# Planning Commission Subdivision Meeting - September 10, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 10, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5208 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5208?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-09-10 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 34,760 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on September 10, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference, with Larry Forester presiding. The Commission considered 14 agenda items during the meeting, taking 10 motions and votes and hearing 8 public comments. Of the 14 items on the agenda, 10 were approved, including projects such as the Minnie M Sharp Property, Distillery District – West Unit 1, The Interchange (Lexington Green) Outlot C, Webb Property Office Park Unit 2 Block A Lot 1-B, Indian Hills Subdivision (Lexington Vein Center), Morningside Addition Subdivision (Blue Door Smokehouse Expansion), Arcadia Investments Lot 2, The Peninsula and Squires Apartments, Great House Property (The Village at Great Acres), Shriners Hospital, and Meadowcrest. Three items were postponed: Investment Properties of Lexington (Campbell House Inn, Lot 2), Blackford Property (Phase 4), and Lexington Mall Property Lot 6-A (LFUCG). ## Attendance **Present:** Anthony de Movellan, Bruce Nicol, Carolyn Plumlee, Frank Penn, Ivy Barksdale, Janice Meyer, Graham Pohl, Zach Davis, William Wilson, Jim Duncan, Traci Wade, Tom Martin, Hal Baillie, Valerie Friedmann, Jimmy Emmons, Samantha Castro, Cheryl Gallt, Lauren Hedge, Stephanie Cunningham, Donna Lewis, Allison Morris, Captain Greg Lengal, Deepika Eyunni, Hillard Newman, Vaughan Adkins, Tracy Jones **Absent:** Headley Bell **Late:** Carolyn Plumlee, Ivy Barksdale ## Votes and Decisions **Postponements** The board postponed three items by voice vote with no opposition: - PLN-MJDP-19-00074: Blackford Property (Phase 4), postponed on motion by Frank Penn, seconded by Anthony de Movellan [timestamp: 01:14:54] - PLN-MJDP-20-00029: Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A (AMD), postponed on motion by William Wilson, seconded by Anthony de Movellan [timestamp: 01:17:42] - PLN-MJDP-20-00047: Investment Properties of Lexington (Campbell House Inn, Lot 2) (AMD), postponed on motion by Anthony de Movellan, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 01:19:14] **Meadowcrest Subdivision Plan** A motion to disapprove PLN-MJSUB-20-00004: Meadowcrest (AMD) preliminary subdivision plan failed by voice vote with 4 ayes and 5 nays, with 1 abstention [timestamp: 01:20:33]. The motion was made by Graham Pohl and seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. Voting for disapproval were Graham Pohl, Frank Penn, William Wilson, and Janice Meyer. Voting against were Anthony de Movellan, Ivy Barksdale, Larry Forester, Zach Davis, and Nick Nicholson. Bruce Nicol abstained. A subsequent motion to approve the plan with conditions and waiver passed by voice vote with 7 ayes and 2 nays [timestamp: 01:55:16]. Anthony de Movellan moved approval, seconded by Nick Nicholson. Voting for approval were Anthony de Movellan, Ivy Barksdale, Larry Forester, Zach Davis, Graham Pohl, Frank Penn, and William Wilson. Voting against were Bruce Nicol and Janice Meyer. The approval included 17 conditions addressing access management, stormwater management, tree protection, traffic calming, plan corrections, and building specifications. **Other Approvals** The board approved by voice vote with no opposition: - PLN-MJDP-20-00042: Great House Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD), on motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Graham Pohl, with 15 conditions [timestamp: 01:09:31] - PLN-MJDP-20-00043: Shriners Hospital (AMD), on motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Janice Meyer, with 13 conditions [timestamp: 01:16:26] - Consent Agenda items, on motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 01:24:24] - Performance bonds and letters of credit, on motion by William Wilson, seconded by Bruce Nicol [timestamp: 01:25:28] - Appointment of members to Floodplain Appeals Committee, on motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 01:25:34] ## Public Comment Eight speakers addressed the commission during the public comment period, expressing views on a proposed development project and related infrastructure concerns. **Support for Development** Norwood Cowgill [02:27:17] expressed support for the Meadowcrest development plan, emphasizing that a traffic signal is necessary to attract businesses and create jobs, and stated that without the signal, the property cannot be developed successfully. Bill Sisson [02:41:41] expressed support for the joint development with Calgill Properties, emphasizing the importance of creating a unified campus for economic growth and community benefit. Council Member McCurney [02:35:59] supported the proposal as a proactive solution that would benefit the community without requiring taxpayer funding, and encouraged approval for economic development. Deborah Sloan [03:02:05] conveyed strong support from Council Member Higgins Ward, who emphasized the importance of safe access to the hospital and the success of the economic development parcel. **Safety Concerns** Council Member Kathy Plowman [02:28:58] shared personal experience of living near Hume Road and emphasized the dangerous conditions at the intersection with Winchester Road, urging the commission to consider the safety of residents and students. Bart Rogers [02:38:16] noted that drivers often mistake Hume Road for the I-75 on-ramp, leading to dangerous situations, including tractor trailers entering church parking lots. He strongly supported the proposal. **Specific Requests** Karen Hill [02:32:15] highlighted the projected 20,000–24,000 annual visits to the new emergency room at Baptist Health and stressed the need for multiple egress points for patients and emergency vehicles. Richard Murphy [02:34:22] requested an easement over KU property to allow access to the new traffic signal for the Mildred Miller Estate, which is adjacent to the proposed development. ## Appointments The following individuals were appointed to the Floodplain Appeals Committee: * Doug Mynear * Fred Eastridge * Bill Hodges ## Contested Items **Meadowcrest (AMD) Preliminary Subdivision Plan** The preliminary subdivision plan for Meadowcrest (AMD) generated significant disagreement among decision-makers. The core dispute centered on access management and Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Plan (EAMP) compliance requirements for the proposed development. The initial vote on the plan resulted in rejection by a 4-5 margin, indicating deep division within the voting body. However, the matter was reconsidered through a revised motion that included specific conditions and a waiver provision. This modified approach ultimately secured approval, suggesting that the additional conditions and waiver addressed some of the concerns raised during the initial vote. The contested nature of this item reflects fundamental disagreements about how to balance the subdivision's development with environmental and access management standards, though the specific conditions and waiver terms are not detailed in the available records. ## Minnie M Sharp Property (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-FRP-20-00041 The final subdivision plan for the Minnie M Sharp Property was approved by the Planning Commission as part of the Consent Agenda [timestamp: 01:20:16]. **Approval and Conditions** The approval included the following conditions: - Utility and street light easements - Stormwater approval - Sewer approval - Septic tank approval requirement **Key Speaker** Traci Wade presented this item to the Planning Commission. **Outcome** The final subdivision plan was approved. ## Distillery District – West, Unit 1 (8/6/20) **Overview** This agenda item, identified as PLN-MJDP-20-00022, addressed an amendment to add a new residential building and revise uses in an existing building at the Distillery District – West location. [timestamp: 01:20:48] **Approval and Conditions** The amendment was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. The approval included the following conditions: * Completion of sidewalk work * Building height notation in project documentation **Key Speaker** Traci Wade presented this item to the body. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## The Interchange (Lexington Green) (Outlot C) (AMD) (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00038 This amendment to The Interchange (Lexington Green) project was presented by Traci Wade [timestamp: 01:21:18]. The proposal involved adding a drive-through facility and relocating parking spaces within Outlot C of the development. The amendment was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. The approval included specific conditions to ensure compliance with project standards: - Vehicle spacing requirements - Maintenance of existing building dimensions The item was processed and approved without additional discussion or debate noted in the meeting record. ## Webb Property Office Park, Unit 2, Block A, Lot 1-B (AMD) (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00040 An amendment to the Webb Property Office Park project was presented for consideration. [timestamp: 01:21:58] **Project Details** The amendment proposed a 5,000 square foot addition to Unit 2, Block A, Lot 1-B of the Webb Property Office Park. **Approval and Conditions** The amendment was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. The approval included the following conditions: - A north arrow must be included on the plan - The addition must be depicted on the overall plan **Key Participant** Traci Wade was the key speaker on this agenda item. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## Indian Hills Subdivision (Lexington Vein Center) (AMD) (10/31/20) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00041 **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment to the Indian Hills Subdivision project, which includes the Lexington Vein Center. The amendment was presented for approval during the meeting. **Key Speaker** Traci Wade presented information on this agenda item. **Amendment Details** The amendment proposed two modifications to the project: - Reduction of the rear landscape buffer - Removal of the tree protection area **Outcome** The amendment was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. However, approval was contingent upon a condition requiring resolution of the removal of the tree protection area. [timestamp: 01:22:39] ## Morningside Addition Subdivision (Blue Door Smokehouse Expansion) (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00044 The amendment to expand the Morningside Addition Subdivision development was approved as part of the Consent Agenda [timestamp: 01:23:14]. **Key Speaker:** - Traci Wade **Outcome:** The amendment was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements to darken property boundaries and clarify building dimensions for the Blue Door Smokehouse expansion project. ## Arcadia Investments, Lot 2 (AMD) (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00045 **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment to the Arcadia Investments, Lot 2 project. The amendment was approved as part of the Consent Agenda. [timestamp: 01:23:44] **Key Speaker** Traci Wade presented on this item. **Approval and Conditions** The amendment to add building square footage and revise parking was approved with the following conditions: - Updating site statistics - Resolving the required VUA (Vesting Tentative Tract Map or similar entitlement) **Outcome** The item was approved. ## The Peninsula (A Portion of) and Squires Apartments (AMD) (10/31/20) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00046 **Outcome:** Approved The amendment to The Peninsula (A Portion of) and Squires Apartments was approved as part of the Consent Agenda [timestamp: 01:24:24]. The amendment proposed revisions to parking and building types for the project. **Key Speaker:** - Traci Wade **Conditions of Approval:** The approval included a condition requiring Board of Adjustment approval of the clubhouse. ## Investment Properties of Lexington (Campbell House Inn, Lot 2) (AMD) (10/31/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00047 **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment to the Investment Properties of Lexington project concerning the Campbell House Inn, Lot 2. The discussion focused on proposed revisions to parking arrangements and the addition of access to Parkway Drive. **Key Speaker** Tom Martin presented on this matter. **Discussion and Concerns** The amendment proposal generated concerns among those reviewing the project, with three primary issues identified: * Access to the property * Right-of-way improvements * Apartment land use **Outcome** The amendment was postponed to October 8, 2020, to allow for further consideration of the raised concerns and additional work on the proposal. **Transcript Reference** [timestamp: 01:19:14] ## Blackford Property (Phase 4) (8/6/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-19-00074 The discussion of the Blackford Property Phase 4 development plan took place at approximately [timestamp: 01:14:54]. **Key Speakers** Nick Nicholson and Tom Martin led the discussion on this agenda item. **Outcome** The development plan was postponed to October 8, 2020. **Concerns Raised** Two primary issues prompted the postponement: - **Access concerns** — Questions were raised regarding access to the property that required further resolution. - **Density transfer documents** — Documentation needed to meet zoning requirements was not yet available and must be provided before the item can move forward. The postponement allows time for these outstanding issues to be addressed before the matter is brought back for consideration. ## Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A (LFUCG) (AMD) (8/30/20) **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00029 **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment to the Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A project. The discussion centered on a proposed 10,000 square foot structure addition to the property. **Key Discussion** Tom Martin presented on this matter [timestamp: 01:17:42]. The amendment proposal raised concerns from the reviewing body regarding two primary issues: pedestrian connectivity and zoning compliance. These concerns were significant enough to warrant further review before approval could be considered. **Outcome** The amendment was postponed to October 8, 2020, to allow time to address the identified concerns about pedestrian connectivity and zoning compliance. ## Great House Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD) (10/31/20) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-20-00042 **Overview** The board discussed an amendment to the Great House Property development, known as The Village at Great Acres, regarding plans to develop townhouses and apartments on the site. **Key Participants** Tom Martin presented on this agenda item [timestamp: 01:09:31]. **Outcome** The amendment was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements for traffic calming measures and trail delineation to be implemented as part of the development. ## Shriners Hospital (AMD) (10/31/20) **Overview** This agenda item addressed an amendment (PLN-MJDP-20-00043) concerning the repurposing of the Shriners Hospital building. [timestamp: 01:16:26] **Key Speaker** Tom Martin presented on this matter. **Outcome** The amendment to repurpose the building was approved with conditions. The approval included requirements for professional office status and correction of the plan title. ## Meadowcrest (AMD) (9/29/20) **Project Identifier:** PLN-MJSUB-20-00004 The preliminary subdivision plan for Meadowcrest was discussed and approved with conditions and a waiver for access. [timestamp: 01:55:16] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Tom Martin, Jimmy Emmons, Nick Nicholson, Mark McIntosh, and Stephen Garland. **Discussion Topics** The meeting included a lengthy discussion addressing traffic, safety, and Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Plan (EAMP) compliance. These three areas were central to the board's review of the preliminary subdivision plan. **Outcome** The preliminary subdivision plan was approved with the following provisions: * Conditions were imposed on the approval * A waiver for access was granted --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLN-MJDP-19-00074: Blackford Property (Phase 4) - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLN-MJDP-20-00029: Lexington Mall Property, Lot 6-A (AMD) - **Motion** — postponed: Postponement of PLN-MJDP-20-00047: Investment Properties of Lexington (Campbell House Inn, Lot 2) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Approval of items on Consent Agenda - **Motion** — passed: Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — failed (4-5): Disapproval of PLN-MJSUB-20-00004: Meadowcrest (AMD) preliminary subdivision plan - **Motion** — passed (7-2): Approval of PLN-MJSUB-20-00004: Meadowcrest (AMD) preliminary subdivision plan with conditions and waiver - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLN-MJDP-20-00042: Great House Property (The Village at Great Acres) (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Approval of PLN-MJDP-20-00043: Shriners Hospital (AMD) - **Motion** — passed: Appointment of members to Floodplain Appeals Committee --- ## Full transcript We've got to find a way to do something. It's like going to church. There's nobody in there, and poof, everybody's here. It's like they just drop out. But it's a great crowd, a great event. We look forward to that. But in the meantime, it's just important to come up here to enjoy the serenity, see the opportunity to help with the adopted tree, and or become a friend of Ashland, because that's really the main thing. So I'm glad to help you do that and help folks come this way. and you know we'll be wearing masks doing it but it's nice to talk to you without a mask on for a few minutes i gotta tell you yes well but that's you know we've got to have our masks yeah i laid mine down if you want to take a tour here you got to wear a mask this is good and it's all good i usually wear it i just find it hard to interview and do it so that's the only reason we took it off we look forward to seeing you up here again or if there's something we should come know more about please just let us know i will do that jim thank you thank you i'm bill farmer for We go out and around the neighborhood a lot, and if there's a place or a theme or a topic you'd like for us to explore, let me know. Go Farmer. Thank you very much. I find a reason for believing dreams come true And I know enough to know I'm in love with you We've got to be strong It's where I believe that we belong I've found a reason For believing dreams come true And I know enough to know I'm in love with you Thank you. I guess I thought you'd be here forever Another illusion I chose to create You don't know what you've got until it's gone And I find out a little too late I was acting as if you were lucky, too happy You were the favor of my heart But then you were gone And you were strong I have no idea how much I care Now being without you Takes a lot of getting used to You should learn to live with it But I don't want to Being without you Is out of the mistake Instead of getting easier It's the hardest thing to take I'm addicted to you, babe You're a hard habit to break You found someone else You had every reason No, I can blame you You're running to war Two people together But living alone I was spreading my love to them After all of these years I'm still trying to shake Doing much better I say that it's just this time Even though life is an endless fight I can't get you out of my mind Now being without you Takes a lot of getting used to Want you to be my acrobat I want you to be my lover Oh God Who would treat you through But oh gee damn I will always be your fool Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman whenever you're ready. All right. Hey good afternoon everyone. It is 1 30 September 10th 2020. Welcome everyone to Irby County Planning Commission subdivision items. We're going to call this meeting to order as via teleconference. So first on the agenda item is need to read a statement from the governor's office. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency and governor of the Shears executive orders regarding social distancing. This meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the governor on March 30th, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 0-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Next on the agenda, We don't have any minutes to approve any postponements or withdrawals. We ask that you please raise your hand electronically at this time if you have a postponement or withdrawal. Okay. All right. We'll go down next. We'll bring it over to staff for Senegent. Yes, thank you, Chairman Forster. We do have several items that appear on the consent agenda today, and those would be items that are available for no discussion by the Planning Commission. The first item, well, before we get started, I will read through the consent agenda and note the pages and item numbers for the Planning Commission. And if there are any items, if you're in the audience today, any item that I read out loud that you want to have heard or further discussed by the Planning Commission as a member of the audience or as a representative for that particular plan, I would ask that you raise your hand in Zoom, and that way we can identify you at the end of my reading of the consent agenda. And if there's no one present who wants to have any of the items removed from the consent agenda, then the Planning Commission can, with one motion, accept and approve these plans that are recommended for approval. So we'll start. We do have Mr. Nicholson as his hand raised and I think that might be for the postponement. Would you like to go ahead with the consent agenda or check with him first? I would, if it's for the postponement, let's hear what Mr. Nichols has to say. Okay. Because I think you got in a little later. Okay, Mr. Nicholson, we're going to go ahead and promote you to panelist now since your hand is raised. Go ahead. Can show your video and start your audio. Thank you all and apologies on the delayed hand raising, but I am here to postpone item 19-74 on page 3 of your agenda, the Blackford property. We are continuing to work with staff on the density transfer documentation and submitting a revised development plan. We do anticipate that we will be able to have that documentation and the development plan for next month's planning commission agenda. Meeting, right, since the next 30 days? Yes, I believe that's October 8th. October 8th. Okay. Okay. Any commission members have any questions or concerns about a postponement to October 28th meeting? Sorry, the 8th. 8th, excuse me, 8th. October 8th. I'm sorry, Nick. I didn't want to go too far. October 8th meeting. I'm not seeing any. I would ask for a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for one month postponement to October 8th on PLNMJDP 1974 o'clock for property for the October 8th meeting. Okay. We have a motion on the table. We have a second by Mr. DeMolen. I'm all in favor. Please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, we're recording these on granted, so we ask that you just please hold for a second. Okay. Okay. All right. Yes, that was your name. Oh, no, Graham didn't raise his hand, so I think you may have a question. I can't hear you. I have no volume, and I don't know why. I think my computer is malfunctioning, so I'm going to have to pull off for a little while and see if I can figure this out. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Yes, Mr. Mark Stills. Did Ms. Mark Stills just jump on? Okay. Mr. Nipperson, that motion is passed. Thank you all very much. Thank you. So we are moving back to the consent agenda. Well, Mr. Martin, before we move on to that, is waving his hand. I believe he has potentially a postponement from the staff. All right. I do. Thank you. I actually believe we have two postponements. And I had anticipated there would be a representative on the first one. However, I don't recognize anyone on the list, nor has anyone apparently raised their hand. And that would be on page four of your agenda. Item C, Major Development Plan 20-29, the Lexington Mall property. that applicant has indicated their consent to the recommendation of postponement. EA Partners is the engineer on that and normally we would have one of the representatives here, but again I don't recognize them on the list. So we would recommend postponement of plan, major development plan 20-29 Lexington Mall property. That's for the October 8th meeting as well Yes sir, one month postponement Any questions or comments to this postponement? Not seeing any We'll open it up for a motion Mr. Wilson Yes sir, if you're ready for a motion Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLNM JDP 20-29 Lexington Mall property until October the 8th. We have a motion on the table. Do we have a second motion? Second, Mr. DeMoglin. Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand and hold it for about five seconds. That's unanimous. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. If I may direct the Planning Commission's attention to page seven. the last item on your agenda which is major development plan 20-47 investment properties of lexington also known as the campbell house in lot two that applicant has indicated to staff their agreement with the postponement recommendation for one month as well okay they are new to this process and probably were not aware they needed to be here okay So we have a recommendation for postponements for the October 8th meeting. Any questions? I see any. I'll open it up for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLN-MJDP 2047 investment properties, Lexington. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second to that motion. Second by Mr. Pol. All in favor, I raise a hand. Hold for a second. It is unanimous. Okay. Motion passed. Thank you. I'm not seeing any other hands raised, so now we can go back to Ms. Wade. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. So I will, again, read through the consent items and ask at the end if there's anyone present who would like to have any of these removed from the consent agenda. Starting at the top, we have one final record flat that's been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. This appears on page, I believe it actually is on page two of the agenda, but it is item A, PLN FRP 20-41, Mini M Sharp property. This property is located at 5942 Sulker Well Road in Lexington. And it is a platform agricultural tract of property, which is why the commission acts on it. And they did post a sign for this particular subdivision plat, and they have provided the affidavit to the staff and photograph of the sign posting. So everything is in order with that the next item is on page three of our agenda item b pln mjdp 20-22 for the distillery district west unit one this is an amended final development plan for property it affects property at 1158 and 1170 manchester street in lexington Our next item is on page 4, item D, PLN-MJDP 20-38. The interchange, also known as Lexington Green, and this particular amendment affects outlot C. The property is located at 200 Lexington Green Circle. Our next item on the consent agenda is on page 4 from the regular agenda, item E, PLN-MJDP 20-40. For the Webb Property Office Park, Unit 2, Block A, Lot 1B, also an amended final development plan. This property is located at 2350 Regency Road. Next item appears on page 5 of the agenda, Item F, PLN-MJDP 20-41 for Indian Hills Subdivision, also known as the Lexington Vane Center. This is an amended final development plan. for property located at 3116 Harrodsburg Road. Our next item is on page six, item I, PLNMJDP 20-44 for Morningside Edition Subdivision, also known as Blue Door Smokehouse Expansion. The property is located at 22, excuse me, 222 through 226 Walton Avenue. that's just the even side and 706 aurora avenue next on page six item j pln mjdp 20-45 arcadia investments lot two also an amended final development plan for property located at 16 excuse me 1620 please town road and the last item on the consent agenda today appears on page six of of our regular agenda item k pln mjdp 20-46 the peninsula actually it's a portion of the peninsula and then the squires apartment this is an amended final development plan property is now addressed at 299 squire circle but formerly known as 440 squires road so the planning commission may consider all of these items in one motion for conditional approval unless a commission member member of the audience or a petitioner would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda for further discussion so we'll ask if there's anyone in the audience in our attendees list if you would like to have an item removed for discussion and presentation please raise your hand and I believe um Mr. Bailey what's the way to do so on the phone if you're if you're calling in today and you would like to raise your hand digitally you would hit star nine thank you I'm not seeing anyone who wants to have any of these heard all right um they see any commission members hands raised either so open up for a motion for approval or acceptance of the consent agenda okay mr cole i move to approve the consent agenda for september 10th 2020. okay we have a motion and a second by mr wilson any conversation is there that motion I'm not seeing anything. All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay, so unanimous. Senate agenda is approved. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. All right. When we move forward, Tracy, I just want to mention, do we have any performance bonds? There's a credit that we need to. We do. We received a memo from the Division of Engineering, and that would be in the Google Drive. and it's in the main folder for the date with the agenda, consent agenda, and then the bonds are in there. Okay. We usually, just based on history, took this first, and we see everything else. Sure. I would like to do that, which is listed on page 7, just get an approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit. So we'll need a motion for that approval as well. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of those bonds. Okay. All right. We have a motion on the table. We have a second to that motion. Seconded by Mr. No. Thank you. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nick. I had unanimous. Okay. Now, thank you. We will move on to the agenda item. First up, we have preliminary subdivision plan, PLNMJSUB-20-00004, Meadowcrest. We do have a revised recommendation that should be found in your Google Drive as well. And also there's a waiver request from staff and the revised recommendation from staff is disapproved. So I'll open it up for staff. Before Mr. Martin starts, I will just note that on the Google Drive, you're looking for folder 2A, so 2 for the preliminary subdivision plan group and then A for the one item that's under Meadowcrest. And there are a number of handouts, if you will, that the staff received that have been placed on the Google Drive. And then we printed those out for the members in the office here for their review. Thank you. Thank you. yep all right mr chairman members of the planning commission as has been stated the first item on your agenda today is a major subdivision plan 20-4 for metacrest development property located out at 2550 Winchester Road. Now, the plan that you see before you today is a preliminary subdivision plan that is located on property on Winchester Road in this location at its intersection with I-75. Here is the ramps from I-75. Again, Winchester Road frontage, and at this location is Polo Club Boulevard. This preliminary subdivision plan is illustrating a proposed road system that you can see here, here, a partial road system, and a lotting pattern is being proposed with this plan. This is a slightly revised plan. It was revised shortly before the subdivision committee meeting in July, and this plan does show some of the features in the AMP that address stormwater facilities and conditions on the property. They are also with this plan showing a proposal to relocate Hume Road, which comes in at this location, to align with their proposed full signalized access to Winchester Road. And in essence, this is the primary purpose of this preliminary subdivision plan that you see before you today is this access point. And it is also the subject of your waiver request on this particular plan. Now, again, as I stated, this plan is a preliminary subdivision plan and it shows a proposed lotting pattern and a partial street system. And again, access here and then access, and this is predetermined, pre-approved access on Polo Club Boulevard. Now, the waiver request is based on your land subdivision regulations that govern spacing for access points, whether it's along Winchester Road, which is a minor arterial, whether it would be along Polo Club, which is a collector street. We even have access standards that govern local streets and their intersection spacing as well. The access standards are governed by the standard hierarchy of street function. And that again, and you all have heard this before, I'm well aware, particularly in the expansion area, how it functions. And that is you have local streets that serve the local development, whether it's residential, commercial, et cetera. These local streets then are served in turn by the collector street, which the traffic, it's designed, again, under a typical hierarchy. Local streets feed the collector. The collector feeds the arterial in this location. And in fact, the arterial will serve the expressway, I-75. What you see here is an entire representation of the hierarchy of street function in engineering standards, in planning. Here it is. We have local streets, collector street, arterial, and expressway. the forgive me I'm having trouble adjusting my eyes today the the waiver request for this intersection is based on the fact that our standards the subdivision standards require that they follow a formula. Actually, they have two standards, pardon me. One standard is based on the hierarchy, the street classification. And in the subregs, it's clearly delineated. It uses the word shall when it talks about these intersections. And as you know, shall means shall under the regulations, you have to do it. And it governs this hierarchy and states what streets and what classification intersects these other streets. Now, in addition to that, the subdivision regulations also utilize a formula. And this formula is based on land use and trip-ins generated by the land use. And utilizing the formula will then dictate your access standards. Now, the applicant submitted the waiver request, and they offered various support for this waiver request. And first and foremost, they utilized the formula that I referred to. It's the non-residential access to determine spacing. Now, the subregs do allow a service road access to a minor arterial. They do. And as you all are aware, service roads have been used throughout the community normally in association with an arterial, such as Richmond Road, Nicholsville Road. You all are aware that we have, particularly on Richmond Road, a very well-developed service road system that parallels the arterial. they are proposing a service road that accesses the arterial and then as it flows this way actually is perpendicular to Polo Club which is a collector street and that is rarely utilized has been rarely done and in fact was not envisioned with the EAMP Now, the applicant further addressed their waiver request utilizing a formula, and according to them, the formula does dictate that this is an allowable access point. They further utilized the state of Kentucky District Department of Transportation's urban standards as well. And those urban standards do utilize a 600-foot standard that is, again, utilized in urban settings. It's a guideline that they utilize. And I would point out that as a guideline, in essence, they review every request on its own merits. It's not something that is particularly hard and fast with the approval of access points. when staff was reviewing this request we had several several significant obstacles in reviewing the applicant's request and most significantly from the staff's perspective is that as you look at this plan you can see again there's a street system and there's a lotting pattern. There's no land uses other than ED. The only land use that we are aware of for this property is just that. It's zoned for ED, economic development. There's no specific recommendations. There's no specific user. And this, by the way, in and of itself is very different from the preliminary development plan that was approved by this body, where in this area, they showed an assisted living and a retirement community. That is, as you can see, not present on this particular revision to that plan. The applicant further states that in the approval of that previous plan, which was a preliminary development plan, that a write-in, write-out access point was approved at this location. that is not accurate and those minutes should have been provided to you to reflect that the planning commission's action specifically stated that that right in right out would be evaluated at the time of a final development plan and as you're all aware that is that is very typical of what staff recommends when we have these types of issues on a preliminary development plan. We state, fine, we're going to work with you at the time of the final development plan. And again, because the final development plan is going to be specific in its information. It's going to give us users. We're going to know who's there. We're going to be able to better determine the impact and make a better recommendation to the planning commission. Now, in the applicant's justification in our waiver report again as i stated uh they said this was approved and again unfortunately there's a poorly worded note on that preliminary development plan that could have led to their confusion and their assumption that it was approved but the minutes of that meeting clearly state that this access was to be evaluated at the time of a final development plan The minutes actually reflect our transportation manager's statement, Max Conyers, that they favored the removal of that right in right out from that plan. But that they would they did agree to resolving the issue at the time of a final development plan. And that leads us to another discussion that's extremely important and paramount to what you see before you today, both in the preliminary subdivision plan that you see and the waiver associated with it. And that is in the AMP, development is tied under Article 23-B of your zoning ordinance to final development plans. It states that no development can happen on a property until the Planning Commission approves a final development plan. And what is extremely difficult in this situation is what you see before you is a preliminary subdivision plan. And that is neither the custom or the historic practice within the AMP. Staff is always reviewed and they've always been submitted as combined preliminary subdivision plans and final development plans. And the reason for that is the EAMP envisioned at one time the entire area, all the expansion area was going to be rezoned at one time. And then we, staff, in the planning mission, would review final development plans. And through the review of those final development plans, you could then evaluate the compliance of the elements of the expansion area. And those, of course, include the community design element, the future land use element, the infrastructure element, the major elements of the expansion area. And with a preliminary subdivision plan, we cannot do that. They are not addressing the EAMP compliance. Now, I will say this as part of the supplemental material. They did submit an EAMP compliance statement. However, that's not required until the time of the final development plan. and again the reason for that is you can't really evaluate the adequacy of this plan the adequacy of this access point unless you have that detailed information unless you know what the uses are going to be unless you know exactly how they're going to address all the infrastructure issues the community design element issues and by submitting a preliminary subdivision plan, they have in essence kicked this down the road a further step because very simply put, this access does not meet the AMP. This Hume Road realignment does not meet the AMP. And the absence of final development plan information on this plan does not meet requirements of the AMP. It does not meet the requirements of Article 23 of your ordinance. And that presents a tremendous, tremendous obstacle in evaluating this plan and evaluating the waiver report. Now, oops, sorry, there we go. here we are the AMP clearly here are the land uses recommended in the AMP and as we all know these got switched in a zone change some years ago here's Costco but what's important to note in the AMP land use plan is here's the ED land. Here's the land in question. Here's Central Baptist. Here is Polo Club Boulevard. There it is. Serving this property. Here's Park Road, another collector street designed to serve this entire area, 2A of the AMP. And the AMP contemplated and anticipated and planned for these land use relationships relative to the infrastructure, and in this case, the road infrastructure, required infrastructure. They anticipated, the plan did, that this ED land would be served by Polo Club, the collector street. Again, with a local street network developed as necessary to serve these properties, carry traffic out to the Polo Club Boulevard, the collector, and then out to the arterial, or this way out to an arterial or to the interstate as well. Again, relationships that were fully anticipated by the AMP. Now, here is a demonstration of the existing zoning and conditions out in the area. Subject property, ED zone, the commercial development of Costco. We have a school site in this area. We have a huge vacant. This huge vacant area here is recommended for EAR3 for the most part. So we're anticipating in the future a large increase in dwelling units, people living out here, people working out here. This slide shows this development. Again, it doesn't show up well, but here's the lotting pattern. Here's their access point. Here is the street that they're proposing. And it ties in here and it ties into the Central Baptist development. And I know you all remember that discussion very well. So this is the proposed development. This is the assisted living facility that I believe is under construction if it's not open in an apartment complex in this location. Again, Costco. So this is the housing development that you recently approved with townhouses and single family homes in this area. This is the Blackford apartment plan that you just postponed today that is online and will be coming forward. This is a development that you have approved recently. And again, this shows existing developments, pending developments and future developments. All these developments were anticipated at the EMP, and it was anticipated that they would be served by their local street network and the proposed collector street network. Now, if we return to the plan, I'd like to emphasize that no uses are shown on this plan. And furthermore, in the supplemental information, the applicant states, they're not going to show us any plan uses, any users until a final development plan is filed. And what they have said is that it is imperative. And I want to highlight that it is imperative, according to the applicant, that this street system, this access point with a signal. Again, I didn't emphasize that earlier in my presentation, but they're proposing a full intersection with a signal at this location. they are stating that it is imperative that this street system serve Central Baptist Hospital. Now, at the time that Central Baptist Hospital was approved, and it was approved, you may recall, on a preliminary development plan and a final development plan, and this is phase one on that final development plan, the discussions centered on access polo club for central baptist and i know you all remember these well the number of access points was discussed as was the signalization uh versus a roundabout at these locations considerable discussion and at that time central baptist did file a compliance statement and that compliance statement made it very clear that the relationship of Central Baptist and their access and their network, their network was oriented on Polo Club, the Collector Street, which and does comply back with EMP. Interesting enough, although apparently this is imperative, it was not an aspect of their presentation. It was not an aspect of their EMP compliance report. What was discussed was the possible through street to be constructed from Sir Barton under the interstate approximately, and we don't know the exact location, but that was to provide some relief to the traffic situation and the congestion in this area. And that again returns us to the discussion of the importance of the AMP, the importance of getting this right, the importance of planning, the importance of getting the land uses and our traffic system right. and the problem when we don't get it right is that we have to come in and do expensive fixes and you all are aware aware of those this is one of those fixes we are already aware of the issues with traffic and traffic congestion in this area and the movement of traffic you all are aware that we've had expensive fixes in other areas of our community, again, because of past decisions that were poor access, which created poor access management. In this area, you can see through here, we have highlighted all the intersections. These green circles are all signalized. The orange squares are existing access points, older access points reflective of the previous uses, including the use on the currently on the subject property. This is Hume Road. Again, an existing condition that was recognized in the AMP. These are right in and right out. These are the signals. Again, exist on Polo Club. These were predetermined and approved on a final development plan. I can't see them on my screen, but there are two road connections further to the east. One will be the Park Road collector that you saw on the AMP land use map that I showed you, and the other one will be Manowar, Bryant Road slash Manowar. It is anticipated as this area fully grows out, as we add more and more households and more commercial activities that eventually, in the future, and that's what we're planning for here, the future, there will be additional lights. So again, you can see the difficulty that exists in the access spacing along Winchester Road at this time. And access spacing is not just important in terms of the access in and of itself, but the signalization and the impact it has on appropriate and safe management, access management. The information that was submitted to staff, and I'm going to leave it to our transportation section and perhaps others to address some of the more technical aspects of that, But very simply put, the applicant's information did not demonstrate in staff's estimation that this proposed site, that was Polo Club, that this proposed site for a signalized intersection would work safely. nor did it demonstrate that it would not have an impact not on traveling public on everyone who uses winchester road through here but on the interstate as well staff is concerned again and staff's investigation staff's numbers suggest that there would be a significant negative impact on Winchester Road as well as the interstate if this access point should be approved as a full access point with a signal. Polo Club is to be signalized. That is in the works. That's going to happen. It meets the warrants by Kentucky Department of Transportation. This does not. and there's actually no guarantee that it ever will, nor is there anything that says they have to approve a signal here or approve this access, and you all heard this explained to you many times. You all can approve one on a state road, and they can deny it. They can approve one, and you can deny it. That's how the system works when we evaluate access on an arterial. and in regards to the department of transportation's concerns on this staff has worked closely with them as close as we worked with them on a lot of issues and staff can state to you unequivocally that they consider the signalized intersection at this location to be a bad idea. Now, the applicant is proposing to realign Hume. And yes, Hume is a problem. People are aware of it. It's not considered a large problem, frankly, although I know there's a lot of interested parties that are directly impacted by it. And you have letters of support, by the way, from various entities. The church, some residents, KU, and you can see their proposal takes it through the KU property, have all expressed support for this particular alignment, as has Central Baptist. Now, this is the approximate alignment under the AAMP, and staff would state that the AAMP does anticipate that there has to be adjustments at times in collectors and in the construction of infrastructure. This particular alignment is not superior to this alignment. And the applicant is going to tell you, and they're concerned that you've got KU right here, and you have the city's pump station at this location. And those are factors that will impact this section of Hume Road relocation, Polo Club extended, if and should it happen. Now, it is laudable that they want to try to address some of these issues, and they're offering to do so. That also raises another problem. What's the timing of that? What do we tie it to? How necessary is it? As I stated before, they cannot build off this preliminary subdivision plan. They are going to have to come back with a final development plan before they can move a shovel of dirt out of here. And that means that if this is vital to Central Baptist Hospital, they're going to have to coordinate all this. total construction of all this installation of a light to the development of the central baptist hospital and as was clearly demonstrated with the central baptist proposal this was what was important access to polo club boulevard with signals and then access out to winchester road and from there the interstate and other parts uh this way going east to clark County, or in fact, again, this direction. That was the key to that discussion on Central Baptist. This, again, did not enter into the discussion whatsoever. I want to summarize that the Division of Planning, your engineering staff, traffic engineering, KDOT, They reviewed all the data. They reviewed this proposal, and it's not supported by your professional staff. This access point is not supported. They failed to demonstrate any hardship with utilizing this approved collector road and this signal. Again, look at the distance. It's a few seconds of driving time from a proposed access point to this location. And forgive me because I forgot to tell you that the distance, according to their math, is about 733 feet from their proposal to this intersection. The subdivision regulation formula that utilizes the land use provisions or land use of the proposed property, If you follow that formula, and we've got that wonderful. Oh, there it is. That's the industry. That's the formula. And pardon me, I meant to actually touch on this earlier. Basically, you tie in TE, the trip ends. There they are, based on land use, which we don't have. You follow this math, and it'll come up with a negative number. And then you multiply it. And ultimately, you'll come up with the access spacing required under your subdivision regulations. In this particular instance, we utilized the trip-ins from the land use of the 2019 plan for this property because they did not provide us any current land uses. So we used those land uses. And that access was 5,200 feet. Well, as we highlighted in red, if D, which is the distance between access points, exceeds 1,400 feet, then that minimum standard 1,400 feet is what applies to the development. So that is the mathematical essence of this request. They're asking for a waiver of that 1,400 feet on access spacing to approximately 773 feet. That's a 50% reduction in your access standard. So again, staff in evaluating this is recommending disapproval of the waiver. because they failed to demonstrate that there's any hardship in utilizing Polo Club Boulevard and the existing access. The waiver request does not meet the intent of the land subdivision regulations because it does not meet our minimum requirements. And furthermore, the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed access will not create negative safety impacts on Winchester Road, the minor arterial, or potentially on I-75 by backing up traffic. So again, staff is recommending disapproval of the waiver. And furthermore, again, it doesn't meet the – these are the – I just basically read those, summarized to you are our conditions for disapproval. Now, in a return to the preliminary plan, the subdivision plan, staff is also recommending disapproval of the preliminary subdivision plan, and this is because, as I stated before, a preliminary subdivision plan is not consistent, is filed not in conjunction with the final development plan, then nothing can be built. There is no ability for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision as to whether or not this development meets the EAMP. And that is the customary and historical way we have evaluated every development in the expansionary. That includes Central Baptist, that includes the multifamily development from Ball Homes and the single family and Costco. All these developments have always been evaluated in conjunction with a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan so the infrastructure can be built. So that it can be determined if they're meeting the community design that is required in the AMP. The lack of the information in this preliminary subdivision plan makes it impossible for you to make an informed decision. And then the preliminary subdivision plan does not meet the requirements, again, of the land subdivision regulations governing access, which is why again they requested a waiver because it does not meet your land subdivision regulations. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. I would like you to know that our transportation section is here to make a presentation on some of the more detailed aspects of the applicants supporting information and the concerns that they have. My intent here was just to summarize for you that there were deficiencies and concerns that resulted in the recommendation that you see before you today. And again, as I state, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions for Tom at this time? Mr. Nichols? okay mr martin um can you i'm looking at the the staff recommendation of disapproval that's on our screen right now and normally the way that this is done is there's a preliminary subdivision plan and a final subdivision plan submitted at the same time it says in conjunction So normally, or the way that it's been done in the past, the applicant comes with a preliminary subdivision plan and also the final development plan, or is it just the final development plan they come with? Well, in the AMP, in order to ensure compliance with those elements, they utilize both because in a single family development, you can build the infrastructure off the preliminary subdivision plan and the final development plan. But Article 23B was written to implement the EAMP. So it is a little different, and it specifically requires a final development plan. So they always combine them. Okay. They always combine them. And obviously, with a single-family home development, the preliminary subdivision plan is really the governing document. However, in commercial areas, economic areas, multifamily developments, the final development plan allows them to do the same thing, build the infrastructure, demonstrate compliance. So historically, it's been customary for those to be combined in the expansion area. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin before we move on to, we have Jimmy Evans. I'm on the Zoom call today to talk about tracking. Thank you, sir. Really, my presentation is just a continuation of Tom's and intended to supplement that. So one of the things that we're really talking about here on our access management is really on this entire thing about having our access point is really access management. And we've talked to you before in your work sessions about the importance of access management. It's the number one thing that we can do to improve safety and capacity and extend the functional life of our roadways. Next slide. But it's what we need to, it's, oh, I don't have control of the thing. Can we get the next slide? It's what we need to do in order to control safety and our flow of our arterials. This is just a indication. There are numerous studies out there that talk about the benefits of access management and the negative impacts that you have whenever you don't follow your own access management rules. This one right here is just a study showing that the crash rate increases as the number of access points per mile increases. It's an exponential rate. And the next slide. This one also actually is a more specific study that actually shows that whenever you have signalized intersections, whenever you have signalized intersections at an increased density, you actually get an increased crash rate. And once again, it's an exponential type of thing that you go through here. So as you, whenever you double the signal density, you actually increase the crash rate at those signalized intersections two and a half times. So you get an increased crashes whenever you put your intersections and also your signalized intersections too close together. Next slide. there is a formulas that are that you use to try and figure out what the best intersection spacing is based off of the signal timing length. In this particular instance, whenever you look through there and you highlight on the and you can see the highlights on this graph, basically everything comes down to 2,640 feet. That's a half mile and that is the modern recommendation for spacing for signalized intersections, that they would be, that your signalized intersections would be a half mile apart. This intersection is actually from the I-75 access, from the I-75 interchange to Polo Club Boulevard is actually only 1,800 feet. So with our already existing, our planned signalized intersection at Polo Club and Winchester Road and the existing signal for I-75, we are already 800 feet shy of the recommended distance between there. So we already have that spacing closer than it's recommended. Next slide. And the consequences of having this pour is the exact opposite. We know that there will be an increase in crashes and crash rates. We know that we will get less capacity for our roadways to do this. and what we're going to do, it's going to not just cost time and money and crashes, it's also going to increase the delays and increase the congestion in the area. Next slide. These are just some indicative studies that were done. There have been numerous studies that show that whenever you manage your access on your arterials, you have less accidents in the next one. And you also have less congestion. This one in particular is looking at the through speed. So speed is one of those things that you do to measure like how much congestion there are. On the regular arterials where it's not managed through the access management, you have much slower speeds because you have much greater congestion. Next slide. Looking a little bit away from like national statistics and looking at information that we have available here locally, I used our NREX data, which is a data source that we pay for that's able to look at traffic data and do different types of analysis, especially on our arterial corridors. In this particular instance, I looked at the Winchester Road corridor and did a bottleneck report from our NREX data. And that shows us empirically that we have a known bottleneck right now on this side of the interstate at the I-75 interchange. interchange. And whenever you look at the data and you look at those bottleneck reports, you can see that on average, that bottleneck actually has a rolling impact, that kind of that ripple effect of about a two mile along that roadway. As such, you know, we looked at the, we also looked at the safety data and the crash data and the collision analysis. And whenever we looked at the collision analysis for in the area of the Hume Road, existing Hume Road and Winchester Road, we looked at a five-year period of accidents and we found 22 collisions over that five-year period. On the other side of the interstate at the Elkhorn Road, thank you, at the Elkhorn Road intersection, which is a signalized intersection very similar to what the applicant is proposing, there were 102 collisions versus the 22 collisions at Hume Road. There were 102 collisions at Elkhorn Road at that signalized intersection during the same time frame. Now granted there is more traffic right now on Winchester Road on the west side of the interstate than there is currently on the east side of the interstate. So we don't just look at the total number of crashes we look at the crash rate. So what we did on this is that we looked at the amount of traffic that was there. We did the growth rates to get all of the traffic on both sides of the interstate brought up to 2020, 2020 projected up to 2020 amounts. And whenever we looked at the crash rate for the Hume Road, that was a crash rate of 1.3 collisions per million cars that went through there. And whenever we looked at the crash rate of the Elkhorn Drive intersection, that was a 2.2 per million. So even whenever you stabilize the numbers to account for the fact that there are simply more people going through the Elkhorn, it still has a higher crash rate. Another thing that we started to look into, because when you're looking at five years of crash data, sometimes things can easily get lost in that. So we looked kind of specifically at one year, the last year of crashes on Hume Road, and many of them that came up in that Hume Road intersection appear actually not to be directly related to the Hume Road access, but actually more related to the bottleneck of the I-75 Winchester Road access there. So I highly suspect that even a more detailed analysis of the collision rates at Hume Road would actually lead to a lower collision rate. This is why the staff has repeatedly said that we're not discounting the fact that Hume Road does not meet current standards, but the proposal, we believe, will cause more collisions and have greater number of conflict points than leaving this alone for the time being. If I can get the next slide. I've also talked to you oftentimes, and this is inherent in what we're talking about, but we've talked to you about the functional area of impact for an intersection because you've got the physical area of the intersection. But then you've also got that functional area, the areas upstream and downstream of the intersection where traffic needs to have that stopping site distance, where people need time to have time to react to what's going on at the intersection above them. if we can go through the next three slides very quickly. So what you end up with is an application of this access window. Whenever the functional area of those two intersections do not overlap, there is an opportunity to look at access to your primary road. Whenever they overlap, but not completely, that's whenever it's appropriate to look at our right turn movements, our right turn access movements. are those appropriate for access to the main arterio and whenever those functional areas of operation of those intersections are too close together and they overlap each other there is no window to allow access to those higher street that higher street and you need to then get your access to the site off of your lower secondary streets next slide so how do we improve the consequences of bad access management, well, we have to unclutter the corridor. We know that we have had to spend millions of dollars in the past. Look at the most famous example here locally is what we had to do on our access points on New Circle Road, the commercial access, to have that, to go back and retrofit that. Retrofitting these things are very expensive. They're very time consuming, but they are worth it. In this particular instance, one of the number one things that we can do is that this access point that the applicants are asking for does not exist today. This is going to be something that we are going to have to come back in and fix later if it's allowed today. So, next slide. So, those were just some of the overall reasons why this waiver request should be denied from a transportation standpoint. But I'd like to talk about some of the more specific details related to the information that was provided. As Tom mentioned several times, that they are not providing with this preliminary subdivision plan actual uses for this property. So from a transportation standpoint, I had to go back to the information that I did have available. I had the 2019 Meadowcrest Traffic Impact Study and the 2020 Baptist Health Study that was done to look at their access to Polo Club Boulevard. And whenever you look at these, what I did is I used the uses that they proposed in those studies with the ITE codes, and I calculated the trip ends for the formula for the access spacing. Now, if Tom went over this a little bit, but mathematically, that access spacing formula, if you only had one trip end, then the formula would still have a minimum spacing of 400 feet. If you had 3,000 or more trip-ins, that it will max out at 1,400 because mathematically, the number will always be greater than 1,400. So 3,000 trip-ins is your key number there on whether it's going to max out that spacing formula or not. Just for the Calgill property alone, based off of the uses that are in the 2019 Calgill study, they have over 14,000 trip-ins, according to the uses that were used there. One of those uses was the continuing care retirement community, which is a very low traffic generator. And now it brings into question because the current preliminary subdivision plan is not very much like the preliminary development plan that was before you. So we don't even know if that use is still on the table or not. So first and foremost, we have questions on whether that is still the appropriate uses to generate the trip-ins for this. But second of all, more than that, I just want to point out that it's a bit of a moot point. Because if you look at the fast food restaurants, the fast food restaurants alone that they were proposing in their 2019 Meadowcrest study have over 3,673 trip-ins. So that one use that was in their study is enough to max out the formula. So once again, that formula says that you need to be 1,400 feet away from other intersections in order to have access. There is only 1,800 feet in between the two known intersections. So it's mathematically impossible to do this without the requested waiver. We also did the same thing with the Baptist Health Study and looked at the trip-ins for the amount of traffic that's generated from the Baptist Health Study. Next slide. One of the things that has been shown to the staff, what was submitted was a four-page addendum that Palmer Engineering did. I just want to, and they also have prepared visualization tools, visualizations and micro simulations of this traffic, which I expect you to see today. One of the things that I want to point out is that if the applicant refers to this as a new traffic impact study, it is not a new traffic impact study. It is the micro simulation tool and the visualization tools. They are important tools, but they don't go into the depth and they don't meet all of the requirements that a new traffic impact study would. So next slide. So I want to talk a little bit about what I believe you're going to see is the Palmer simulation using the VISM software. We don't know what the technical specifics or the parameters used in that simulation are. What we know is what they've told us. They say that it was based off first off of the vision simulation, which I'll get into in just a moment. It was based off of the Meadowcrest traffic impact study, which we've already questioned the trip generation for that study with the current uses. The Baptist Health traffic impact study and additional traffic added for the schools. Staff questions whether, you know, this is still valid if it was based off of that Meadowcrest in through there. Another thing that they have shown us in their simulations, in their simulation videos, is that they are only actually comparing two scenarios, full access with an intersection, right in, right out with U-turns, neither of which meet our subdivision regulations, both of which require waivers of our subdivision regulations, and both of which staff is strongly against. So whenever you're comparing this one against that one, trying to say this one is better than that one, staff is strongly against both of those. And as I mentioned, we have not received for the Palmer simulate micro simulation that we expect you to see today. Neither the Division of Planning nor Traffic Engineering has received any additional information on those simulations. We don't know how much traffic is being simulated. We don't know what type of signal timing they use. And the micro simulation tools are very important, but they're also very dependent upon what input you put into those modeling tools. If I can get the next slide. What was shared with staff was Vision Engineering did a synchro simulation. They did share those files with planning and traffic engineering. And while the division planning does not have the software to run a synchro simulation, our division of traffic engineering does, and they reviewed those files. And whenever they reviewed the vision synchro simulation against the submitted Meadowcrest traffic impact study, they found that there was a significant amount of traffic, about a thousand peak hour trips that were not accounted for in the synchro files that were in the 2019 study. Another thing that's important to point out is that these synchro simulations, they usually review the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. The 90th percentile is representative of our evening rush hour traffic, our PMP power traffic. So whenever the staff in our previous discussions with Vision Engineering, their assertion that this traffic would not impact the interstate intersection, that was based on the 50th percentile or the average traffic. Whenever our traffic engineers looked at their study, the 90th percentile, which is representative of the evening rush hour, shows that the I-75 intersection would be nearly impacted on this. And whenever you take that into consideration that there is less traffic in the synchro simulation than there was in the traffic study, and that there is less and that we question whether that is still the appropriate amount of traffic in there, that leads to the very real concern that this proposed access, that this proposed intersection will cause an impact to the interstate. And whenever you get an impact to the interstate on this, you're dealing with, anytime something affects the interstate, you're dealing with much higher speeds. The crashes that occur are much more dangerous because they're going at much higher speeds. And this is something that has to immediately be taken care of. this is the entire reason why we did the Manowar study that was done that looked at the congestion of Winchester Road in I-75 and Manowar Boulevard in I-75. It's the reason why we're spending money now to look at the why Kentucky Department of Transportation is currently spending the money to look at a feasibility study for the recommendation for the trip for the road that would go under the interstate to connect up Sir Barton and Polo Club Boulevard. because Polo Club Boulevard today has about 6,000 cars on it. Sir Barton Way has about 21,000 cars on it. We expect that Polo Club will grow to be very similar to handle the amount of traffic that its counterpart Sir Barton Way has. This is the reason why it's extremely important to try and get a connection to there that avoids the already congested intersections of Winchester Road in the interstate and Man at War Boulevard in the interstate. There are other considerations that we have with the synchro simulation. They use signal timing, which is not the same signal timing that's used by LFUCG. All of these things led us to question and be concerned about that study. And the reason why I bring this up is because we are concerned about the vision synchro simulation. We have not received any of the details on the Palmer simulation that we expect you to see today. But they have said that their work, the Palmer work, is building upon the work and the simulations that were done by vision engineering. I have given you a lot of information. This pretty much concludes my prepared remarks. I'm available for any questions that you have for me. Also, our traffic engineers from LFPCG should be in the audience too. If you have any questions for them, I'm sure that they would be happy to try and answer any questions. But for that, I'm going to end with my part of the presentation. I think it goes without saying, transportation planning is in support of planning services recommendation for disapproval of the waiver and disapproval of the preliminary subdivision plan. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions for Mr. Emmons before we move on to the applicant presentation? Okay, Mr. Nichols. Okay, real quickly, and I don't know if you can pull the slide back up or not, but Mr. Emmons, you were discussing all the potential uses for the site. And one of the uses for the site was for fast food. And with the uses alone of the fast food, it recommends like a 1,440 foot distance between the two intersections, which is greater than what exists now. When you're looking at that fast food with DT, we're not talking about 26 acres of fast food. location. We're talking about, I mean, how many fast food restaurants are we talking about? Is this three out parcels, four out parcels? Because the overall property is significant. Yes, thank you. That's a good question. In their study, they had 7,800 square feet of fast food restaurants with drive-thrus. That equates to approximately three or four fast food restaurants and the overall property is the the overall property from their from their study uh had a had a total trip bins of 14,517 uh whenever you're looking at uh my point was on that was you know whenever you're looking at those spacing requirements you're actually supposed to look at all of the contiguous area and all of the trips that are generated by the by the contiguous area, not just one use. But the point that I was trying to make is that the uses, particularly uses like the restaurants and convenience markets and, and hotels, those uses that are general, that I believe this plan is recommending that they be up towards Winchester Road and closest to the interstate access. Those are some of the highest generating uses and, And those uses alone would not meet the spacing requirements, regardless of any amount of traffic for the rest of the ED land on the Calgill property or any of the traffic, the significant amount of traffic that is anticipated from the Baptist Health Care property. Okay, I see why it's very confusing. Now I understand why Mr. Martin was talking about it's hard to. determine trip counts without a final development plan. I understand it's less marketable without a final. I mean, there are reasons not to have a final development plan, but when it comes to traffic, it makes it very difficult for someone like me to understand. It does, and that's why planning staff had to, you know, in order to even look at that, you have to make some assumptions on on the uses and so rather than myself trying to imagine what uses that they are going to have out there i used the best available information that i had which was their traffic impact study okay and that luckily we'll get to hear from um the applicant as well so thank you very much for thank you information and of course i'm positive that uh that planning staff and possibly traffic engineering will need time for rebuttal at the after listening to I don't know what they're going to say yet I'm doing a little bit of anticipation all right thank you thank you Jim okay we'll move on to the applicant we'd ask if you're with the applicants team and would like to be admitted as a panelist please raise your hand electronically mr. Nicholson I'm adding you now and Mr. Sewell and it looks like probably a presentation computer and Mr. Brumley you've all been promoted to panelists now if you could please start your audio and video Thank you all. Before I get started, Mr. Chair, we had made a request in order to have 45 minutes of presentation time. I was informed this morning that that was denied. And by my count, the planning staff just went 56 minutes. And so we would request again to be able to be given 45 minutes or basically just equal time, which is what is actually called for in the rules. magnificent you're okay okay thank you very much and we won't take that long but i did want to put that in there uh are you going to go 45 or 56 i believe 45 minutes um but uh with me is uh joe brumley with cowgill partners matt carter and mark mcintosh with vision steven sewell with palmer and also brian hill who's with cmw is in the room for insights into the baptist health uh kind of part of this project. And so we're happy to answer any questions and correct some of the inaccuracies that have been in the staff presentations we've heard so far. We are here today in order to kind of present the combined vision of what we believe the Calgill Partners and the Baptist Health Parcels look as a unified campus and what will be the largest private economic development project in the history of Lexington. I do not say that sentence lightly in any way, shape, or form. This planning commission has already heard about the economic impact of the Baptist Health Hamburg campus at over a billion dollars at full build out in just $250 million at just the first phase. Those figures do not include the 85 acres of what we are here to discuss today, just the 129 acres of Baptist Health. So it's not remotely out of the question that what we are here to talk about is land that represents a $2 billion economic impact to this community. And when this body looked at the Baptist plan, it specifically stressed to us at that meeting that for this economic development land to be successful, which this community needs and very much wants it to be, it is vital that Baptist and Cowgirl work together to ensure the 215 acres of the only ED land in this expansion area is cohesively developed. In the waiver letter, when we talked about what was imperative, that is what we were identifying as what was imperative. It is imperative that we know how the infrastructure plan for these properties are going to work if this is going to be developed as a cohesive campus. That is what we are here today to discuss. This is a proposed infrastructure plan to ensure that these properties function as one campus, connected multi-use trails, roads. We even have agreements with signage. We talked about building materials. We talked about uses in order to make sure that if you're on this 200 acres, you think that this is one campus because we feel that that's what is going to be important to really make this a successful economic project. project. Now, we know that this is just the first step along the way. We're going to be back before this committee many, many times. We know that a final development plan is required. We know that amended final development plans are coming. I know Baptist Health is on their 24th amendment plan, just in the Nicholasville Road campus. We are going to be working with this planning staff and working with this commission for the next 10 years to bring this economic development vision into reality. So with that in mind, I'm going to do something I rarely do. I'm going to stop talking. I want you all to hear from the people that are in charge of this dream. So you all get it straight from the source. What is at stake and what we believe that this property can truly become. But we also know that this plan needs to be approved in order for that vision to become a reality. Joe, I'd ask you to take over. Just one second. Oh, here. I'll move my camera. Go ahead. I'm going to get this up here. Go ahead and talk. What is it coming through here? Five minutes. Everybody here. Tracy is that coming through yes we can hear you thank you all right we've got a lot to cover so we'll just get right into it What we're going to share with you today has to do with safety, planning, the stakeholders we've consulted in this process, ensuring the success of Baptist Health, jobs creation for our site and Baptist Health, and everything that we're going to show you is at no cost to the city and has no development incentives. We are working with Kentucky American Water on waterline relocation. We have met with the transportation cabinet a number of times. We've worked out a deal with Kentucky Utilities where they would donate two acres of land to this project to make the road system function better in this area. We've met extensively with the North Lexington Church of Christ and consulted with Fayette County Public Schools. They've got big concerns about bus safety on these intersections that we're going to show you. And very importantly, we spent a lot of time with Council Member Plowman on this. It's her district, but she also lives on Winchester Road. So she's been more aware of the dangerous issues we're going to try to solve than anybody we've worked with. But the bottom line is what we're trying to do is ensure safe and sustainable access for Baptist health. That's the biggest issue. now these dark purple areas you know were brought into the expansion area in 1996 our property and baptist health are at the corner of i-75 and winchester road in this pink box when we zoom in here you'll see the pink area is where baptist health and meadow crest are located the property is their zone ed which you know stands for economic development and that centers around job creation and opportunities for employment. In Lexington, there are 532 acres of ED land, and they have been in place since, obviously, since 1996. And in the last 24 years, less than 2% of that land has been developed because of restrictions with the zoning. We're all aware of the incentives we've invested in as a community for Baptist Health. Mayor Gorton and Kevin Adkins have personally invested significant time and making this opportunity possible with Baptist Health. Baptist Health will create 700 new jobs with many more to come in the future. And as Nick mentioned, they'll be investing over a billion dollars into this campus in the next 10 to 15 years. Metal Crest is adjacent to Baptist Health. We provide this connection point to Winchester Road. And this is what it looks like today. At the top right hand of your screen is Lowe's and Walmart in Hamburg. At the bottom left hand is Cabela's. And one thing you might hear from Brian Hill with CMW later, one thing that Brian has always pointed out to us is that it's really hard to grasp how large this area is. So I want to put this box around here. The total site is 215 acres. And what we're asking for is for this entire area to be serviced by four traffic signals. And if you take that 215 acres and move it downtown, it looks like this. You'll see it stretches all the way from the Herald-Leaner to Rupp Arena. And again, we're just asking for this area to be serviced by four traffic signals. Over the past year, we've worked closely with Baptist Health. Now, Bill Sisson and Buddy Caggle really want to collaborate to treat these two properties as one large campus. Both sites could have matching border fences, entrances, signage, light post, landscaping, shared pedestrian and bike connections. But the most important thing that we've been collaborating with them on is how to make this safe and efficient access off Winchester Road. And we're proposing to realign U-Mode to do that. When you put the development plans side by side. Baptist Health is on the left. Middlecrest is on the right. We just want to show you some of the types of planning that has gone into this. We would install roundabouts to match the same style that Baptist Health has on their property. And we've already mentioned that we want to collaborate on this tunnel, which would go from Sir Barton Way to Polo Club. The Middlecrest site would be entitled to three entrances on the Polo Club development plan. But in the spirit of cooperation, we'd be willing to give up one of those to make this tunnel happen. On a second polo club entrance, we have a substantial stormwater area that we have to contend with. It makes an entrance very difficult to work there because it borders this area in the stormwater master plan. Overall on our site, we have three stormwater areas, but we really want to make these attractive and usable amenities, not just utilitarian. So we'd like to make this look like this with paths, sitting areas, landscaping, really to make it beautiful for everybody that works and lives and visits the area. When you see the Baptist Health built out on the left, I just want to point out that they would have a sidewalk system and we're already making plans to make that connect with our sidewalk system. We would have these trails that we'd like to have go around the water areas. you might be at the hospital and want to take a walk down to the corner of Polo Club in Winchester. We can see restaurants or shops down there that you might want to visit. But overall we want to link these water features, restaurants, hotels, apartments, and offices. This tunnel would lead to a park on the opposite side of Polo Club, but the general idea is to create an attractive campus with a shared identity. overall we want it to look like this we would provide a prominent winchester road entrance to baddest health and it could look like this and we could have an attractive water feature at the corner of winchester road and polo club boulevard and here we could have some restaurants that overlook this water feature and in the center of the Meadowcrest site we would have this roundabout and it could funnel traffic right into Baptist Health and throughout our site as well so on the left is Baptist Health as you've already seen and on the right is the area that we really want to focus on today this red box is the key to improving this red box is the key to improving safety unlocking supportive uses for Baptist health and a framework for their success and the success of Meadowcrest so we really want to study this area in detail. You take that red box and move it up here and you can see this is Winchester Road between I-75 and Polo Co Boulevard. I want to point out that in 1996 the expansion area plan recognized that Yume Road was too close to the interstate and it called for a system improvement specifically to shift it further away. So I didn't know much about Yume Road when we started but I'm going to share what we know now. So here you can see where the Yume Road was proposed to be realigned. So Yume Road is a connector from Bryan Station to Winchester Road and it's a pretty important connector and it's growing in importance every day. It's a shortcut to Hamburg, Costco, or Cabela's if you were to be on the north side of town. And if you were to be at the Brian Station Road Kroger and wanted to go to Costco, it takes up to 50% off your travel time instead of using New Circle Road. Over the past decade, the traffic count has gone from 2,500 a day to 4,500 per day. At the bottom of your screen in the red box is where we want to talk about that's where Yume Road meets Winchester Road. The first thing to notice is that Yume Road is less than 600 feet from the interstate. It's closer to the interstate than any other intersection in Fayette County. But there's a problem with the way it meets Winchester Road. It has this sharp 67 degree turn angle. And let's talk about the dangers of that alone. Let's imagine you're leaving Yume Road and you want to turn right towards town. You've got to make this sharp turn and avoid side swiping cars in the left lane. But you're also competing with cars that are attempting to merge onto the interstate on ramp. Now, if you're leaving Yume Road and you want to turn left away from town towards Winchester, you've got to wait for an opening, pull into the median, then stop, wait for an opening, then turn left. And then the final complicated movement is if you're coming from downtown and you want to get onto Yume Road, you've got to pull into that median. Hope another car is not coming off Yume Road in the opposite direction. Then wait for an opening in traffic and then turn backwards to get into Yume Road. And this is what it looks like. This is where Yume Road meets Winchester Road. If you were to go there today, you'll likely get caught in the same situation. But what's really important to remember here is that every vehicle going to Baptist Health will drive past this intersection going to Baptist Health and also when they return from Baptist Health. And here's the result. You can see this crushed guardrail and stop sign. But the people that know this area are already well aware of the dangers, and I think that's probably what's led to so much support that we've had from the area residents and businesses. This is Yume Road looking back at Winchester Road. And here I want to point out that there are two stop signs. There are stop signs on both sides of the road. I think that's pretty unusual, but indicative of the type of danger that exists here. I also want to point out that the service vehicle, this is a KU service vehicle. It's headed back to their substation, which we're going to talk a lot about. But I just want you to notice how that vehicle has had to turn beyond the road and is turning backwards toward Yume Road to swing backwards. And from overhead, we have these backups shown on Yume Road. And on the right, I want to point out the KU substation is right here. It's again important, so we'll be coming back to it. And when you go out Yume Road and look back towards Winchester Road, you can see this backup. This is the KU substation on your left. But the good news is that this is a problem that we can solve. This slide shows the location of accident reports. Just want to show you this slide so you can see where the accidents cluster now. You can really imagine what this is going to be like when Baptist Health opens. And I just want to emphasize again that every vehicle going to and from Baptist Health has to pass this intersection. So let's go back to the expansion area master plan. And it called for shifting Yume Road far away from the interstate. And this black dashed line was the suggested location. And we just traced exactly over the expansionary master plan to show you where that was. And this is the urban services boundary. And you can see it was specifically set to contain Yume Road. But Polo Club was actually built. It was constructed further east than originally imagined. And that might not have been a problem, but here's what happened. It now, Polo Club Boulevard now dead ends into the 16-foot elevation drop. That's a pretty substantial topography change, but it's only the first of a number of obstacles I want to show you. The next thing is that Polo Club Boulevard dead ends into this pretty sensitive environmental area. there's a FEMA floodway and a perennial blue line stream North Elkhorn Creek that would be right in the path of extending Polo Club Boulevard later a city pump station was built right here which restricts the ability to repair you road and then the KU substation was constructed right in the path of where the road should have gone now you'll see there are multiple property owners in the way. Obviously obtaining this would be a pretty expensive right-of-way acquisition or condemnation process. I also want to point out that the expansionary master plan has been in place for 24 years and last year we received this new transportation plan of high-priority road projects for the next 25 years. Correcting this Yume Road problem is not included in this document. So in total that's about 49 years of no action on Yume Road. When you put all that together it's an impossible list of obstacles to overcome so the idea of saving Yume Road really went away. But we went back to look at this KU substation. It's a 12-acre property and can see for yourself how much of it is used. So we studied the topography, the pole locations, the wire heights, drainage, and really this problematic way that Yume Road interacts with Winchester. And I want to point out on the bottom right of your screen is our proposed entrance. In this white area, in the middle is the, it's a pretty substantial gulch. That's a real dip in the topography there. And this is what it looks like. It's ugly. It's rugged. It has uncontrolled fill because it was a construction site, a dump for a construction site. And it's rough and overgrown. So part of what we want to do is really do a beautification project on both sides of Winchester Road, and we're going to show you how that could happen. This is the KU substation while standing on Winchester Road looking over this gulch. And I just want to show you this so we can use that horse farm plank as a landmark. From overhead, here's that fence. So we're going to jump over the gulch and stand by the fence. When you cross the gulch, it looks like this. It's a flat opening that leads right to Yume Road. So we're going to walk a little closer to Yume Road. And as you approach Yume Road, here we see this area where a realigned Yume Road could connect to the existing Yume Road. This plank fence would get pulled back a little bit and rebuilt, allowing a new road to easily tie in. So we began to reimagine what Yume Road could look like. The first thing we ran into is the transportation cabinet pointed out that there's not enough space for a proper on-ramp with the existing location of Yume Road. Realigning Yume Road would create space for a ramp. We've already touched on Yume Road being too close to the interstate, so we'd like to move it further away. The Lexington subdivision regulations require spacing of 733 feet between intersections. So that gives you an idea of what might be available for a realigned Yume Road. So we were looking in this area, but KU has these transmission poles in here. Although a road would have fit between these areas, KU and the transportation cabinet asked us to see if we could avoid that. So that left us with this window of opportunity where we could realign Yume Road. And here we can see this connector going straight into Baptist Health and saving Yume Road at the same time. So we went to work with KU on planning. KU would donate almost two acres of land to make this possible. We would relocate the KU access point to provide proper sight lines to this area, building a wraparound service drive to make the exit from their property. much more palatable for vehicles coming in or out. We would clean up this gulch area and install landscaping around the road, again, to create an attractive corridor on both sides of Winchester Road, not just our side. And we would close this existing dangerous median. I also want to point out that we've got these safety buffers that would be built. It was important to Fayette County schools to provide safe turning for buses. Baptist Health wanted to ensure emergency access was more than enough to accommodate ambulances and KU wanted their service vehicles to have adequate turning space and it would even accommodate a semi-truck to get to the KU substation. But most importantly we would add this safe signalized intersection to control traffic. When you put it all together it looks like this. and here's what it looks like from above the KU substation looking towards Adidas Health but I want to bring your attention to this area between Yume Road and Winchester Road again this plan would allow us to create a nice gateway on both sides of the road I think we all know our city needs improved aesthetics in the entry corridors and we want to replace what's here now we want to get rid of this. But Baptist Health is what's driving all this. How do we provide them safe, sustainable traffic flow today and into the future? And how do we create a site that's suitable for economic development land? So we've put together this simulation to show you how it works. And I want you to just orient you, I want to tell you that Baptist Health is on the top right of your screen. In the bottom right is Lowe's and Walmart in Hamburg. So we're going start driving away from town on Winchester Road and cross I-75. You can see the substation on your left. On the right is the new entrance, proposed entrance. Here we're going to turn around and drive out the realigned Yume Road. Now we're going to exit Yume Road, drive through the proposed signalized intersection towards Baptist Health. And you can see Baptist Health in the background. small we'll just drop over that road in total just to show you how seamless and smooth this interconnected activity between us and baptist health could be And now we're going to show you what it looks like, but from above the interstate, just a little wider view. now let's drive down winchester road past the proposed entrance towards polo club boulevard and in the background you'll see baddest health and it's 800 feet from winchester road to our entrance in this location leading right to this roundabout And that's back where we started. So we also did a comparison of the other interstate intersections inside the urban services boundary. There are four. Newtown Pike is the busiest, but I know you're familiar with at least one of these. Our corridor is Winchester Road. And I'm going to show you the spacing of those intersections. You can see the signal spacing of all the intersections in the urban services boundary. And here is where we're proposing the connector to Baptist Health in this location. And that's 1,060 feet from the I-75 intersection. The average distance on the inbound side in Bay County is 1,006 feet. The average distance on the outbound side or the outside of I-75 is 931 feet. What we're proposing is 1,060 feet, and that's 12% more than the average. Another thing that Baptist Health really encourages us to do as they've learned more about this is to consider the impact of taking no action. What if we don't do anything to address U-Mode and we just leave the status quo in place? So we've thought about this from the types of travelers that will be. This couple, they came from Pikeville to see their doctor. Afterward, they went to lunch. And when it's time to leave, they realize they can't go back the way they came. They come out to the entrance. Are they inclined to take a U-turn on Polo Club Boulevard to get home? And we thought about this couple that lives on the north side of town. We told you that it's a cut through from the north side and with increasing activity here, we're concerned about accidents in this median happening in this way. We saw extensive input from the Fayette County Public Schools regarding bus transportation and safety. There are now a minimum of 10 bus trips a day, up to 30 bus trips a day on Yume Road as it is now. But with the new elementary school and middle school coming to the Polo Club Boulevard, with the other growth in the area, the dangers of this are of even more importance to them. So I just wanted you to think about the movements that buses have to make in this intersection. First is this bus that has to cut across Winchester Road incoming traffic and make this hard turn angle. and next about this one that has to come onto winchester road again competing with side swiping and interstate access vehicles to get out they have to stop in the median to get to schools pull out all dangers we've thought about this lady coming from winchester she doesn't take polo club boulevard but she knows she can take the Yume Road, median, not illegal, but dangerous. And this gentleman, he represents a salesperson for Baptist Health. He stays at a hotel on the Meadowcrest site. He realizes he can't get back to where he came. When it's time for him to go home, how does he get back? We're just encouraging another U-turn. The Transportation Cabinet has let us know that with the coming volume of traffic, that it's unlikely these median cuts could stay open. And if they're closed, we thought of this family that lives in Greenbrier. They go to church on Yume Road. When they're headed home, are they inclined to take this U-turn at the ramp? Dangerous and illegal. We've also thought about this gentleman. He lives on Yume Road. He works downtown. When it's time for him to get home, without this median cut, how does he get back? Again, another U-turn. We've considered the future of the Baptist Health emergency room. We see emergency vehicles coming through Winchester Road if they're coming on either the north or the southbound direction. Think about this red ambulance. If they get off at Manowar Boulevard, they would have to go through six traffic signals. To school, two of those turns are left to get to their emergency room. The most efficient route is going to be through Winchester Road. Here, they'll take two rights, both at signals leading directly to the emergency facility. What we want to provide is this safe and sustainable access into the future. The Meadowcrest site would provide apartments for people to live near their work at Baptist Health. We'd like a senior living facility so the residents can be near their doctor, hotels for their patients and families, restaurants for the staff, a bank to help people do business that are working and living in the area, anything that will help Baptist Health succeed. Calgo has owned this site for over 20 years and the clear feedback we get from national brands is that this write-in, write-out access is inadequate, that it's imperative for them to have access on Winchester Road. With proper access, we want to use Baptist Health as a catalyst to maximize the investment we've made in their hospital as a city and we want to treat this is a single campus so it's seamless between any kind of common area uses that support their growth is our hope. We really don't want to compete with one another. We've collaborated on this proposal. We want to work together to be successful. As important as anything else that we've talked to you today are the consequences of doing nothing if we don't solve this email problem. And that's all I've got. Thank you so much. Thank you Joe. I now want to hand it over to Palmer Engineering. Palmer was brought in to add basically an extra set of eyes on the intersection due to their previous work on traffic studies for Baptist in this area. They've been working with Vision Engineering in order to ensure that what we are proposing with this plant is truly best for the overall area. Mr. Chair, this is also why I knew we might need a few extra minutes because we are not the most tech savvy when it comes to coordinating Zoom presentations. this. Screen share. Just quit the whole thing. So, as Nick mentioned, we were brought in as an extra set of eyes just to provide a visualization of what traffic would look like on this area. The study corridor that we looked at was US 60. It started at Sir Martin Way, went up through I-75 and included Polo Club. It also included multiple signals on Polo Club, the Baptist Health signals and future Fayette County public schools that are out there and in the Hume Road intersection there. So what we did was we took the traffic study that was prepared by Vision Engineering. We used the same volumes. We used the same growth rates. We used their volumes and the information that was provided to staff. And we incorporated in the Baptist Health traffic study that we completed earlier this year and the public, Fayette County Public Schools. All that information provided one kind of cohesive entire area study of what it would look like, not just one little piece here. We used, as I mentioned, we used the 20, 30 p.m. traffic volumes. We used the 1% growth rate. And we used the trip generation from each of these sites to put into the simulation that you'll see. traffic signal timing going 10 years in the future we did have to make minor tweaks to that signal timing which is in the synchro files but that's because we added 10 years of traffic to what's what's out there today i mean it constantly lfucd is updating that signal timing so we had to do that also since we're out 10 years in the future and we used this simulation software because it provides a 3D graphics and makes it easier for the non-engineering folks to see what's going on and provides a good visualization of the actual traffic conditions. So this is the site. I know you've seen this. The Baptist Health on the right. You've got Lowe's to the south and Walmart and Hume Road over on the left side and the Cowgirl property in the middle. so as we discuss volumes the 2030 volumes when you start at sir barton sir barton has coming outbound in the pm which is whichever way the direction everybody is going has approximately about 3 000 cars as you get to the interstate it drops to about uh in half with about 1400 going through and a thousand getting on the interstate these are round numbers and then as you get to polo club it drops even further so as you can see the traffic as you progress out of town is dropping significantly at these access points are they're going different directions and then as it goes further out 60 it continues that follow that path so traffic volumes are decreasing as we go here, go further east toward Polo Club. So, this is a VISM simulation, which you're going to see. We did look at two alternatives, and then we actually added a third one after this meeting with the staff prior to this meeting. We looked at right in, right out. What will traffic look like if you had right in, right out onto US 60 and leave Hume Road as it is today. You can see at the top of the screen there, you've got Hume Road backing up past the church. That happens today, and it gets even a little further and a little worse as you grow into the future. You also notice on the top picture that traffic has a really hard time making a right out of this right in, right out coming from the property. uh there's just with the constant flow of traffic out there's no room for the people who want to turn left to go across two lanes to do a u-turn uh so they sit and wait um until they have a gap in both lanes at the bottom of the screen kind of shows another screen captured during the middle of the simulation uh you'll see hume road still backed up the development still backed up but you also see that I-75 is as queued past Hume Road so now it's it's blocking those cars that want to turn left or want to turn right out of this of Hume Road from being able to do that so relocating that is definitely a benefit. This is at Polo Club the right in right out option this is the same right in right out with no left turn access into the site everybody has to turn left at Polo Club. So one thing you'll notice there is the queuing of cars in the left-turn lane is now blocked US-60. It's queued back up, which is obviously creating a safety concern. And that's called – most people say, well, why not just give them more green time? Well, that's competing with the green time that's coming out of town. The Winchester Road going eastbound, if you take green time away from those to give it to these left turns, then you're backing up cars on US-60. So having this multiple access point is a key to allowing, distributing the traffic evenly at multiple access points. And the bottom just provides another graphic with Polo Club has just gotten the green and cleared, but yet you can see the queues that you have on those access points on US60. So the Hume realignment, what benefit does that provide? a signalized intersection there. Now you have essentially all been eliminated the queuing on Hume Road. You still have five or six cars waiting to get a green light on Hume. Coming out of the development, the proposed development, you know, it has five or six cars that are queued up there. And US 60 is still clear because using a coordinated system, which Winchester Road is, it would be able to, the green would be able to progress all the way out. and what we envisioned through the Polo Club signal that was mentioned to be warranted. And with this, I will mention that we did look at Polo Club being signalized. It just has to be when you get to 2030 in the future. And the bottom is just another time in the simulation and what it would look like there with cars, provide that left turn in and the full access. And then at US 60, this is with the realigned US 60. We tried to show the worst case what the maximum queue would be, looking at that 90th percentile, as Jimmy had mentioned earlier. And this is your queue that you would have. Yeah, there would be queuing along US 60. That would be improved once Winchester Road is widened. but it doesn't back up into the adjacent intersection and it doesn't back up into I-75. And then with the discussions with staff, if we provide all traffic going out Polo Club, what would be the impacts to the signal at Polo Club in US-60? And here you can see multiple screen captures of what that would be. This would be where Polo Club has gotten its green it's cleared its queue you'll notice that cars are backed up past this access point that we're discussing today and and at some points it even gets back up to Hume Road and the bottom is just another screen capture that and you can see the queuing of where it's backed up past Hume Road and it started to clear and at Polo Club with everybody having to turn left onto Polo Club to access the site and everybody coming out you've got to give more green time to Polo Club now which makes the left turn on US 60 even more the queue links even longer and even more critical to meeting the green times for each of the approaches. So as we we discussed the signal spacing you can see The signal spacing at Elkhorn there is 875 feet to the west of the interstate. And the new spacing would be 1,060 to the east for this proposed signalized intersection. So we're further than it was at that location. And the equal spacing makes it progress in signals. The platoon of cars coming out of town once they get through Surbarton, through the interstate, makes that platooning and signal timing easier. So here's the simulation. I guess I'll show this is Sir Barton. It will rotate around. You see I-75 ramps. You can see the queuing there. You'll notice that lots of congestion coming out of US-60. Once again, this is the 20-30 PM. So this is 10 years in the future in the afternoon. So you have a heavy movement of cars coming out of town. You'll notice that as we go further east, you'll notice the queues on Hume Road at the bottom of your screen. You notice the queues coming out of the development as they get the green coming down to Polo Club. This is what traffic would look like in 2030. as it rotates over you'll know one thing i want to point out and as i pointed in the screen captures is you have a um you start blocking the us60 left turns start blocking people that are coming into town on us60 um which is does create a safety concern there you have a culvert in this area that you're crossing so that any improvements there would have to deal with that. And you'll notice the U-turn cars and you'll notice the queuing coming out of town on that, on US-60. As we pan up, just kind of gives you an overview of the site and what traffic would look like. And then the next simulation I want to show you is, it's the same exact simulation, but this is with the Hume Road being realigned and providing a signalized intersection. You'll notice that the Winchester Road, nothing changes on the inside of I-75. You still have your queuing and you still have your congestion on the on-ramp or the off-ramp there. And you have the platoon of cars coming out of town. And you see the queuing there and the out-of-the-development. This is when they have had their green time to clear out the queues. As we pan on around to Polo Club, you'll notice that the left turn, since there is multiple access points there, a lot of those cars have already gotten the green there at Polo Club or they're in queue up at the new access point. But traffic queuing is minimal at all these intersections. And you'll notice the access point there with coming out of the development, the first one, and then also includes the other Baptist Health intersections further there to the north. So the goal of this simulation was to provide to you what it would look like with this full access point. Not backing up to the interstate. Having a coordinated system will be a necessity with this many signals in a row. But it does function 10 years in the future and provides multiple access points for the volume of cars that are expected to use this site rather than one or two access points on Polo Club. I'll give it back to you, Nick. Thank you. All right. I believe you all can see this presentation. I will be short, Mr. Chairman, And as I know we are running long, I assumed that you would want to have heard from kind of the experts as opposed to just the lawyer that is talking. But I do want to point out a few specific factors and justification for the waiver requests that we are here to discuss. It is our position that we are in compliance with the subdivision regulations. If the Planning Commission does determine a waiver is required, we have prepared findings for its approval that I will present in just one minute. But as we get into the justification of that waiver, I want to kind of point out what the Expansion Area Master Plan talked about with regards to access for this specific parcel. As you can see, when our community was laying out the future land use map, kind of determining what land type should be located where in the expansion area, we specifically pointed out that access to Winchester Road and the interstate system is vital to the success of economic development land. You see where it says that access to the interstate system is a key to the liability for any particular site for economic development purposes. It goes on to specifically say that access for land designated for economic development should be limited to direct access to regional arterials, and it specifically calls out Winchester Road. This is the only parcel of economic development land with frontage on Winchester. And so when the staff says that the expansionary master plan does not contemplate the access we are showing, the exact language for the plan strongly disagrees with that. Now, if you basically want to think about that in a different way, we're asking for a waiver for what was specifically called for and recommended by the expansionary master plan and called as a crucial element to the viability for this very land 24 years ago. As Joe has already gone over, the realignment for Hume Road is shown as an infrastructure component to the expansionary master plan. And unfortunately, there are many factors that basically prevent the original path from being achieved at this time. But what hasn't changed in the 24 years is anything done by our community to fix the known problems that were identified that called for this realignment. Now is a chance for us to ensure that the goals of realigning this road are still achieved, the safety concerns, the spacey concerns, and the traffic backup concerns that Stephen just kind of mentioned have only increased in 24 years when we already determined this road needed to be realigned. So I do want to stress one thing that this is not about funneling traffic to Hume Road. This proposal isn't pushing traffic to Hume. It is solving the problems that we knew about in 1996. We knew in 96 that Hume Road access point needed to be fixed. We knew that direct access to Winchester Road was vital if this is supposed to survive as economic development land. So now that a development has started to occur in the corner of E-A, Expansionary 2A, we are here presenting an infrastructure plan that shows that very access that was talked about and realigns Hume Road in the only way that is still a realistic option for our community. With regards to the specific language in the subdivision regulations, 6.8Q2 governs spacing for the minor arterials such as Winchester. It specifically authorizes this type of commercial access and it points to the formula in 68Q3. Once again 68Q3 then specifically states this type of service road can access and when we use the spacing formula vision has determined that that formula results in 733 feet. I'm happy to have Mark McIntosh with vision kind of go more into how that was calculated but we have significant disagreements with the numbers that staff was in it. Now, as Palmer showed, here's what we are showing. We well exceed the 733 feet that's required in between Polo Club Boulevard and the off ramp. And we obviously wanted to give more spacing for the in between the off ramp and the proposed access in order to deal with the traffic volumes. So in looking at these kind of provisions together, it is very clear that this type of access is allowed. You only have to look right down the road on the other side to Elkhorn Drive. This road right here is a service road for Walmart and Lowe's, and on the other side of Winchester, it is a local road. That is exactly what we are asking for, and we are providing additional footage than what was already there for Elkhorn. Any other reading of the regulations would mean that the Expansionary Master Plan, when it selected the acreage that it selected for ED, it intended there to only be one road to handle 215 acres of high-intensity ED land. The highest traffic generating use is only allowed one road in and one road out. It is nonsensical to think that that was the plan, and especially when we have language in the expansionary master plan that indicates that it is recommended to have direct access to Winchester. Now, again, I already kind of pointed out that Elkhorn Road is a fully intersized intersection, and it's 875 feet away. We are proposing far better spacing that is over 1,000 feet. We are improving the spacing for Hume Road by 350 feet. We are making the Hume Road access point safer for its users. We are reducing the number of access points or existing points of conflict, and we are reducing the need for illegal U-turns. All in all, this is why you are seeing unprecedented support from the surrounding stakeholders and multiple professional traffic engineering firms indicate that this proposal that is before you today is the best solution for the entire area. I believe that you all have already been given all of these letters of support in your Google Drive, or if you are in person there, but we have both letters from both council members that the districts that are impacted by here in full support of this plan that is before you today. We have the Fayette County Public Schools system writing in in full support of a traffic plan. I can't remember the last time the Fayette County school system weighed in on a development plan, and there's a very valid reason for that. This is an important safety concern, especially with the new elementary and middle schools coming in. As Joe showed, there are multiple, I think it was 15 to 30 bus trips that occur on Hume Road today that will only increase, and we must make sure that this is a safe intersection and that these buses are allowed to transport without the conflicts that are there today. There's also several members or several residents of Hume Road that have written in. The North Lexington Church of Christ has written in clear support of this plan. The residents in this church are tired of the backups on Hume and they're tired of the safety risks that they have every day. KU supports this plan for these same reasons, so much so that they're giving up their own acreage of land in Lexington in order to allow this to happen. This does not occur, trust me. And finally, Baptist Health believes that this access point is crucial to help serve its patients, of which we expect approximately half of our coming from south and eastern Kentucky, and this will be the first and simplest access point for them. That's also true for all emergency vehicles that are coming from the north side of Lexington and those surrounding counties. How many times have we heard this planning staff talk about the importance of connectivity when it comes to minutes for these type of emergency vehicles. So in conclusion, here are the proposed findings to approve this request. We believe that it is in compliance with the subdivision regulations, but these findings would allow you all to approve any necessary waivers of subdivision regulation 6.8Q, which is what Tom and I have both discussed. And they are fairly simple because we honestly believe, and every stakeholder that has sat down with us and listened to this presentation, that this plan is absolutely a no-brainer. It has to happen for the safety of this area. We believe that the Expansionary Master Plan stresses direct access to Winchester. We believe that the realigned Hume Road, while it's not the original path, still does achieve those same goals, and the man-made and natural obstacles do represent a clear hardship. Again, we believe that we meet the spacing formula and also that for this 215 acres to truly be a campus, we must have them function together and that this signal will allow those two sites to be developed in unison with safe connectivity to handle anticipated volumes of patients and consumers. simply put we ask that the planning commission vote in favor of this plan as it is in compliance it implements the access to this parcel and the goals of the realigned hume road is called for in the expansionary master plan and is desperately desired by these areas residents and stakeholders i'm happy to answer questions now i know that there are several of these stakeholders that are on the phone that wanting to uh kind of uh speak in favor of this development so i'm happy to answer questions, if you want to take comments from the public. I'm happy to do whatever you would like to do, Mr. Chair. Nick, what we'd like to do is let's see if there's any public comment first. I know we do have a number of letters of support here that I do have in front of me, and I know the commission members have as well. Is there anyone out there that would like to speak on behalf? and if there's anything different than what you provided we can be short but just let us know if you're in support or against the project. Mr. Chair right now I'm seeing some hands up if you'd like for me to just start going down the list. Yes. Okay first up to speak is Norwood Cowgill. I want to allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Yes. Excuse me. We're going to limit it to three minutes. I did. I want to make sure that Mr. Nicholson had enough time in his group to speak. And Nick, I hope that that was enough time for you. Yes, sir. I very much appreciate the extra time. All right. Great. No problem. So we're going to limit this to three minutes. Okay. This is Buddy Caldwell. I bought this land 21 years ago and have had difficulty developing it just strictly from the standpoint of the traffic being able to get in and out of our site. But more importantly, Bill Sisson and I have been working together trying to figure a way to work together to develop the property. It's one big site and to have all the facilities on our site that would support his hospital. So that's what we're trying to get accomplished now is to get this one big development done for Kentucky and for Lexington. We also think that it's going to create a lot of jobs, not just on bills with the hospital, but also on our site. When we get the traffic signal, we will have businesses that want to come to this site. Without the traffic signal, we cannot get those support businesses out there because we've tried, and it's just not there without the signals. So I hope that you all will approve this recommendation. And if you've got any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer. Thank you, Ms. Calvary. Next up is Council Member Kathy Floman. Council Member Floman, you can go ahead now, please. Yes, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know all of you received my letter, but I just wanted to reiterate a few more things. I'm kind of wearing two hats here. Obviously, my council member hat is the 12th District. All that land is part of the 12th District, but also is a close-by neighbor and resident. My husband and I moved to Greenbrier 33 years ago, right after the birth of our first son. and we've seen that area go from just out there in the country to a probably one of the fastest developed areas in our city we have used hume road and i'll tell you what i use hume road today i get in the line you're there at the uh the stop sign you have to look for the traffic that's coming from winchester and dart out in the um the median out there and then you have to wait to see what the traffic's going into Winchester's doing. You're stopped. Lots of times there are three, sometimes four cars next to you or with you in that median. You don't know what that next person, the person next to you is going to do. They don't know what you're going to do. It's extremely dangerous and it's been that way. And I heard some of the presentations were going on that they did a, I think a traffic account or accident count. That's historical. We're looking forward. I want to tell you just briefly where my council had that since we've moved out there, all this development, when you go off of Manowar on Winchester Road, you first hit Blackford, hundreds of homes, Glen Eagle. You've got the ball development that's going in there with the apartment complex. Across the street at the corner of Manowar and also Polo Club, you have apartments. Two developments right next to that are senior citizen developments. Across the street, Costco. Across, next to Costco, you've got Cabela's. Then you've got two schools coming in there with school buses. You mentioned the single family housing, the townhomes that's coming in there, and a medical complex, and a hospital campus, as well as the Calville property. And all of that is depending on Polo Club. And this access road from Hume, which right now is very, very dangerous, is something you seriously need to consider. So I wanted to share my thoughts representing that part of the 12th district. It is something I am very passionate about, and I hope you will give it a serious consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Next up is Karen Hill. Ms. Hill, you can go ahead. Ms. Karen Hill, you should be able to speak now. She got a second one. Just pop up. Just make her phone. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay, I'm going to allow your second account to speak. There you go. Thank you. I think you can hear me now. Now can you hear me? Yes. Bill's going to talk a minute, and I think he put his hand up, but we're at different locations, social distancing, but he was going to talk a little bit about his relationship with Buddy, but one thing clinically that I wanted to point out to the participants is that as we've had this property for many, many years, and he's had visions of different things on this campus, but the campus really became a firm plan in the calendar year of 2019, and we did major strategic planning of the services that are going to be out there. The services that we've added in the beginning, we looked at more of an urgent care, kind of a lower acuity service. But with the region that this hospital serves and this campus is going to serve, we have concluded we need a full-scale emergency room on that campus 24-7. We're estimating the first year that that emergency room is going to have between 20 and 24,000 visits. And one thing that I want to point out, and I think you all may or may not be aware of this, but Baptist Health Lexington, even in our Nicholsville Road location draws about 60% of our patients in from outside state county. So good for the county, good for economy, but just something that adds additional need for multiple egress with lights out of the area for both employees and for patients. Thank you. Thank you. Next up will be Mr. Richard Murphy. Mr. Murphy, you can go ahead now. Okay, thank you very much. I do have a one exhibit I'd like to screen share. Would that be possible? I guess you'd need to show my image for that. Mr. Mr. Murphy, you'll need to email that to the planning mailbox to share. Okay, I can accomplish the same thing if you would put up the exhibit showing the development plan, which is on file. Okay, we'll have to ask Mr. Bailey and Mr. Martin in the council chambers to start that presentation. While they're doing that, I'll mention that I'm representing the Mildred Miller Estate, which is the owner of the property at 2575 Winchester Road. I don't know if the staff can put a little marker on that. but there you go. That's where we are. And some of the planning commission members who have been on here more than three years will remember that that property is the one that has the city sewage pump station on the right and the KU substation on the left. And we have been trying to seek a use for this property, which is appropriate. Now, the first one you had, I just wanted to show the, yeah, the development plan, but yeah, the development plan for it. We, the family, Lee Sims is on the call also. He is an architect in town. He is the son-in-law of the late Mildred Miller, and he's involved in settling the estate. We are in support of the plan as set forth by Calgill Properties, but we want to have one caveat. We do that. We're in support so long as we do get access into the relocated Hume Road. As you can see from the development plan, we will have to cross a little bit of the KU property to get to Hume Road. and if the light is put there, it will impact our existing access. So we do need to have access into Hume Road. So we ask that there be an easement over the KU property into the Miller property to allow our access to access this new traffic signal as well. With that, that's really all the comments we had. We are in support, but we do need that easement. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Council Member McCurney. Council Member McCurney, you can go ahead. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for having me on. Do I need to share my video? Am I okay just speaking? You're okay with just speaking. Thank you. Well, first off, thank you to all of you guys for your service on the Planning Commission and welcome to the new members. I do want to speak briefly in favor of this as well. You know, I think there have been a lot of great points that were brought up in presentation. Councilmember Plowman brought up excessive points additionally. um but all i'll add to that is just that we are commonly um we are commonly waiting for a problem to occur here before we start trying to correct those issues and here we have a proactive approach that doesn't even require lfucg to pay for it and i think that there's something huge as we move forward here uh this is going to be a great addition or could be potentially a great addition to Lexington, 12th District, and in the Hamburg area. So I would leave my comments pretty brief today, but I appreciate everything you guys have done sitting through the presentation. And I ask that you all move forward with this in favor. Thank you. Next up is Bill Sisson. Mr. Sisson, you can go ahead now. Mr. Sisson if you can hear us you can go ahead now. We may come back. Okay. Yeah, Mr. Sisson we might come back to you. For now I'll disable your speaking. Next up is the user called Bart. You can go ahead and speak now. Can I be heard now? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bart Rogers. I'm one of three elders of the North Lexington Church of Christ, 2280 Hume Road. the north lexian church constructed our building uh on this uh property at the corner of hume road winchester road and i-75 we have about 12 acres we constructed our building in 2007-2008 we knew about the the proposed realignment of hume road in the uh master plan and then we watched with disappointment the substation being built and the KU station being built right in the area where the proposal for the realignment the fix of Hume Road was proposed 24 years ago. So we are thrilled at the possibility now of the great problem safety problem that's presented at Hume Road and Winchester Road to be fixed without taxpayer costs. And we wholeheartedly support the proposal of Calgo properties. The church is very excited about the construction, the hospital of housing within the proposed area and being able to minister to that area. and the safety concerns have not been overstated, even though they've been mentioned frequently here. And I'll mention one element that I personally have observed many times, not been mentioned here. The Hume Road access to Winchester Road is so close to the I-75 North on-ramp that drivers coming from Winchester Road west toward Lexington, the signage for the I-75 North on-ramp leads one, if not familiar with the area, leads one to think that Hume Road is actually the on-ramp. So at the church, we regularly see vehicles come up Hume Road, come into our parking lot and turn around and go back down Hume Road to Winchester Road and turn right to get on the interstate. That's how close Hume Road is to the interstate on-ramp. And unfortunately, these are often tractor trailers. We've had tractor trailers come up to our parking lot, turn around, and go back onto Hume Road because they literally mistook Hume Road to be the on-ramp. That's just an example of how dangerous this area is and misleading to folks that don't know the area. so we support the proposal uh and the opportunity for this may be the only opportunity to fix hume road which we thought had been lost and we strongly encourage uh support of this proposal thank you mr chairman thank you try mr sisson again okay mr sisson Can you hear me now? Yes. I've been here at Baptist for 32 years and one of the things that has been my joy was to be able to see this hospital grow and work to the community. One of the things many of you all don't know but when they built this hospital in 1955-54 it was out in the country so they stopped because they thought it was too far out in the country. Just to show you the growth and the things that occur. Buddy and I wanted to make this development, which we think is different than the other development in Lexington, and the fact that it has brought together a one development site where we work together to make it look at one site and also try to make it such that it's easy for people to get in and out of to get there. Many of you all know have been experiencing the COVID virus, you know you need hospitals. You know we're going to need growth. We're going to need areas where we can get out in the interstate so the people in central eastern Kentucky can come and see us where we're at. So I think it's really important to realize the value of the hospital. When we first bought that land, I had no idea that there'd be schools and other kinds of things out there. But I really do feel like that this is an important project, a great economic development project that will also help us show that you can work together in a 215 acre plot and come up with something that's going to be meaningful to the community and meaningful to the people around us. So I just want to take a minute. Thank you all for your time. We are very supportive of this. Buddy and I have worked on this for several years, but we hope that we can get approval so we can move ahead. And what you see in phase one is just a small part of the growth that will be there in phase two and phase three. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is Deborah Sloan. Ms. Sloan, you can go ahead. Ms. Sloan, if you can hear us, you should be able to go ahead and speak now. okay not hearing miss sloan so we'll move back to the applicant uh mr nicholson do you want to uh bring him back to the rebuttal stage um i didn't know if the uh planning commission had any questions based on our presentation before we get to rebuttal. I was going to see if they wanted to wait until the end. Well, I'm not sure how exactly I can rebut everybody being in favor of our development. I don't know if the staff wants to kind of, you know, rebut our presentation first. I'm happy to go over some additional points that, you know, that I did not make. Whatever order you would like, Chairman. Yeah. I'm going to open it up, Mr. Nicholson, just to give you an opportunity there. So just from the planning commission member's standpoint, do you have any questions that you would like to ask Mr. Nicholson at this time or the afternoon? Yeah. Okay, we have one for Mr. Penn. Mr. Nicholson, I just quite can't understand why this whole presentation has been built around traffic and not a better development plan. Okay. Excuse me. When Central Baptist came in and you represented, your firm represented them, it was all about getting two access points out on Polo Club Boulevard. And now all of a sudden we need this third access out on Winchester Road. And I don't want to send the process here. With the EAMP, normally we have a development plan that we talk about, what that development plan is going to need in order to be able to have the access. And this whole presentation has been about a stoplight and access and a reline of the road. And that is not congruent with what we're doing here. We're asking for waivers on the EAMP based on a traffic light. We don't know what your development is going to do anything about traffic. we don't know what your development's going to do anything about who's going to be there and what that traffic generator is going to be it's all about taking traffic from Baptist Health to Winchester Road when they were perfectly happy to come out on polo club blah blah so I have a hard time knowing what to do here I'm not against the development I'm not against Mr. Caldwell I'm certainly worried about having a stoplight that close together when you've got polo club that has going to be a city. And those people can come out on Polo Club and access. They don't have to have your access in order to make the hospital work. So my question to you is, why did you make this whole presentation about this access thing and knowing that the EMP says we have to have a final development plan? Sure. First of all, if you recall on the Baptist plan, it showed a clear connection to the Alville site. We also have a certified preliminary development plan that shows an access point on to Winchester. Yes, it was to like there's a note that says we're going to discuss the access point, but it is on there. And so Baptists never thought that there wasn't going to be access onto Winchester Road. And so we weren't worried about that because it was on the plan and we lined up that road to match with it. So that right in, right out. It was a right out, right out. But, you know, it was not at that time contemplated that that was an issue in any way, shape or form. We thought that was a guarantee to be very candid. And so that is why Baptist was not worried about that, because it was already on a certified plan. Now, with regards to why this is about an infrastructure plan, if you go back in history, if you look at what the Baptist site was first, that preliminary development plan was just a road system. that was it that is what the history is for the property right next door we had a road system before we had a single building on site that's exactly what we're showing now because at the zone change we had a preliminary development plan where the user basically walked because of the access issue they had no faith that they were able to make this a successful development because of the access restrictions on here we're talking about 85 acres and right now if this point access point goes away we might have one access point for 85 acres that is twice the size of what the summit is we're limited to a single access point you may tell you why there's not a development plan here good luck finding a user well you need to know what that plan looks like that is what in all honesty you're allowed to have three access points but one of them weren't was in a drainage system wasn't going to work you're not just going to have one access point Well, with where the connector road of Sir Barton ever is built, the connector to Sir Barton is built, that probably is going to have to ship it over to Baptist just based on the lay of the land. Well, I don't know about the process here. I have a hard time with us trying to litigate what EAMMP is supposed to be and how we're supposed to operate it based on the fact that Baptist Health did it. Everybody else didn't do it that way, but Baptist Health did, so therefore you are. So let's be very clear. There is nothing in the expansionary master plan, subdivision regulations, or the zoning ordinance that says a preliminary subdivision plan cannot be sought in the expansion area. There is not a single thing that prevents it. Before development activity can occur, we do have to come back and bring a final development plan. And we have to do that. You'll also remember Polo Club Boulevard. That was done on just a final development plan. this is not unprecedented by any means by any means what is i had to ask that question i got an answer that's all that's all we just need to know what this campus looks like if we're going to be able to plan for the future and that's why we need to know and we need to know what it's going to look like if we're going to plan for the future and all we've talked about is stoplight Sure. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ben. Any questions for the applicant, Mr. Nickel? And Mr. DeMobile, any comments? Yes. As I'm looking, we just took in a lot of information. So I'm going to try to ask an intelligent question after hearing all that. And the question that I'm asking is, as I'm looking at the staff report for the reason to make the waiver, I mean, to disapprove the waiver is because the sighting of the traffic light that we've been talking about for two hours, the Meadowcrest traffic light. What we've also seen, I think there has been a good argument made for exceptional hardship, and that exceptional hardship being the Hume Road access and the Hume Roads from 94 till now. One of the hardships that was created was the KU substation and the LFUCG pump station. So that argument makes sense to me for a hardship, but we're now we're getting back to this one parking spaces in my mind as being the, or excuse me, this one access point being that being the problem. My question to the applicant would be, what would your argument be for the Meadowcrest access point if Hume Road did not exist or was closed off or was able to have access to Polo Club? because I'm seeing here you're saying you got a thousand and sixty feet from the 75 to Meadowcrest and then you got 840 feet from Polo Club to Meadowcrest which is greater than the 733 feet that is shown in the staff report so if you're claiming that in my mind I see Hume as a hardship, but if that hardship didn't exist, just quickly let me know how this would have been easier and how you could have actually gotten that second access point in. So that goes down to the last part of my presentation with regards to the subdivision regulation 6.8 Q and two, which basically allows for commercial access to a minor arterial. in subsection three it provides a spacing formula for that that is where that 733 goes and to demonstrate that this is clearly allowed is Elkhorn Road which is right down the road which is a service road serving the commercial development and a local road across the street and so we believe that if a waiver is necessary and I do believe that that is debatable but even if it is that this spacing is the right location for it the hardship also applies based on the location of the significant ku light posts that are already out there are not light posts the the kind of power transmission lines i know those that are familiar with the area know exactly which lines i'm talking about as far as those poles so there's a very limited window with which we can have access to winchester road but the amp specifically calls for this property to have direct access. And we do believe that 6AQ2 and 3 also provide for that access and provide for the spacing that we are showing. It's also finally in keeping with the other interstate, the lights on the other interstate intersections throughout town on Newtown, Paris Pike, and I'm forgetting Lees Town. Manor Ward, thank you. Okay, I see that. All right, thank you very much. Anthony. Yeah, thank you. This is for Nick and the staff. I heard during both of y'all's presentations, it's along the line of what V was just talking about, a different calculation on what was required in the distancing. You all seem to differ. So I'm just trying to get some clarity there on using different calculators or how are we getting different numbers? If I could let Mark McIntosh with Vision briefly address that, we do take exception to the calculation the staff had done. This is Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering. Last summer in June of 2019, we submitted a comprehensive traffic impact study for Metalcrest. It's 150 pages long. We submitted that to the Lexington staff planning and traffic engineering and also to the highway department, District 7. And we discovered in that that we submitted all the land uses that we expected, estimated for phase one. And then also in 2030, which at that time we considered full build out. But we, from the subregs calculation, we determined 733 from our traffic impact study, which was submitted a year ago. And that was with the full build-out scenario. And with that, I think one flaw with the planning staff had is that it seems like they're considering just one access. we're considering an access to Winchester Road and then on the Polo Club. So we have some distribution, some dispersion there. So that was one flaw, I think, in that calculation that they had. But, yeah, we had a comprehensive traffic study that considered a lot of different land uses that's allowed in the East. So that's just a recap of our traffic impact study. Thanks. Mr. DeMovillen, if I can explain the staff position on that. If I can share my screen for just a moment to show you the regulation. Can everybody see? Yes. This is Article 6.8.2.3.2 that we've been talking about for the non-residential access. From the staff's perspective, access to a minor arterial shall be allowed only with the spacing standards based off of this. It says that the determination of the potential trip generation shall be made using sources and methods approved by the Lexington and Fayette Urban County Government Division of Planning. And then it gives the formula. If you look at the trip ends, the definition of the trip ends in our subdivision regulations is the maximum potential trip ends of the area in which the development will take place. Whenever the traffic impact study was filed, I'm going to stop sharing my screen here. Whenever we're looking at a traffic impact study, what we're looking at for trip generation there is what meets the threshold for whether a traffic impact study is required or not is over 100 directional peak hour trips. So you're only, whenever you're looking at a traffic impact study, they're only providing, which is in general, almost always going to be the PM peak hour, the evening rush hour. You're only looking at the trips that are generated for that maximum period of time during the rush hour, during the PM peak. The subdivision regulations is looking at the maximum total trip generation for the contiguous area of the development that will be utilizing that access point. So that way, that's how you make sure that you don't say, well, we've only got this one single user here and it meets the spacing requirements whenever multiple users are actually going to be coming in and using that. With the trip generation numbers that I presented to you today, I used their studies. Their studies only showed the trip generation for the PM peak hour in both Baptist Health and the Metacris. I utilized their proposed uses with the ITE codes and generated for you the trip generation so that we can get the trip in to meet the supervision regulations. So in short, there is a different requirement for trip generation for this spacing requirement in the subdivision regulations than there is for the traffic impact studies that they were just talking about. And that's why mathematically the 3,000 is where, 3,000 trips or more. So depending on how you distributed the traffic, there was still 14,500 trips for the Calgill property alone and over 56,000 trips for the Baptist Hospital. So depending on how you mix that, so it's kind of a double-edged sword. If you have so little traffic being distributed to the intersection that they're asking for to meet that 733, then is it really needed or is it even realistic? Because all of the rest of that traffic would have to come out onto the Lone Club Boulevard. Okay, Mr. Nichols. Okay, real quick. I think they made a pretty good point with the Hume Road hardship that it is needed to at least solve the Hume Road problem. How do you respond to that? Much of their presentation was actually, I'm not trying to get into the full rebuttal here, but much of their presentation was on Hume Road rather than their potential access. But Mr. Calgill said himself that businesses are just not ready to go on this site without the signalized access. If the Hume Road, and kind of the same question that you were just asking the applicants, if the Planning Commission did not allow these applicants access to Winchester Road, would they still be willing to do the Hume Road realignment? If you did the Hume Road realignment and you didn't have access for this applicant, you would actually have less traffic conflicts. There would be less movements, and then that would cut down on the possibility of accidents, and it would make it easier with less movements to do the signal timing through there. I suspect that the applicants would vehemently say no, that they are not willing to do the Hume Road realignment without their gaining access to Winchester Road. I would bet they'd say the same thing. I don't see any reason why they would have to solve a city problem with no benefits to themselves. I'm not trying to be disrespectful because I actually have a huge amount of respect for everyone on the applicant side. Right. It's a reality point. All right. Thank you. reality point that for 24 years the city has known that this is a substantial issue as pointed out by the expansion and master plan and we are supposed to address those issues and now that we're finally bringing development there and trying to address those issues. Thank you Nick. Before we move over to the staff statements there was one hand raised that we did not get so I want to make sure that we uh deborah sloan miss sloan you can go ahead and speak now okay thank you for for letting me speak can you hear me yes okay thank you um i wanted to call in on behalf of council member higgins ward um who has been following this closely she had to step off um to go to another meeting um but she wanted to express her strong support um for this proposal to the commission members. She feels that this is a very good opportunity to allow, you know, not only her constituents, but obviously in the surrounding areas, a safer access to this hospital and feels that this is pretty critical to the, you know, success of this economic development parcel. And so she would like you to strongly consider approval. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Marsden, I'd like to bring you up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's see. I've got a lot to cover here, frankly. So let me start out by stating the Hume Road issue has been an issue since the 1960s when the interstate was built, and that was realigned in there. So the issue has been well known for a long time, and yes, it's a public issue, and yes, it needs to be addressed. And there are methods to address it separate from this particular proposed resolution. And to answer your point, Mr. Nichols, about hardship, I would direct your attention to Article 1-5 of the subdivision regulations that governs waivers from a planning commission. An exceptional hardship states natural or man-made physical conditions encountered on the particular land. We're not talking about Hume Road. We're not talking about that property. We're talking about Meadowcrest, the Caldwell property, ED property. That's what the waiver pertains to, and that's what it has to be measured by. That leads us to another point. Don't worry about the numbers. You've heard dueling numbers on justifying this waiver. There are no numbers. This is a point staff tried to make. This plan gives you no uses. There are no land uses. Therefore, you can't make a decision based in a vacuum. Because you have to base these decisions, access decisions in the AMP on land use, known relationships. You have none here. We could do all day long about different interpretation of the neighbors numbers and what percentile. the fact is, and staff explained this, this plan doesn't give you any. It is a final development plan issue. It's back to the very inadequacy of a preliminary subdivision plan. Not that they can't file one, but in reality, it doesn't really give you anything to go on because they're still going to have to come back. Now that leads us to the issue of Central Baptist Hospital and coordinating these two plans. They should do so, and they should come back with a final development plan, and they should discuss all the uses, and they should present you with the trails, with the sidewalks, and the amenities, and all those community design element features that we need to see, and that you need to see. Furthermore, we haven't heard any commitment that this is going to be a unified medical campus. This is ED's own land. They could move a truck, a warehouse a distributor a trucking company onto this property once the plan's approved they can do that and and that has no compatibility with central baptists necessarily so again we haven't heard that type of commitment out of them are they prepared to limit their uses to be strictly compatible is that even good economic development that they do that? Central Baptist has, what, 90-some, 100-some acres to develop? So, again, the need to incorporate this without a commitment from the owner to restrict uses seems suspect. They've talked about no action in access. Well, there is action. As EMP, as you get plans, that is action. Polo Club is an action. Polo Club is there. Polo Club was envisioned by the EAMP, and it is an action. It's going to have a light. It was ignored in much of the applicant's presentation, that light, that is warranted, that's going to be there. They ignored the fact that you can go out Polo Club in other directions as well. You don't have to get lost if you're from Eastern Kentucky. You've got several options. to find Central Baptist, including an additional few seconds to drive from their proposed light and intersection to the approved existing Polo Club intersection. And that is consistent with the EMP. Now, the relocation of Hume. Again, they spent a lot of time talking about that, and I hope I address that. It's really not relevant to their waiver request. It may be relevant to how they envision the plan and development of the property, but it's not relevant to their waiver request under your subdivision regulations. They've talked about the difficulty with KU and our treatment plant and those issues, and those are issues. They haven't mentioned the fact that the realignment, as shown, could be shifted northeast. It doesn't have to be shifted southwest. It could be shifted to the north. and it will cross a blue line stream, it already does. Polo Club already crosses a blue line stream. So, yes, you know, anytime you develop, there's going to be some issues and there's going to be some environmental issues. And I might add that the crossing on that blue line stream of Polo Club has also played into the development of the stormwater management system. And it's a beautiful, beautiful natural area that was designed there. So again, they didn't address that. They've ignored the ability to shift that plan. Now, I want to address something that Nick brought up. And Nick and I agree. The formula on land use is the formula that we agreed should be used here. And I already told you, there's no numbers. I mean, we can throw numbers because this plan hasn't given you any. So you can't make a decision without that information. The relationship, I brought that very same paper, or I should say, the EAMP, Access to Lands Designated for Economic Development that Nick presented to you. I brought that. Now, you have to read it in its totality. and it states that in I'm going to just get access to and from lands designated for economic development should be limited to direct access to regional materials with interstate interchanges Nick was absolutely correct it says that Bryant Road and Winchester Road in expansion area 2a and Newtown Pike in expansion area three. The rest of it says or, or, four lane collector streets with direct access to such regional arterials in expansion area 2A and a two lane collector street in expansion area three. That just described Polo Club Boulevard. That just described Providence Boulevard on Newtown. And by the way, that access that they showed you distance on Newtown was not the access to Providence Boulevard. It was access to the pre-existing B5P area where, what is it, the restaurants and the various motels are, who have been there for years and years and years, by the way, prior to the AMP. Interesting enough, there's no access in the ED land. All that Providence Parkway, that's ED land too. their access is limited to Providence Parkway, the collector street in absolute conformance with the recommendations of the EMP. And again, Polo Club is the same. Now you've heard a lot of talk about existing problems and traffic and yes, again, in the presentations that you saw, they neglected to mention that as you look into the future, there's going to be more development. staff attempted to make that point. We want to stress this is going to continue to develop, become more urban. There's going to be more lights. We showed you that graphic. There's going to be more lights. So that again brings us back to the issue of good access management. And we're trying to get that right right now up front with access management, with stoplight signalization management. Otherwise, there is a cost. There is a big cost to the public. There's going to be millions of dollars spent on retrofitting and addressing these types of problems. We already do it. The reverse diamond on Harrodsburg Road. Untold millions to address these problems. Staff has told you we're setting ourselves up to have to address these problems in the future with taxpayer dollars. The road under the interstate is one of those solutions we're already looking at in this area. So again, staff would stress that. Oh, I did forget something. By the way, and I shouldn't do it because I don't want to talk about Hume Road anymore because frankly, that's a bit of a red herring. But that alignment and the access that was mentioned, we're looking at waivers there should it get approved, and they want to build it there. Potentially, but again, I just want to stress that, again, by the way, there was no write-in, no write-out approved on that previous plan, although granted I could see some confusion on that, but this plan as you see before you does not provide you with the information to make an informed decision. It does not. So with that, I believe staff will be happy to answer any questions. What I would like to do now is bring this back to the commission to close us out. There's been a lot of information that has been presented to us. A lot of questions, a lot of questions to answer. The applicant has been very thorough in their comments. Staff has been very thorough. Thank you, Jimmy, too, as well. So I want to bring it back to the commission members as a whole for further discussion. and or questions to either staff or the applicant. Yes, sir. I guess I got a question for staff. Is there any, I understand there's not a development plan and the issues around that, but is there, according to staff, is there any scenario where they would approve a signal there? I don't believe at this time we could do so. There's a signal going in at Polo Club Boulevard, so it won't meet the spacing. It won't meet the state warrants. I do believe we would discuss alternative access, which we have done many times on other developments, the write-in, the write-out, that sort of thing, sometimes just the write-in. They aren't really in favor of that, apparently. But that's one of the ways you deal with this type of access situation between intersections between whites. Mr. Paul. I just wanted to express my. I felt like the applicant's presentation was very strong. I think that almost everybody would love to see a development like this come to fruition as quickly as possible and the Hume Road issue be resolved as quickly as possible. But I totally agree with Mr. Martin and I'm really troubled by the fact that we've been given an argument about Hume Road, which is unrelated to the property in question, other than it happens to be proposed to be a part of an intersection that, for which we have no data. And I can just see 10, 15 years down the road, the city having to pick up millions and millions and millions of dollars of changes because of an inadequate intersection, should we approve this? Thank you, Mr. Cole. Mr. Wilson? Yeah, this is one of these kinds of areas where I'm conflicted in one way. I think that they have made some very strong presentations on part of the applicant. I think the staff has also made some very strong points about it. The one thing that always confuses me is that when you've got a really good project and you've got a really good professional staff while the two have not been able to come together to figure out what the alternatives would be and manage it in that fashion. It seems to be a great project. I mean, just looking at the visuals, I think it's going to be, it would look good and what have you. But on the other hand, as a planning commission member, my job is not to think about the profitability of issues per se, but it's the thing about the public safety. And the argument for the public safety has not been necessarily thoroughly addressed in the sense that I understand that if you didn't have one way, it seems like the only alternative was to do a double loop or a turnabout to get back. Then on the other hand, I heard the staff say, but there are other alternatives to that. So I'm still confused as to why the two parties have not been able to get together and to come to some amiable solution which would accommodate both the applicant's position as well as making some accommodations with a relationship to the staff. I just make that as a comment, but let me put it this way finally. When I get in a conflicted situation like this, I have to remind myself I don't have a planning degree. I have to rely upon professionals in the area that have the expertise to guide us on things like this. And there has been a lot of information provided, a lot to consume, and more than I potentially could digest. But I would say that I think both parties have made strong arguments, but I was just hoping and maybe in a sense thinking that maybe they could get together and maybe work out some of these things before they bring back a final development plan. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Any further questions for staff or either of them or statements? Not seeing any. All righty. Well, at this junction, we have staff recommendation. as it's presented post-woman and disapproval, then we also have the applicant provided revised findings. So just for the record, I don't think the staff has a copy of the proposed findings. I don't believe our law department has that either. All right. I'm happy to display those again if you all would need to see them or would like to review them in passion? Yeah, Nick, I would send them for sure. Yes, please. Just to get in their record too. So we're opening this up. I mean, we've had discussion, we have questions, so now we're looking for a motion either for support or not. So we'll have Mr. Finn or Mr. Pohl, whichever one. Mr. Pohl had his hands up. Mr. Pohl, we'll go with you. regarding PLNMJSUB 20-4, Metacrest amended 9-29-20, located at 2550 Winchester Road, Lexington, I move to disapprove for the reasons cited by staff. And do we need to have a motion, a separate motion for the waiver? generally yes but if you're disapproving the preliminary subdivision plans then the waiver i think becomes a new point is that well that's legal yeah let's ask tracy jones i mean if the preliminary development plan is disapproved then the waiver becomes Okay. All right. Just want to clarify. Thank you. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Plumlee or is that a comment from I can't. You're on mute. I'm telling you that I will not vote because I did not attend the entire hearing. So I will abstain. Thank you. I'll second. Okay, we do have a second by Mr. Penn. Can I make a statement? He has a second with a statement, yes. I feel like that I don't have any choice but to support the staff on this because I think that these two parties need to get together. There is a solution to this problem, but it's not in front of us today. And so I'm going to second Mr. Poe's recommendation for his approval. With the understanding that there needs to be a lot of work done on this and the final development plan comes through, I think we'll be surprised at what they've done. Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. So we've got one, two, three, four. All right. Any opposed? so they're opposed so that motion fails no no I have my hand up for yeah yeah yeah we have five five opposed and four voted for okay yeah if we could Mr. Chair if you could read out who voted for what so that we can get that noted. Okay so for the start over. Well I mean I think I got this down that the motion was for disapproval and those who voted in favor of the motion were Mr. Pohl, Mr. Penn, Mr. Wilson, and Ms. Meyer. yes and those who voted in opposition or no to the motion were de Mobleon, Barksdale, Forrester, Nicholl and Davis yes for nine and then Miss Plumlee abstained yes so the motion the motion fails correct So, Mr. Nicholson, did you send those, your findings to staff? I can share the screen or I can send them to staff right now, whatever the chair would like. We need to, go ahead and, you need to send them so we can have them for the record. Okay. so from the parliamentarian we will need a different essentially different question yes mr wilson i need your advice on this next step well actually what we should have done first of all and anytime you get into a situation like that you should never make a negative motion it should have been a positive motion to start off the motion should have been to help out the confusion is that you vote in favor of the disapproval rather than voting for disapproval, if you see what I'm saying. But this is the game. The easiest way now is to have a new motion and just simply turn it around so someone on the opposing side would make the motion and second, and then you'd have to take a second vote. Yes. Okay. All right. So we're looking for a motion. Mr. Chair, we don't have the findings as of yet for Ms. Jones to look over. I guess the question at hand would be, are we making a motion on the preliminary subdivision plan? The planning commission, although it's possible to vote to approve something with no conditions, it's a standard procedure not to do so. So you would need to consider what conditions would we normally put on a preliminary subdivision plan. And probably the first place to start would be what was printed on the agenda in terms of this particular plan. although it also at that point included six discussion items, several of which were not resolved to date. Mr. Bailey, I sent the findings to both Tracy Wade and Tracy Jones' email, and again, I can share at the time if a waiver comes up. 17 items on page two there there are 17 items on page two and it remained up until today our staff recommendation and subdivision committee recommendation for postponement because the six items at the bottom had not been substantially addressed We have acknowledged that a final development plan step would be necessary for this property to move forward. And so I do believe that those discussion items could very easily become resolve items. And I do believe that a overwhelming majority of these have actually been discussed here today. So that that certainly we would check that box. So, Mr. Niffison, what you're asking or referring to, you want those items to say resolved? I think that just from a simplicity standpoint of what Ms. Wade was referring to, that there needs to be conditions on this plan, it's very typical for discussions to turn into resolved when you know that a final development plan phase is required, such as it is here. So, from 12 to 17, we would need to scratch out, discuss, and put resolved. And so the motion, Mr. Chair, when you finally get to the motion, it would be from someone to approve of PLN, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, with the findings as approved by our staff. Mr. Nucle, you had your hand raised for a question or statement. Yes. I guess this is for the parliamentarian. Are there options to approve or postpone or is there only an option to You're right, Bruce. Mr. Nichols, you could a motion could be set to postpone. A motion could be set to approve. But if you did approval you have to probably do it with the findings that Tracy has and with any restrictions i might add or conditions that you might want to get to it but you could postpone yes you could that is a motion okay the reason i'm thinking of that is i'm looking at from the staff report and from the we're looking at 10 and 11 which is delete proposed full access to winchester road and delete proposed Hume Road access as the committee recommendation for items 10 and 11. So I just wanted to understand what our options are. Thank you. Yeah. And I might add, Mr. Nichols, just for the record, that if someone did make a motion to postpone, that would not prohibit people who voted the first time. In other words, there's no restriction on the first vote as to how you would vote on the second. I'd like to point out also that item 13 is a significant issue, particularly with regard to access management. So discussing or resolving compliance with the EAMP, to me it's as much as an impossibility as deleting the proposed Hume Road access. To me that points to the possibility of getting this thing done. I just think the postponement is the only way to go. If we postpone, what would be the comeback? I mean you know what would be we'd be looking for them to come back with. But we have legal up right now so let's get to see where we are see what our steps are. I think there might be some confusion so I wanted to just make sure we're 100% clear on what you're what you're doing. The motion that was made by Mr. Pohl and seconded by Mr. Penn that you all just voted that failed was to disapprove the preliminary subdivision plan and that is the things that tracy wade referred you to in terms of if you're trying to come up with a different motion you typically have conditions and she referred you um you know to the the agenda and what those items were from subdivision committee the other issue that you you haven't addressed, depending on what you do with the subdivision plan, is the waiver. And the waiver is the issue that has findings with it that would have to be, you know, that you would still have to vote on depending on what you do with the subdivision plan. So I just want to make sure you all are clear on that in terms of what you want to do with the subdivision plan. All you all you did with your last vote was defeat a motion to disapprove the subdivision plan. So that's where you are at this point. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask Ms. Jones a question? For clarification, then when someone makes another motion, if someone made another motion, uh the would that motion now come from the waiver aspect or you are the ours or do you need another motion for the record for approval or postponement i think you're going to have to do something with the subdivision plan first so you know what to do with the waiver i don't think you can depending on your motion for the waiver it may dictate what you do i mean your motion on the subdivision plan the preliminary subdivision plan whatever that motion is may dictate what you do on the waiver so i think you have to do this subdivision plan the preliminary first all right now let let hypothetically then if the motion is to approve uh it could be approved with the conditions identified by staff on the sheet yes yes it could be okay and if someone wanted to if someone moved to postpone, that would be just a straight up motion? I mean, in other words, you wouldn't have to do a waiver on that? Well, if you postpone, then I'm assuming that you may want to also postpone the waiver. Yes. And yes, you could do that. And I believe that because of the orders that are still in effect and Senate Bill 150, we're not under any deadlines by which to set a postponement date you might want to do that anyway like put a time on it okay thank you all right mr demodeline well i'll make a motion see where we go with this i'm going to move that we approve plnmj suv 24 meadow crest with the 17 items this is the moment uh do you want to to make that revision from 12 to 17 to say resolve instead of discuss? Or is that what we're talking about? Mr. DeMovlin? I'm sorry. Do you want to revise that? Yes. To say resolve instead of discuss from 12? Yes, sir. Okay. Just ask. Okay. We've got a motion. Is that a second by Mr. Nickel? A question? Okay. 10 and 11, can that be changed to resolve? Because I don't think you can approve it without deleting 10 and 11. Well, you can. You can. That would eliminate the subdivision regulation waiver request. if they delete their access to Winchester Road there's no need for a waiver. Okay so hang on hang on one moment I'm gonna withdraw my motion for a moment before we discuss this. Okay thank you. So, you know, I think how to say this the. Let me give you a second to look at this. Hang on one second. Okay. Mr. Emerson, did you have your hand up? You want to say something? Just from decades of experience at planning commission hearings, Typically when there is a waiver request with a preliminary subdivision plan, the planning commission has historically made the decision on the waiver request first, because if that is not granted, then the plan is submitted. So I think that the commission has many options, including all of the postponements or continuances. That's simply from experience. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. That was completely different from what Mr. Tracey said. We're confused right now. I have a suggestion. I think that Mr. DeMoblin's motion would have been workable perhaps if all of the items at the end from 10 to 17 were changed to say resolve. And that would put the ball in the court of the applicant to work with staff and resolve all those issues. And that could mean any number of things. Could mean getting closer to what the applicant wants. Could be getting closer to what the staff seems to want. So I think that would be a pretty good option. So if we, in comment to that, this is Tracy Wade, if you change number 10 to resolve proposed full access to winchester road that's the whole intent of the waiver and mr nicholson's nodding i can see him on the screen so you cannot leave that to the staff and the applicant to work out they are asking for the commission to decide a waiver and the planning commission is the only body that has the authority to grant that Does anyone disagree with that? No one. And then going back to Mr. Emmons, then we would need to vote on the waiver first. Unless you're going to continue it. Unless we do the continuous. Right. If you're going to continue this item, I would provide some direction to the applicant and the staff as to what additional information is necessary to evaluate the plan. in my mind making it a final development plan and providing the land uses would provide more information for the commission to determine whether that intersection is necessary appropriate meets the stand meets the subregs requirements for hardship I would rather have the continuance because I don't want to go through all this again I don't think the applicant wants to go through all this again and I know I don't want to sit there and listen to it for the two hours because we're going to get back to the same situation we're in now if we continue it and let them work with the staff to resolve some of these issues and if we could see a preliminary development plan or see a development plan that at least has some idea of what's going to drive this thing, then I think it makes sense. If we're just trying to get rid of it, vote the other way. Jones, Ms. Jones, she's up at the podium. I want to make sure we get legal input here, guys. You do have several options and I want to give you advice so you can make a decision, but I don't want to tell you what you should do because that's your decision. But you could do what Mr. Penn is talking about because you could continue both the approval on the – or the action on the preliminary subdivision plan and on the waiver. And that would allow time for discussion between the parties, between the staff, maybe some supplying of some additional uses that would resolve and you could change you know that would help you discussion items um you could also if you so wanted to depending again on your motion if you want to take the waiver first you know you have an option to postpone one and not to postpone the waiver and you know make a decision on the preliminary subdivision plan but if you were going to do that I would eliminate conditions 10 and 11 on the preliminary subdivision plan so that those can be further discussed if that's what you're trying to get to or you know or you can just take a vote straight up on it and you know go with however you want but you you have multiple options to get to where you want to be so if what you want you know before you want to be is you want more discussion on some of these things and some more clarifications and some more information it may be best to but without hearing this entire hearing again that would be a continuance Mr. Chair, if I could say one thing, since the staff has been talking about some of these issues, I just, and this is not an argument in any way, we have been meeting with the staff a whole lot about this. There have been, I mean, I cannot tell you how many numbers of meetings have been with various members of the administration, various members of traffic engineering, with the Kentucky Department of Transportation, with the planning staff, with a hodgepodge of all of those people there. And it has become very clear that they will not allow access and we don't foresee a situation without this access. And so a continuance for one month to work with the staff on this particular issue. We've been really working hard and I think the planning staff would agree. This is one of those where we don't see a compromise at this time unless the planning commission gives us some form of direction. um that you know i just want to put that out there well the direction just to speak the direction that i would like to see and i think what i'm hearing from the staff is define some of the uses um a little bit better are you suggesting that you would do that at the final development plan stage but you won't but we can't get the final development stage of solving the waiver and solving. Correct. That is where the, you know, the chicken or the egg that we found ourselves in here. We cannot bring, we don't feel that we can bring a final development plan forward because users do not want to basically come on this site without this access. And planning is telling us we cannot have this access. And so the only way forward to get the development to work and make sure it lines up with Baptist was to put an infrastructure plan in front of you all to be able to give a hard and fast understanding of what that intersection looks like in order to then bring back final development plans with those specific uses. So that's kind of the frustration and that's why we had no choice but to bring this before the planning commission in this somewhat unique manner. Mr. Nichols, I think Mr. Penn has a question for you. So, Nick, are you telling me that it's a stoplight or nothing, right in or right out won't work? So we do not believe that a right in, right out functions well. We believe the full intersection is necessary. We believe Palmer has shown and demonstrated. I'm not asking to rebuttal that. I'm just asking a straight up question because it's going to all hinge on this. Whether we go forward today, whether we continue, whatever we do, it's going to hinge on that issue. That you can have access to Winchester Road with these conditions or it's a deal breaker. And I'd like to know where you are on that before we decide to vote on this. I think it can definitively say that access to Winchester Road is vital to this site. we believe a full intersection is warranted. We believe that we've documented that. If the planning commission disagrees and only wants right in, right out, we understand that. But I can definitively say that the economic viability of this site requires access to Winchester Road and the expansionary master plan specifically called for it. So we certainly think it's justified. Well, we've already accomplished something here. Because we didn't talk about right in and right out. and it's two and a half hours. Oh, we certainly did. We talked about a stoplight to signalize interchange with Hume Road. I don't want to retry this thing, but I want to tell you that we've already done something here. The question is, can we move forward with the continuance, using the right in and right out? Mr. Wilson, I know you had a question in your hand. Well, I was I think you all the conversations were pretty much along my lines here. And that is it seems that Mr. Nichols has all the information he needs. The staff is seeking additional information. And we, the commissioners who are voting on this, are lacking some pieces of information. And I'm like, Mr. Penn, I don't want to retry this whole thing, but I'd like to know what I'm missing. And this right in, right out, I heard a little bit about it, but I'd like to know if that would be a possibility. One of the reasons to, I think everyone received that email from the Department of Highways on District 7. And I know they had mentioned that they were acceptable to a right in, right out. Mr. Nicholson, and I think that's just a right in. Excuse me, excuse me, a right in. Right in only. Yes, excuse me, a right in only. I think that's where the question arrives from. And that's why we showed the slide that showed that that was arguably the worst possible traffic situation for US-60 itself. not even just a site in polo club, just for US 60. And so we have evaluated these alternatives and we've worked with staff for a long time, but we think that the full intersection is absolutely necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We heard Ms. Jones' statements to us on what we can do or cannot do. Mr. DeMovlin. I'm going to try this again, but Ms. Jones, I'm going to need your guidance on this. I'd like to make a motion to approve again, but I would like to do it with the intersection as described by the applicant. If you can give me guidance on what needs to be eliminated in these 17 conditions in order to do that. Ms. Jones. Yes, Ms. Jones. I believe and I think that if you delete conditions 10 and 11 that you those deal with the intersection at Winchester and Hume Road. I would agree with you, Ms. Jones. and you know and then the other items would be um resolved staff concur with that suggestion can we put that up so everyone can see it once we get to that let me Mr. Chair, would you like us to show that on our screen? Yes. Okay, give me a couple of minutes here so that we can pull that together. Okay. Mr. Poe. I'd like to point out again that item 13 discuss or if it says resolve compliance with the EAMP, specifically access management, stormwater management, and community design element, that's going to that's going to fly in the face of what you're trying to do because that is not possible. Mr. Pullum I think we should point to planning staff here to to address that because the final development plan is the stage when the EAMP compliance statements are approved by the planning commission but I want planning staff to be able to mention that because I recognize that looks like lobbying. If you want to resolve number 13. Well in fact every one of those discussion items could be resolved at time of final development plan. everyone but if you approve the access that is specifically in conflict with the eamp access management that's my point yeah other than that it can be resolved at the time not if they resolve it right now you don't need to And I think Mr. Martin's point is that this discussion is going to need to be had at the time of the final development plan, even if a waiver is granted at this time, correct? Well, actually, staff is in a position where we don't believe that that access point does comply with EMP. And I doubt if you'll ever have us put that in writing that it does. Nick is correct. We disagree on this access point. Well, and to Mr. Paul's point, I mean, it's up to you all again, but the specific requirements of compliance with the EAMP, you know, the expansion area zone is different than our other zones. And so it moves through the process and the same through the same procedure, but on a slight on a little different manner. And so, you know, what Mr. Pohl is expressing or what I'm hearing him express is that he is concerned that he and some others have expressed the same is that they're concerned that they don't have enough information about even potential uses to assess how it would comply with the EAMP. and that's being countered by Mr. Nicholson with, well, if we don't know that we have this infrastructure, we can't offer the uses to you, which is countered further by that we have this, you know, conglomerate plan with Central Baptist as to how we're going to develop the whole site. So it is raising some difficult circumstances here, and I think you all as a commission are going to have to make a decision on how, what you're willing to do, and also to understand that the area on this preliminary supervision plan that is in front of you does not involve some of the areas where some of these things are being proposed. So, you know, it involves private property. It involves, you know, so I just want you to factor that in because, you know, whatever action you take, it's going to be impacted by that because we don't have the ability to reach outside the bounds of this development plan and go back and enforce things shown on that development plan that aren't on the development plan. And just as a note, when we do compliance reports, we generally state whether or not it's substantially compliant. So that actually leaves room for some disagreement and some issues when we review development plans for the AMP. So like I said, staff may never agree with this particular proposed access point. It doesn't mean that the plan can't substantially comply with the rest of the AMP. I mean, I think that's what they're talking about. That's what the moment is. Yeah, I don't see a huge problem. Mr. Chair, we've tried to mock up a perspective of what Mr. DeMoviland's motion was, and I'll show that right now. Mr. DeMovelland, was this what you were trying to get at? I'm reading it, but I believe so. One moment. Yes. We will stop sharing. Leave it back to you, Chair. All right, thank you. Mr. Nickel, you had your hands raised. Stand up. that'll be your second thank you so we have a motion and a second any further discussion to that motion I hope not all in favor please raise your hand to that motion please we have one two three four five and that's yes I can of course Mr. DeMovlin, Ms. Barksdale, Mr. Nickel, Mr. Pold, Mr. Forrester, and Mr. Davis, sorry, Mr. Davis, I do apologize, and Mr. Davis. So any opposed? So we have Mr. Penn, Ms. Myers, Mr. Wilson. okay motion passed okay guys um normally we do like a five minute but i think we after this we need to do more like a 15 minute break mr jones wanted you to make an action on the waiver yes i was gonna just say now i'll just let everybody know ahead of schedule. I had a few text messages here. So we need to have a motion for the waiver as well. Oh. Yes. Move approval of PLN, the waiver for PLN, NJSUB 24, Meadowcrest. Got a motion and a second. Second by Mr. Nichol. All in favor, raise your hand. One second, sir. Are there any conditions? I believe you have to have findings. Yes, findings and conditions. Again, I'm happy to share my screen if that will help with the proposed findings of approval. I have emailed this to staff as well. Perhaps Ms. Jones has an opinion about the findings. I would suggest that Mr. Nicholson share a screen so that the rest of the commission can read those. I would agree with that. I do have some concerns, I do have concerns, at least one. The waiver is the access point. This subdivision plan does not, it can't address the realignment of Hume Road. So I think that the alignment of Hume Road needs to be removed. and item two says that you don't need a waiver which isn't true otherwise we wouldn't grant a waiver so we need to delete that yeah I would agree with that because if we don't need a waiver, then number, I mean, if we need a waiver, number two is not applicable. And so I don't think these findings address hardship at all. Does number three needs to be in there, Ms. Jones? Well, you know, I'm a little bit, to be honest, I'm a little bit concerned about it. I just saw them when they flipped up on the screen during the presentation for the first time. And so it's hard to go back. But, you know, I'm concerned that we would put number three in there in terms of Baptist Health and a 215-acre campus. But that's not this particular preliminary development plan. It doesn't include the Baptist Health site. although they have presented it that way. And furthermore, if it's going to include that site and that is a plan, then it goes back to the issue of then what are the proposed uses. So I'm really uncomfortable with this particular finding, and I think we would have to add a finding somewhere. I think if we take out the realignment of humor road. So my suggestion would be let's go ahead and take this time to have a break and give you time, your adequate time to come up with findings and if that's possible. Mr. Chair, I'll withdraw my motion while you're going to accomplish that. Okay. Because I don't want to press Ms. Jones and she's just now seeing this so it wouldn't be fair to her at all. I'm taking we're going to go ahead and take the 15 right now 15 minute break Thank you. Thank you. Great House? Yes. Okay. Next up, on page 5, item G, PLN, MJDP-20-00042, Great House Property. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, due to some last-minute considerations on this plan, staff is going to request extra plan time to make their presentation. I'm just kidding, Mr. Chairman. You know, Tom is... my 100 year old mother's been calling me by the way if my hair grows as long as yours you can talk as long as you want thank you mr chairman members of the planning commission this next item is item g on page five of your agenda it is a major development plan 20-42 for the great house property uh the village at Great Acres. Now, this is property located out on Leastown Road and at the point where Lucille Drive will be extended to Leastown Road in this location. You previously approved a final development plan for a convenience style store in this location. This particular amendment to the plan is actually showing the development of the townhouses in this area, 78 or nine units, and in three apartment buildings in this location with associated parking. The townhouses will be served primarily by access easements in the rear of the development of the townhouses. These are access easements as well to serve this bank of townhouses. This is a public street in this location that serves as the frontage for these townhouses. This is a large environmental area. It's a shallow pond. It's also part of the stormwater detention. It is a federal floodplain as part of their preliminary work. They've dealt extensively with the Corps of Engineers and FEMA in addressing some of the issues with this particular feature. The plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee and was recommended for approval subject to the conditions that you see before you. They are fairly straightforward with standard sign-offs. One condition is they're going to have to clarify and denote the multi-use trail that is going to approximately follow the right of way in this location. There may be some slight adjustments to that due to the work that they're having to do on this pond that I previously mentioned. That is a very important link for completing the trail in that part of our community. That is an aspect of the plan. They need to clarify and clearly delineate their pedestrian system in this plan. and then we are going to have to resolve with them the timing of the public street construction and dedication and that's primarily because of the public street system is necessary or you can't utilize the access easements as you to access the property they will from a practical point of view they've already started some work they're going to be building a lot of this again all at the same time. There one remaining issue that's a discussion item was the original plan showed a traffic circle approximately here that was going to calm traffic. Lucille Drive is a major collector that will run from Leastown Road ultimately all the way to Spur Road. It's going to be the primary collector in this area of our community to serve the development in that area. I can report to you that between the subdivision committee and today, the applicant has resolved that traffic calming issue to the satisfaction of your staff, including traffic engineering. And what they have done, and we have seen, we've seen pictures and proposals and an exhibit, they're going to put a traffic signal, pardon me, not a traffic signal. we've talked a lot about traffic signals or a traffic they're going to put a traffic circle back in in essence to help calm the traffic along Lucille Drive and so with that staff is recommending approval of this plan and you can change item 16 which is on the top of page six to resolve traffic calming along Blue Seal Drive. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Going to open it up for the application. Please, please. Bruce your body language Are you ready for the applicant sir? Yes Okay I am promoting to panelist Mike Correct And Stephen Garland Okay I'd like to go ahead and start your audio and video please Can you hear me? yes yes well we're in agreement with Tom I hope that's quick enough thank you Mike I do want to ask this question is there anyone out there that wants to speak in behalf of this application before we move forward you can do so by showing raising your hand. I don't see any hands, Mr. Chair. Okay. We'll bring this back into the commission for a vote. Ms. Plumlee? Ms. Plumlee, you're on mute. Are you ready for a motion? Yes, ma'am. Okay. PLNMJDP 2042 Great House Property I move approval with the 16 conditions recommended by staff changing number 16 to resolve. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second to that motion. Second. Mr. Poe. All in favor, raise your hand. Okay. Unanimous. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. So next up, we're on page 6, item H, PLN, MJDP-20-00043, Shriners Hospital. Tom, you're back up. I am. Somewhere along the line, I have lost my new conditions. Here we go. For me, they're a lovely blue sheet of paper. this is major development plan 20-43 it is the Shriners Hospital I know you all are very familiar with it it's located out on East Main Street Richmond Road it was of course long-term children's hospital that relocated down near UK this particular proposal is again one the subdivision committee got to hear this and staff is very happy to tell you that the Easter Seals, corporation, group, charity, they are repurposing this structure. They're going to reuse this building consistent with its original purpose. Now, they're making some slight changes to the parking, principally in this area and a few little changes along this area. they are going to repurpose this as I said not only for their medical purposes but also for a daycare and child adult I mean adult daycare services as well again it's a repurposing of a good facility and asset to our community we have staff has recommended approval subject to revised conditions, one of which we will bring to your attention is denote status as a professional office project and correct the plan title. What that does is allow this through your approval to be considered an office park. It meets the acreage requirement. It's over 20 acres and it's a 10-acre minimum for an office project. That lowers, significantly lowers their required parking. And in this instance, that allows them to minimize the additional parking they're adding, minimize their impact on this site. Again, a very positive thing for all parties concerned. And so with that, staff is pleased to recommend approval of this plan. And I would add, the reason you're seeing it today is when this was originally developed, we did not have conditional zoning. And there was a note placed on this plan requiring that they follow the zoning process for any amendment to this plan. And they have done so. They've placed signs on this property. They have mailed out notices. and again staff has not received any negative comments on this proposal that that certainly that I'm aware of and with that as I was starting to say we're happy to recommend approval of this plan to you today. Thank you Tom we do have a question from Mr. Penn. Yes sir. This just becomes part of Cardinal Hill? Actually, it is consistent, I believe, with Cardinal Hill. Yes, sir, and Easter Seals purposes. Yeah, Easter Seals owns Cardinal Hill, too. Yes, sir. Thank you. And their representative's here, if you have any direct questions. I just wanted to get that on the record. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Tom. I seem to have any questions. We'll open it up now for the applicant. Okay, I see hands for Mr. Chris Howard and Hamid Shaikh and Greg Thornton. We've all been promoted to panelists. If you can go ahead and start your audio and video, please. can you hear me yes good good good well we are in agreement with uh with staff's conditions i'm chris howard by the way uh with carmen appreciate the opportunity to bring this plan forward as tom said the only site changes that we are making um is the drop off on the um the northwest west side and the additional parking on the um the southeast side um the the perimeter landscaping um all of that is staying as is um and then we're also doing some new sidewalk connections to fontaine road as well as shriner's lane those are the the exterior site improvements that are going to take place. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Howard. Any questions for the applicant? I don't see any. Okay. Well, I would also want to make sure I do this as well, just open this up and see if there's anyone out there that want to speak on behalf of the application at this time. Do so by raising your hand on the Zoom. I see any hands, Mr. Chair. Okay. We'll bring it back in for the commission to make a motion. Ms. Blumley? If you're ready for a motion, I have one. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I move approval of PLNMJDP 2043, Shriners Hospital, with the 10 conditions now, and we deleted 10, 11, 12, and changed 13 to denote status as a professional office project and correct plan title. Thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? Sure. Ms. Meyer, excuse me, we have a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Unanimous. Motion is approved. Thank you. If I may introduce the chairman of Kentucky Eastry Seals, I think he just wanted to thank the commission and the planning staff for all their support. Sure. Thank you. This is Greg Thornton sharing his screen. I just wanted to thank the staff. They've been great to work with and saved us a lot of time and money coming up with the professional office park alternative. And Mr. Penn, I wanted to clarify for you, we actually sold Cardinal Hill in 2015. But we are the people that you probably remember that operated it up to that time. Okay. To take those programs now to Richmond Road that we did at Versailles Road for the kids. Okay, thank you. I was a patient at your hospital when you owned it. Thank you for your kind comments. We usually hear the opposite about staff. Good, you're saving money. That's good. That's awesome. We can take it when we can. Well, motion's approved. Thank you guys. Thank you for taking on this project. Thank you. Next, commission items. We have appointment of flood plain appeals committee membership. So we make a motion. Ms. Blumley. Thank you. I just have a question about that committee because as a committee stands now, it's really not consistent. Article 1910A states that one member should be the commissioner of planning. And since that office no longer exists, how are we replacing that person? That's my question now. That is an excellent question, Ms. Plumlee. And that's something that the law department contemplated with us when the Division of Engineering pointed out to our group that with the floodplain appeals committee, one of the um not a member but the process dictated by article 19 is that the urban county engineer mr burton who we we heard from a month ago um has to basically refer it forward to and the ordinance says the commissioner of planning preservation and development which as you mentioned, is technically still a commissioner position, but it's not been filled by our mayor. And so the Department of Law recommended that the commissioner, the appropriate commissioner to review that would then fall under the Commissioner of Public Works and I think it's environmental services and that is Miss Nancy Albright. The previous version of our article 19 actually referred it to the commissioner of public works. In essence the process is really whoever is the commissioner that covers the division of engineering would be the most appropriate commissioner to review that. So the law department opined that it would follow that process so county engineer and then it would go to the commissioner of public works and environmental services and then from there be referred to the floodplain appeals committee i don't think that commissioner is technically a member of the committee um but they they do fill a role in the process okay well what i'm reading from 1910 a yes and um i i don't know how this should be interpreted but one member shall be the commissioner of planning preservation and development so that and then go ahead i'm sorry so then that would be the commissioner of in lieu of that the commissioner listed an ordinance because technically the mayor didn't fill that particular position the law department opined that it should then go to the commissioner that is above the division of engineering which would be commissioner albright then correct correct okay so she would not be a member of the committee then uh well because this is she would yes she would sorry so then you have five people so my question is the three names listed in our agenda that would make too many people on the committee because it's just supposed to be five oh we we've got the commissioner a council person a planning a member from the planning commission an engineer in private practice and a rep from the home builders oh i apologize we've we've actually had that's mr martin might be able to address i can i uh i checked back at the time when this committee was originally formed at the very beginning under our 19 and it was the planning Commission who decided they wanted an alternate to ensure that there would always be a quorum of that committee. And so they chose to recommend an engineer be appointed just as an alternate. And that's how it's been conducted historically. And that's the only reason for it. Okay, see there's no explanation. I'm sorry. We've had a real long day and I don't want you to belabor this because everybody needs to go home. But we've got, it doesn't say that one of these people is an alternate. No, no, it doesn't. And also 1910A, the membership, does not say anything about an alternate. So I think we might want to consider revising that statue. Well, I would suggest you pick one of the engineers and appoint them to the committee. And Tom may have an opinion about which one. I know we both know them personally, so they're both excellent engineers. or you know again i don't know that it's out of the realm of your ability to just state that that one is an alternate because that has been consistent with past practice okay i'll go along with that but i just what i'm saying is it needs to be reflected in the ordinance because this came up as a surprise. Yes. And actually, that was briefly discussed with staff, and that's why I looked into that particular tradition and why they had done it that way. Well, thank you for your years of long service. We appreciate that. But, you know, we might want to look at the ordinance a little bit. It's a lot longer tonight. I'd be sure. Okay. so are you going to recommend somebody or for us to vote or how are we going to do this i would uh fred eastridge in the past has served as the engineer and as chairman of the committee so i'd recommend that doug meneer be designated as the alternate okay additionally served that function doug has traditionally been the alternate all three of gentlemen were approached and all agreed to continue to serve. So we need a motion as such. That being the case I'll make the motion, move the motion to accept, to recommend for the Flood Appeals Committee review, Fred Eastridge, who it would be the private engineer bill hodges as a member of the bia and doug minear who would be an alternate to the committee we have a motion in the second to that motion by mr wilson all in favor we say i i already and excuse me i'm day two. All right. It's unanimous. Motion passed. Staff items. We do have a work session scheduled next week, September the 17th at 1.30 p.m. Okay. What are we going to talk about? Mr. Chair, Jim, not getting off camera here. We will be getting the annual update on the MS score, so that will also be training. Jennifer Carrie from Water Quality will be giving that update to us. So she'll do that in this format. And then we'll have some updates on the status of the ZOTAs as well. Okay, thanks. I think that concludes our meeting today. Meeting is adjourned. Everybody have a good weekend. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.