larger solution, is the detail that you see on the overhead above you. Staff does, again, recommend approval of this amendment. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Penn? Tom, when the trees and the screen to the right of the entrance, does that interfere with the views coming out, or does it interfere with the width of the driveway coming in? It doesn't interfere with the width, but certainly sight triangle would be significant, and they should be sure that they look at that visibility. You would want it to be safe. So that will be an item for them to determine? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Copeland? Mr. Martin, that overhead picture doesn't go all the way over to the right as far as you're drawing here with the blue building. Yes, ma'am, you are correct. It is the vehicular use area screening that Article 18 requires that is the area in question. And we are saying they need to enhance that to meet the requirements, and they are also offering further enhancement within the parking lot. Yes, but they stopped at the entrance, the Hiltonia entrance. They didn't go to the right of Hiltonia entrance on that document. This would not. This is already screened, and this is the area where we believe the Article 18 is not being met. Now, what I'm saying is Mr. Yank's property is not, his property line is not represented up there. No, ma'am. That's the only changes they've offered. they're going to have to meet the requirements of Article 18 for Mr. Yannick's property and this, and the details that dropped off the plan also address that boundary, and they're going to have to add those back on. So we've got three missing parts. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, we'll hear from the applicant at this time. Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Nick Nicholson. I'm here on behalf of Central Baptist Health Care. I want to hand out a sheet basically that explains what we've been doing over the past five weeks since we've last been together. Since our last hearing, we have essentially, as you can see, this is the proposed revised changes. This does not actually include what we've already done. And to address your point more specifically, we've already replaced the three trees that KU inadvertently, that they had taken out that were in the utilities easement. We've already replaced them with three 15-foot trees that basically meet the screening requirements that are necessary. That's why it's not on our proposed changes. It's not what we've already done. We have also along, basically going towards Nicholasville Road, as what you can see here, this entire southern line, we have added 20 trees onto this area. I believe under the landscaping code, five were only actually necessary. In order to increase the buffer, we've added 20 trees. We've also added 16 shrubs along the way. Part of the agreement that is represented by here is to increase the height of the shrub around Hiltonia to 6 feet, which will dramatically help out from the street-level view of what you can see beyond onto the actual Central Baptist campus. To address the lighting concerns, we have went ahead and shielded all of the parking lot pole lights in both of the emergency department parking lots. This is in efforts to keep the lumens on the property and out of the neighborhood. With regards to the noise pollution, we have basically commissioned a mechanical study in order to basically get the exhaust systems to try to reduce that noise pollution as much as we can. As Mr. Martin indicated, we've been meeting with UK. We've had extensive meetings with LFUCG and with UK. I know that Dr. Polson has been also meeting separately with both UK and Central Baptist in order to resolve a possible exit onto university court. Again, as Mr. Martin pointed out, we've agreed to do a traffic study on that. It's at our cost in order to make sure that the feasibility of this works. We are certainly optimistic. Two out of the three entities that are required to make this work all have new administrations. This has not been addressed since Mayor Gray has been there, since Dr. Paulson has been here, and since Dr. Capilouto has been at UK. We certainly are hopeful that we can get this done, but again, it's not something that Central Baptist can just say that this will happen. We've also spoken specifically with traffic engineers at LFUCG in order to look at the traffic calming devices we can put in the properties, the neighborhoods to our south. most specifically putting a three-way stop on Hiltonia, on our exit, and on McDonald in order to basically keep from cars just basically being able to push on right through. There are also other areas further back in the neighborhood around Shady Lane where we are looking at other options as well. Again, that's something that isn't before you all today because that's something not on Central Baptist property, but that is something that we are working in order to hopefully be able to work with the Neighborhood Association's LFUCG traffic in order to implement these traffic calming devices. And finally, we have also talked with the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association in order to have a full landscaping plan for the island that is right there. We had already previously basically agreed to relandscape that island. We just couldn't get clear directions on what they wanted. trees, shrubs, other plantings. We've now agreed basically to work just with the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association with basically their officials in order to form a landscaping plan that everyone can be okay with. That's happened in five weeks. That certainly, I think, goes to show that we are making a good faith effort to work with everyone. As Mr. Alexander said last time, he's been working on these relationships for 25 years. He's not willing to let this relationship blow up over 745 square feet. And that's what we're actually here for today, is we're requesting 745 square feet to add to a waiting room. We're also increasing the height and the size of the canopy. The height and the size of the canopy is considered a minor amendment, but due to the additional square footage, we've got to bring it before you all today. All we are trying to do is make a more safe and efficient way to get emergency room patients dropped off, checked in, and taken care of once they're inside our hospital. This is not an attempt to get more beds, more patient services, or more patients or appeal to any type of new clientele. But as the staff has shown by their approval, there's not a debate on whether or not this meets the requirements, the base requirements of Article 21. They've looked at not only the standards that are in the articles, but also from the scope of what this project is. their approval and the fact that absolutely no evidence has been introduced that show that what we're asking for, the canopy and the additional square footage, would have an adverse effect on the public's safety, health, and welfare. That's it. That's the standard that we are here today under. We feel that it basically requires approval from a planning commission based on what the zoning ordinance calls for and the staff's recommendations. Now, the current design of Central Baptist Campus, everything that is there now and currently being constructed has already been approved by this body. Just last September, there was a major overhaul of what we were doing. A lot of square footage was added. An entire redevelopment of basically the internal circulation was before you. just last September. It was approved by this body, and it was not objected by the neighborhood. There was not talks about how the traffic needed to have gates inside. There was not talks that we needed to force employees in different directions. That was the point when these objections needed to be brought, because we were already doing a full rework of the system. We studied it. We found the best solution. We worked with the staff for the best solution. We worked with traffic for the best solution. That still is going under construction. That's not a complete project. We feel that a lot of these issues, such as the trucks in the neighborhoods, are going to be resolved when construction is complete. We've put an entirely new loading bay on the north end of the property. No truck is going to be winding their way through our system from the south neighborhoods all the way internally in order to get up here. That's not going to happen. They're going to be using Nicholasville Road and the other entrances in order to access this loading bay. That's getting trucks out of the neighborhood. You also heard, let's see, the other issues. There were a lot of them, but most of them basically boiled down to the impact that the traffic on Nicholasville Road, the capacity that Jeff Neal said, I think he said 45,000 to 48,000 cars travel on Nicholasville Road every day. With or without Central Baptist, those cars are going to be on Nicholasville Road. This is not the only draw on Nicholasville Road corridor. We're asking it to be a business corridor, a transportation corridor, and a residential corridor. That's what the demands are on Nicholasville Road. Just a short time ago, that was a two-lane road. That has grown. I mean, I don't even know how to explain the growth of that road. But the traffic flow and the impact it's having on the neighborhoods are not germane to this application that's in front of you all today. No matter how many cars are there, that does not bring this plan and this amendment into noncompliance of Article 21 and of the zoning ordinance. These issues are beyond the scope of this amendment and, quite frankly, beyond the scope of the Planning Commission at this level. Now, the scope where this should be dealt with, where community-wide transportation planning issues and even a small area transportation problems need to be addressed, is during the update of the comprehensive plan. That process is going on right now. You're about to have to go through hearings where traffic and where planning are going to be discussing these very issues. You're going to be hearing about, over the past four years, what has changed, what problems can be addressed. It's at that level, the comprehensive plan level, that these type of issues need to be discussed. It's not to hold hostage an amendment to a development plan for 745 square feet, an entire small area traffic problem. That's not the appropriate place for this type of conversation. It is at the update level, and luckily we are going through that right now. The public is about to be able to have an opportunity to comment on this and bring all these issues more fully to your attention, as is your staff. Simply, and this will basically be it, is that regardless of what happens in this decision today, approval, disapproval, Nicholasville Road traffic, it's not going to be altered by this. If you approve this, it's not going to magically take traffic issues away. It's not going to pull traffic out of the neighborhoods. If you disapprove this, the status quo stays. Nothing changes. The consequences are twofold, though. We feel that it would be a clear, arbitrary decision because no evidence has been taken that would show that there's been an adverse or will be an adverse effect on safety, health, and welfare by the additional waiting room space and by the canopy. And secondly, you will prevent Central Baptist from basically in the most efficient and safe way possible treating its emergency room patients and its medical providers without justification in the record. That simply is our point, and I will happily take questions, and I apologize for being a little bit more stern than I was last time on those issues. Any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Yes, Mr. Wilson. A couple of quick questions. You talked about the mechanical study. What was the time frame on those studies? We should be looking in the next three weeks. We should be able to have a completed mechanical study of the exhaust system. And what about the other university drive feasibility study? What's the projected traffic? Do we now? It's currently being done. We wanted to do it early while the students are still on campus. So we expect that to be longer than two weeks. Yeah. For the record, that was two weeks while students are still on campus. And also we will then have to turn that over to LFUCG and UK in order to further that study. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Nicholson? If not, thank you, sir. Thank you all. And at this time, I think Mr. Wester is going to come and speak for the opposition. And I would say that in watching the clock, Mr. Martin and the staff took about eight minutes. Mr. Nicholson took about 12. So I'd appreciate it if you stay in that time frame. That's 20 minutes? Now, and as we discussed, try and limit it to this discussion that we've had here today. I'm sorry. First off, my name is Stuart Wester. I would like to first start off by thanking Central Baptist for the trees they have planted. And I've already told Ted Collins that, actually while he was out there overlooking the planting, went out there and had a nice talk about it. And I must start off by saying, if you could turn off the first page of what I just handed you, During the last meeting, Commissioner Penn specifically said, we all need to get together and talk about this. Senator Baptist has not replied to us at all. We were not involved in any of these discussions. Having said that, I still do appreciate the work that they've done. We would have liked to have been involved, and I think we could have had some input on it that might have helped some. So going forward, I'm going to try to stick to the traffic and the additions that they've made up here. Mr. Nicholson is correct. This emergency room is not going to add existing traffic. And there was a major plan last September. and the reason why we weren't here is because our neighborhood association president and officers did not tell us about the plan nor did Central Baptist the only way we found out about this plan was because those trees were cut down we would have been here and I think that needs to be put on the notes on the plan that the people of Hiltonian and McDonald are always notified when there's going to be something that's going to impact our streets I don't know why we weren't notified and I think it was extremely unreasonable. And I understand the point of Central Baptist on that. Having said that, if you look at page two of my handout, if you look at the Lexington LSCG, I'm sorry, well, anyway, the traffic studies, if you look from 07 and then from the first bolted line, 07-2011, there was a 60% increase in traffic. And if you look at the 05 number, over 100%. Now traffic has told us that a local road can handle 4,000 cars. If you look down on that page, that's another 60% increase by 2015 is right at 4,000 cars. But once again, we're not a local road. We're a rural local road that's 20 feet wide, and traffic has not been able to tell us what it can handle. so while this is not going to add traffic under article 21 you all have the right and the ability to fix existing problems this traffic goes right by where they're building this is an existing problem it is not going to add to it but the problem is there and we would have brought this up but once again you all do have that ability the next point I'd like to make that has just come to our attention is that the mayor's bike path if you could put up the the mayor's bike path next to the south and to downtown is there a pointer here if you see the dotted lines I'm sorry, thank you. I'll figure it out. Okay. All right, right here. This, let me get acclimated here to where we are. Okay, that's McDonald right there. Right there. So what's going to happen when this bike path gets made, it's either going to go through up there on Belafonte or right there on Shady Lane. That's the connecting path. So by 2015, you're going to have 4,000 plus cars leaving that back entrance and in direct conflict with the people using their bikes to go to work and back from work, along with also the children and everybody else that use the neighborhood. But on a road, the traffic can't even tell us it's safe to drive on with that many cars, much less wide enough to ride a bike on as well. So, well, if you couldn't hear me, the bottom line is that we also have another problem with the traffic that's going to happen with the bicyclists. Now, I think at some point somebody needs to tell us, is the road capable of taking on 4,000 vehicles? and since we already know by the increase in traffic over the years, we're going to be up to the level of a current local road, why are we going to let this problem fester? It's going to come back up every single time. Right now, you all can fix it very simply, and that's just by restricting traffic to the emergency room exit entrance. the Eltonia-McDonnell entrance to emergency room traffic only. And if you do that, if we do it properly, physicians, patients, visitors, parents, whoever wants to go to that emergency room can get in that exit, no problem. And all we have to do, there was a gate put right here, which we showed under our last plan. I don't know if you all ever got a copy of it, a big copy. We asked staff to send it to you all. I don't know if it was sent or not. If there was a gate put right here, traffic from the parking structure could not leave it. People going through the structure could not use it. Emergency traffic coming from the front could still get to the emergency room through here. And emergency room traffic could still get to it right there. All it would do, we'd cut off the employees and the doctors from using this back entrance. That debate costs $2,000. Or we can sit here and every time a plan comes up, and there's going to be more of these plans coming up, we can sit here and fight over the traffic that we know is going to increase. It's generational. Some of you all have said you've used this entrance. Some of you all have probably taken your children in that entrance. Now what's going to happen in 20 years when your children have children? They're going to use that entrance. And that's why it's going up, and it's going to continue to go up. And we would have made these points if we had been allowed into the negotiations since the last meeting. We were a little discouraged that we weren't allowed. But this problem isn't going anywhere. And it's easily fixed. Now, I can understand during construction that they may have problems with the front entrances. And they may need to use this back entrance. But after construction, I don't see any excuse in why they cannot cut it off to emergency room traffic. Only. I think that's best for the neighborhood. I think it's safer for the people using the emergency room. Right now you have a couple thousand cars that come by that emergency room every day. And they come flying out this exit. And I'm glad you're talking about putting up those stop signs, by the way, because that's one of our suggestions as well. But right here you have all the smokers hanging out. I almost saw a child get run over here the other day. Run around in circles. Somebody ran the stop sign, made the turn. and the parent ran right that close. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when one of these vehicles runs somebody over or runs over the bikes when those bike paths are made. And either one of the paths, either down Belafonte or down Shady Lane, these cars interfere with. It's going to happen. So I think it's very simple, very simple instead of letting this go on and on and having us having to mobilize and you all have to sit here and go, this again and again, that if you all could make a condition under Article 21, that there be a gate put up there to block access to the parking structures, and that we can come to an agreement on when it will go into effect. And we believe that that is the most efficient way to deal with your all's time. It benefits the neighborhood the most. It's going to encourage people to use the bike trail. and it burdens Central Baptist none. In the last meeting, quote, only 10 to 15 percent of the traffic comes out the back entrance. So there's one more car out of 10 going out the front two entrances. How is that a problem? Mr. Wester, I'd ask you to close up here. Okay, well, I'm pretty much done. I think that's basically the argument. And I would just ask you all to amend the plan, add to the notes that Hillconia and McDonald residents be contacted whenever there's a new plan, and that the gate is put up and we come to an agreement on when that gate should be put to use, and I think that would solve everybody's problems. Thank you, Mr. Rester. What we do at this time is simply go to rebuttal. I'm sorry, any questions from the Commission? Yes? Doesn't the bike path that Central Baptist allows the people to go through and out and over by Cooperstown, isn't that the route of the bike path? Right now they're talking about taking it through the Arboretum off of Shady Lane. That dotted line is actually through the woods, and UK has agreed to that. Okay. So it'll cross the valley right there, or Wildwood, right across Shady Lane, and that's very curvy. There are big trees. There are blind spots. Okay, but the back path is a conduit to U.K., right? Well, it's actually a conduit all the way to downtown. Right, okay. And then all the way out to Legacy Trail, I believe. Yeah, but it really serves U.K. a lot. Probably for most people that are using it for commuting, we'll be using it for UK, which is going to be prohibitive to them allowing that back access because of the bikes. It's in the university's back interest to keep a safe bike route through your neighborhood. Absolutely. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'll go to the rebuttal stage. and I think I'll let the applicant provide any rebuttal first and I'll end up with the staff. I only have one subject to address and that is putting a gate interior of our campus. There's a reason hospitals don't do that. If you are coming from the main entrance trying to get to an emergency room and you have to stop at a gate and you have someone that's in dire need of the emergency room, that causes issue. If there is a 10-car backup at that gate, that's going to cause an issue when you're trying to get to the emergency room. I understand that they believe that that would simply solve all issues with regards to employees coming that way. That creates a whole different issue, and that is the safety of our patients. And quite frankly, no hospital would agree to putting gates up inside of the public circulation. So that is all I really have to say, but I will welcome questions if there are some. Okay. Yes, you may. Go ahead. Mr. Nicholson, would that change if you could work out something in the back way for your employees to go out to get to Alumni Drive? Having a gate there? Well, I assume if you could work out the one that goes out to Alumni Drive, that that wouldn't be an opening. That would be a gated situation so your employees could go in and out of there. Well, my concern is getting the internal. I understand that. What I'm saying to you, though, is if we got that worked out with UK down the road, you would still have the same argument about the gate that would keep you from coming from the parking lots to come out the back. If that gate is intended to be employee and doctor access, we would be able to gate that, similar to what there was originally a long time ago, that that was gated there. Our issue is internal gates, not exterior. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Real quick, I think I'll let Mr. Wester go with any possible rebuttal on just what you just heard. Yes, this is the same thing that was said last time. I really think you've got to look about where the gate is. People coming from the front go to the emergency room right here. The gate would be right here. It does not interfere with anybody coming from the front to get to the emergency room. That's the whole purpose of putting it right here. that's why we did the drawings and tried to show it last time and tried to get it to you all there is no problem with people from the front or the back getting the mercy ok thank you Mr. Martin Mr. Chairman, members of the commission staff has no rebuttal to make what we would like to recommend a 13th condition and that would be notification of the Southern Heights neighborhood on any future plan amendments and that would be denoted on the plan as a requirement for any future amendments that the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association be notified. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And I would presume the applicant's in agreement with that? Okay. So at this point in time, we've heard plenty of discussion, And I'll close once again this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from the Commission and a motion. Ms. Beatty. I just want to clarify on the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. They were contacted for discussing the landscape plan, but they were not contacted for the development plan. Is that because on this sheet it says that they were contacted? Is that correct? Can someone address that? Mr. Nicholson? They were contacted for a development plan. One of the notes on here indicates that certain neighborhood associations are to be notified upon any development plan. Southern Heights is relatively new in the grand scheme of that note, and so we are adding them onto that note. They were properly notified. They're just not on the note. Any other questions from the Commission? May I also address that question? No, we'll close this. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Penn? Are you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Is the Commission ready for a motion? Okay. I think so. All right. Question from Ms. Phillips. I wanted to ask a question illegal. Yes. Is a gate considered an illegal exaction that we would be imposing on Central Baptist for internal circulation? I don't think that a gate and requiring a gate totally depends on the circumstances of what an applicant is asking for. You can't just say whether a gate can or cannot be requested. but any change that you request in this plan has to be something that is required by what is being requested in this plan. In other words, you would have to be able to justify that the 750 square feet of additional space in their waiting room and the alteration in the canopy to allow access by emergency vehicles requires that a gate be added. to mitigate the impact of those improvements. It can't be requested if it's something that's already been there, it's been approved, and they are not requesting a change in that. You have to show a relationship between what's being requested and what this commission is asking be altered. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Penn? First, before I bring this motion, I feel like that we have accomplished a lot in this postponement. I'd like to compliment what you all have done on your traffic study and on the trees and that type of thing. And I want to compliment the neighborhood for standing up. I think that's why we're here and what we do. I'd like to offer a motion to approve DP 2012-4 with number 10, where it says to note compliance of Article 18.3 of the zoning ordinance, that trees be required in that, and number 13, that the notification of the Southern Hodge neighborhood on future development plans. Second. Second. Okay, motion has been made and seconded for approval of DP 2012-4 with 13 conditions. And I guess as a clarification, Mr. Penn, you're asking that trees be required on number 10? Okay. All right, everyone understanding the motion? If so, since the motion has been made by Mr. Penn and seconded by Ms. Beatty for approval of DP 2012-4 with 13 conditions, I'll ask you to vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank everyone for coming and expressing their concerns, and I hope things continue moving in the right direction here. I believe we have about 15 minutes, is that correct, before we have to vacate? So we can try and move forward real quick and see how far we get. The next would be DP 2012-16 Waller property on page 2 of your agenda. And we do have a revision in goldenrod color. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, mindful of your time, this next item is on page 2, DP 2012-16, Wallow Property Amended. This item is continued from your consideration two weeks ago. At that time, we had a minor amended development plan that we brought to the Planning Commission. We have distributed a number of items today. This is information from the applicant showing some of the architectural information regarding the property. We've distributed to you a summary of meeting minutes the applicant has met with neighborhood representatives in the past two weeks, and they prepared this summary. We wanted to put that before you as well. Finally, this is the same drawing as well. We have received a revised development plan. In the intervening two weeks, two weeks ago, this is the plan we looked at. This has since been revised as of last week. One of the staff recommendations was to change the orientation of this building, and that has been accomplished on a revised submission. They are not losing one of the units. They are keeping one of the proposed units that we discussed two weeks ago. As I mentioned also, they are changing the detention and stormwater proposal for the property utilizing existing basin. There is also a sanitary sewer at this location that will now no longer require replacement or movement on the property. That can remain as well. On the revised submission, the staff distributed to you on the very gold sheet of paper updated information including a revised recommendation. We do still recommend that the Urban County Traffic Engineer approve the access and entrance details. Condition number two has been met with the turning of the orientation of that building. Condition three, we are still asking that the elevation information that was shown to the Planning Commission be added to this plan at the time of certification. And then finally, we're proposing a change to condition number four to add walkways that are shown in the architectural information to the plan at those locations. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Salley? Yes, ma'am. Yes, Mr. Salley, this rendering does not seem to hang together with what you've got up there for the proposed amendment. That's correct. There's no detention basin. There's no building in the corner, in the right-hand corner. So is this just not any good? No. The thing I would ask you to look at on the rendering is mostly this information here along the North Limestone Street frontage. You are correct. The buildings are no longer configured for the remainder of the property the same way. since they do not want to put the buildings over the easement, and they also want to retain this detention basin. So the area we would ask you to focus upon is the North Limestone Street side of this information. Well, are the buildings going to have box overhead doors facing the street? The only ones that will have overhead doors facing the street would be this bank of buildings here. that is about 350 feet from North Limestone. They will be blocked by these buildings, this building, and a little bit by those buildings. The only visibility to those doors will be between this area right here. Right. So, yes, they will be visible. It will be very difficult to see them. That's because there's no driveway behind those buildings. Correct. But there will be driveway on the southern border? Yes, this is oriented north. This is not a driveway. This is a sidewalk. This is the only paved area proposed for the property. It's right here. Oh, so there will be buildings facing north or facing the detention basin. There will be overhead garage doors facing the detention basin. That's correct. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Salley? If not, we'll hear from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. This is fine. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Andy Holmes, Midwest Engineering. We represent the applicant, and we did hold a meeting with several representatives of the North Limestone Neighborhood Association shortly after our meeting. Two weeks ago, during that meeting, we discussed the orientation of the buildings to Limestone, and following that meeting, we presented the staff with a revised plan. That meeting helped us gain a better appreciation for their concerns and also for the Commission's concerns. We are in agreement with all of the proposed conditions that Mr. Sally has reviewed and revised for this meeting, and I'd be happy to address any questions that you have. Any questions for Mr. Helms? Mr. Wilson? Just one clarification. I think I would call on my colleague, Mr. Cravens. One of the things we talked about was the building materials, but that's not noted here. I mean, I'm assuming then that this new configuration, this diagram, indicates that it would be the building materials that we wanted. That's correct. What the applicant has agreed to is the same building material restrictions and appearance restrictions that were present in the original and currently certified plan. And, Mr. Wilson, for clarification, our understanding is this just is only along the limestone frontage and not throughout the project. That's the staff's understanding. Split face block and all. Oh, well, I will defer to my colleague here, I thought it was with the whole thing. The original plan, did that propose for the whole? It was just on the front side? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? If not, I'll ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this in favor or opposition. No? Okay. Thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing then and open it up for discussion amongst the commission members and or entertain a motion for this plan. Yes, Ms. Copeland. Number four, the staff recommendation, addition of walkways, is that the city sidewalk? So we're going to have a walkway in front of the building and then a neutral strip and then the sidewalk? Yes. Okay. That condition is meant to be in close proximity to the buildings versus the public sidewalk. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Ms. Phelps. I'd like to make a motion. Again, I think this is evidence of postponement or continuation that paid off by getting the Neighborhood Association involved. And as such, I'd like to recommend approval of DP2012-16, Waller Property, amended with the four conditions provided by staff. Thank you. The motion has been made for approval with the four conditions on the revised Goldenrod copy. Is there a second? I'll second. The motion has been made and seconded. Motion made by Ms. Phillips, seconded by Mr. Cravens for approval. If there's no further discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Thank you for your efforts. we do have one I know one other item I believe a commission item update you real quick since the last meeting we did have a discussion as far as filling our vacancy on the planning commission and as everyone knows this did come to the planning commission it's a responsibility to do that last week we asked for a recommendation from the administration for a commission member. They have come forward with that. I emailed everyone this morning and I believe provided copies for anyone that didn't have it for that. And I would ask that if there's any discussion, I believe we need to go into a closed session over this. If not, we can move forward. Does anyone have any discussion in regards to the recommendation? Everyone's had a chance to see it. Chair. Yes, sir. I happen to know Mrs. Plumlee. I think it's indicated on application that she was the president of our association. And speaking in favor of that, I think that she did a wonderful job when she was, I would say, as chair of our association. We had some really thorny issues, and I guess I appreciated the calmness and the diplomacy with which she dealt with a group of people who were concerned about such a variety of issues, but I thought she handled it well. I think she'd be a nice addition. Okay, thank you. Mr. Penn? I served with Ms. Plumlee on the Rural Land Management Board for four years. She represented the neighborhoods well. she thinks before she speaks. And I do echo what Mr. Wilson said. Thank you, Mr. Penn. As everyone has seen, she has served on various boards for the city, whether it's Rural Land Management or Ethics Commission. So, any other discussion? Or I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I recommend Ms. Carolyn Plumlee to be a representative to be on the Planning Commission. Thank you. Motion has been made by Mr. Wilson for approval of the recommendation of Mrs. Plumlee and seconded by Mrs. Phillips. Any further discussion? If not, vote when he comes up on your screen. The motion passes. I think we're barely making it on time. Mr. King, any other items that you know of? No items, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you. If there's no other items, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. What is that? Adjournment. Yes. Okay. Move adjournment. Move for adjournment. Everybody okay? Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. I suggest we put in the notes that...