She is in another office right now. Can we help you with anything, Graham? Yeah, she sent an email saying that we would have a link that should have been sent to us to Google Docs. And I don't think I ever get those emails. I've looked at them in previous sessions. I don't see it today either, so I'm not sure what's going on. So what we've done, I'm coming into the picture. What we've done this time for any revised conditions, we've actually put them on the PowerPoint, so you'll be able to see it as we go along. What I'm going to do right now is I'm going to try to get you that link, and if you have any issues, go ahead and email me back. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. You're still an attendee on that one. You're good to go on that one. Okay. Looks like Tracy's in place. Are you guys ready to start? Yep. I'm ready to start. I'm going to have a gap. We are going into broadcast mode, so citizens should be able to view. Lex TV, are you ready? We're ready to go. Thank you. Okay. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I like to call it July the 9th. One second, sir. Okay. Hang on. Okay, we're now broadcasting. I want to give it about two minutes just so people get excited. Okay. We'll give you the action. I get ready to say do that and then we'll be in good shape. I love it when they used to do that on television. Here you go. And you say that. and they'll be sitting there and then when they do finally come on it'll be like oh oh okay you're on the air I hear you yes thank you we're letting attendees kind of cycle in for just a second thank you okay We are probably. Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'll call this meeting to order. This is July the 9th, 2020, at the Urban County Planning Commission meeting. Thank you all for attending. We understand as we still work with our technologies that there may be a small glitch here or a little bit of a delay in terms of some of our actions, but we will move through it accordingly. accordingly. Now that we've had the call to order, Ms. Cunningham to read our statement on COVID-19, which we are asked or been requested to read at the beginning of each meeting. Ms. Cunningham. Thank you. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill as signed by the governor on March 30th 2020 and Attorney General opinion 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Thank You Miss Göttingham. Next is the approval of the minutes. Hope you've had a chance to review them. Is Miss family here? Is she on? Sir, currently we are not seeing her in the attendees section either. Okay, well we'll move on then. Normally I give, since she's our secretary, I usually give her the privilege of making the motion, but we'll accept the motion from anyone to approve the minutes of March the 12th. So moved. Okay it's been moved by Mr. Healy. Do you have a second? All right second by Mr. Dumoulin for the approval of the minutes of March 12th 2020. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none all those in favor please raise your hand. Mr. Chair that looks unanimous. Okay we have a unanimous vote on the approval of the minutes. We will now move to postponements and our withdrawals. Just wait. Or whoever would like to. We would need to open up the attendees and ask them if there's anyone present today in our attendee list that wishes to postpone any of the plans on today's agenda. And they would need to raise their hand to be admitted to speak. And I believe Ms. Cunningham will be able to admit them one at a time in the order that they raise their hands. Yes, Mr. Chair, we have several hands raised right now for individuals that appear to want to postpone. Okay, let's move out the list. Mr. Simpson, you're first on our list. I will allow you to speak now. Go ahead. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, this is Bruce Simpson. I'm referring to an item at the top of page six. It's the Hoover Property, Ford Field Pot Evangelistic Association. It's the Fountains of Palomar. We had a little bit of a mix-up here on that postponement. We really weren't supposed to have asked for one earlier on, but one got requested. We actually had a neighborhood meeting last night via a Zoom-type meeting. but since the subdivision committee was informed we were going to postpone we didn't want to have any confusion about that we did send out 21 day notice letters to the neighbor and neighborhood so i will re-notice it uh and we would like to have um there's just some minor adjustments on this plan anyway uh we would like um to postpone this for two weeks if the chair and the commission permits on this amended final development plan if the Planning Commission please. That would be July 23rd. July 23rd. Is there anyone in the general audience would like to speak to this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission have anything to say about this particular postponement? If not, we'll entertain a motion for postponement. Mr. Chair, I move for two-week postponement July the 23rd for PLMJDP 2012. Okay, Mr. Penn has made the motion. Ms. Plumlee has seconded that motion. So PLMJDP 20-12, Hoover and Philpott Evangelistic Association properties has been postponed to July 23rd. All those in favor of the stated motion, please raise your hand, let us know. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, that's unanimous. Okay, we have a unanimous vote on that one. Thank you, Mr. Simpson, you've got your postponement. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Simpson, we will move you back to an attendee now. Mr. Carter, you're next on the list. We'll allow you to speak. You can go ahead. Mr. Carter? Can you hear me now? We can. Thank you. Okay. Sorry about that. If you turn in your agenda to page nine, item K, PLN, MJDP, 18-30, it's Ethington and Ethington Property Track 1. I'd like to postpone for one month. And the reason is we were wanting to submit a waiver request and we missed that deadline. so in order to meet the new deadline we would have to postpone till your August 13th hearing date okay is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this particular postponement anyone on the Commission if not then we're ready to entertain a motion for postponement. Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, thank you. Move postponement of PLNMJDP 1830, Ethington and Ethington property until July 23rd. Second. Excuse me on that motion. I think they asked for a one-month postponement. Oh, I'm sorry. What would be one month? August the 13th. So amend the motion to August the 13th for postponement. Okay, that's good. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Mr. Moble in the second. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, would you raise your hands please? Yes. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chair, that vote's unanimous. The vote is unanimous on that. So, Mr. Carter, you have your postponement until August the 13th. 13th. August the 13th, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Carter. We'll be moving you back to attending now. Mr. Nicholson, you're next. We're allowing you to speak. Good afternoon. How are you all? Wonderful. Wonderful. Well, I have three postponements, so I will shorten your agenda and hopefully make your afternoon even better. The first one is on page four, item C, the Meadowcrest. It's MJSUB 20-4. We'd like a one-month postponement to the August 13th Planning Commission meeting so we can sit down and talk about some of the issues with staff. Let me ask you, if you've got two other, are you asking for those postponements, all the postponements set for the August the 13th? Two of them will be for August 13th. One is for the July 23rd meeting. Okay, then I'll take them one at a time then. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak to this? Anyone on the commission? Okay, if not, then we'll entertain a motion for PLN SUB 20-4 Metacrest. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I move for August 31 month postponement to August 13th for PLN MJ SUB 20-4 Metacrest at your request today. All right, Mr. Penn has made the motion. Mr. Hall, Bell has seconded the motion. any other discussion on it if not would you please vote by raising your hands if you're in approval with this thank you mr chair that okay the second is on page five item b the blackford property is mjdp 19-74 and that will also be unto postponement to the august 13th planning commission we are working with the staff to get the density transfer certificate and then they are waiting on us to get an amended plan to resolve the access issue for that the apartment complex. Is anyone a part of this Zoom meeting would like to speak to that particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not we're ready to entertain a motion for postponement of this particular applicants yes mr. Pope move to postpone CLM MJDT 1974 black property case for to August 13th okay second motion mr. Moeberlin the second that motion and any other discussion on the motion. If not, please let it be known if you approve of this by raising your hand. That vote is also unanimous. Thank you. And the final one is on page 8, the Hamburg East Baptist Health Campus. It is MJDP 20-31 and we would just like a two-week postponement to the July 23rd meeting. We had a great meeting with staff on Tuesday and just need to get a kind of a slightly revised plan to them. I think we will be ready to move forward. Thank you. Anyone in the Zoom audience would like to speak to this particular request for a post-tellement? Anyone on the commission? We're ready to entertain a motion for post-tellement for this afternoon. Yes, Mr. Bell. Mr. Chairman moved for postponement of PLN MJDP 2031 Hamburg East for two weeks July 23rd. Okay Mr. Bell made the motion. Ms. Plumley seconds. Any discussion on the motion? Very none. All those in favor of this request for postponement please raise your hand. That votes unanimous sir. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. We'll be moved back to attendee now. Mr. Southall, you're next on our list. We'll go ahead and allow you to speak now. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Scott Southall with Earth Cycle Design. I'd like to turn your attention to page six, item EPLN MJDP 20, 0-0-0-22 Distillery District West Unit 1. Like to request a one-month postponement to August 13th. The owner is still working on some of the interior use space allocation and needs a little more time. Is there anyone in our Zoom audience that would like to speak to this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready to entertain a motion then, please. Mr. DeMovillen? I move we postponed August 13th, PLN, MJDP 2022 Distillery District, West Unit 1. Until August the 13th? Is that okay? Yes. Mr. Bell? Seconds? Okay, it's been probably moved and second that we postpone the ADP 20-22 Distillery District until August 13th. Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor of that request for postponement, let it be known by raising your hand. Thank you. That votes unanimous, sir. Mr. Southall, you got it. Thank you, sir. Mr. Southall, we'll be moving you back to attendee now. Mr. Murphy you're next on our list. We'll allow you to speak now. Go ahead. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Dick Murphy on page two of the agenda. The first item 1A PLN FRP 20-00011 High Lawn Extension Lot 28 and a portion of Lot 27 at 1422 and 1422 and a half Hedgeland Avenue. I've been retained by the owner to look into the history of that and need a little more time to do that so I'm asking for a one-month postponement to August 13th. Okay is there anyone in our zoom audience that would like to comment on this particular request for postpilement anyone on the commission not related to entertain a motion then thank you mr chair move postponement until august 13 for PLN FRP 2011 High Lawn Extension. Okay, there's a second by Mr. Bell. Mr. Blumley made the motion that we approve the postponement request for High Lawn Extension to August the 13th. Mr. Bell second. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote by raising your hand? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We're moving you back to attending now. Mr. Cayley, you're next on the list. We'll allow you to speak now. Go ahead. All right. Thank you. I have two to postpone. On page two, item B, it's plan FRP 19-5, Crossroads Christian Church. I request a two-week postponement to July 23rd. I did not get my notification signed up in time. Is there anyone in the Zoom audience that would like to speak to this request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. This is a poll. There regarding PLN FRP 19005 Crossroads Christian Church amended move to postpone to August. I'm sorry, it's July the 23rd. I'm sorry, amend that July the 23rd. That's all right. Ms. Plumley seconds. Okay, it's been properly moved and second that we postpone PLN FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian church until July 23rd. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please indicate your approval by raising your hand? Thank you. That's unanimous, sir. Thank you, Mr. Cayley. Was that your only postponement? No, he's got one more. No, I have one on page seven. Item G, this is Major Development Plan 20-29, the Lexington Mall property, lot 6A, request a one-month postponement until the August 13th hearing. Is there anyone in our audience that would like to speak to this request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. I move for a one-month postponement to the August 13th meeting of PLNMJDP 20-0029 Lexington Mall property. Okay, Mr. Penn has made the motion. Mr. DeMobile and has seconded that we approve the applications request for postponement for the Lexington Mall property. That's PLNMJDP 20-29 until August the 13th. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of this request, please raise your hand okay unanimous on that thank you thank you okay I know there are no more additional postponements things right all right so mr. cutting and it's got to go through our order of business for today it's gonna be out as we move through today's agenda first miss Wayne will present the consent agenda and the Planning Commission will act on that. As we go through items that may have discussion, the staff will present first, followed by the applicants. If the applicant is finished, the chair will ask if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. At that time, if you can raise your hand electronically, we'll recognize you in the order that you appear on the list, We'll promote you to speak and then move you back and we'll just go down the list of speakers in that way. We do have one phone caller that we need to identify right now. If you're calling from number 1-205-949-3844, we're going to allow you to speak and if you could please tell us your name and which case you're interested in. Speaking to the caller from 1-205-949-3844. Hello. Hi. This is Christian Elliott with Capstone Real Estate Investments for the 845 Red Mile Road Development Plan application. I believe it's page 8. We haven't gotten to that one yet. What's your business related to that? In other words, we will be hearing that. He's the applicant. Oh, he's the applicant? Yes, he's the applicant. We just need to identify who the caller is. So we're fine with that. Mr. Elliott, what we will do now is change your name on our list so that we'll know who you are, and then you'll be called when that case comes up. Okay, thank you. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay, thank you. one thing that I did forget sir when we call on you to speak as citizens we will need for you to give us your name and address please for the record of our meeting I believe that's all the business okay thank you miss Wade consent agenda yes chairman Wilson we do have one item on our consent agenda today that means it's available for the Planning Commission to vote on without a full presentation. These items that appear on our consent agenda are items that have previously been reviewed by the subdivision committee and are recommended for approval. They're also recommended for approval by the staff, and the petitioner has agreed to not give a presentation, and they're also agreeing to the conditions that the staff has put forward on those. In this case, the one item appears on page eight of our agenda today. Item J, and it's PLN MJDP 20-32, and it's for the Cooper property. That's property located at 1370 and 1380 Deerhaven Lane. Previously, this was part of a larger development plan for the Mitchell Cooper property. The applicant has only made small revisions to their plan, so we did do a expansion area master plan compliance statement indicating that it is the this plan is a revised plan is still in compliance with the EAMP, so that was provided in the Google Drive for the Planning Commission to review. And if you're here present in our office, it's on a goldenrod sheet. There was no issue identified with the change proposed by the applicant. So that one item is available for the commission to vote on in a consent manner. I guess we'll ask if there's anyone in the audience that does wish to speak about this item or would want a full presentation on the plan for the Cooper property on Deer Haven Lane. Ms. Wade I see no hands raised. Anyone on the Commission? If not then we will this is our only consent agenda item and we will need a motion for that and whoever would like to make the motion would you please add to the motion that we also have the EAMP compliance statement as part of that motion. That's okay. Do it. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you Mr. Chair. We move for approval of PLNMJDP 2032 Cooper property and only consent agenda and along with the conditions also that it has approval for EMP okay do I have a second okay miss Bell so the motion was made by miss bumbley second by mr. Bell that we approve the consent agenda item of PLNMJDP 20-32 Cooper Property Mitchell and Cooper Property along with the EAMP compliance statement as a part of the findings. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote with your by raising your hand. Mr. Chair that vote is unanimous. And I'll just note for the record that that the applicant posted the required signage for the property in the expansion area and provided the appropriate affidavit documentation to the staff for the record. Thank you. The first full item on the agenda will be on page five. We're going to, there was a continuance from the previous meeting. On page five, it has to do with Windburn Estates. And we'll invite Mr. Martin to the podium and share our screen in the conference room up here so that the Planning Commission can see the development plan and the changes that the applicant has presented. Let me get back to share my screen. So today, because we've, and I apologize, I don't know why it doesn't skip to the right page. We have included the extra information that we haven't or don't normally in the hearing. Besides the development plan, we went ahead and included the conditions, if there were revised conditions just to help the commission follow along in case the Google Drive information wasn't available for you all to see so with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Martin and we'll proceed. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see you again, even remotely. I hope you miss me. the uh the item that uh you have before you today is as you are aware a continued discussion item for the property known as winburn estates unit 3 hudson circuit property uh this is a a final development plan that has undergone considerable review and reiterations uh and changes as the staff and the applicant have worked very hard and very diligently over the last few months to reach this point on this particular development plan. Now, as you are aware, it is at the end of Ward Drive with frontage along Russell Cave Road, and it is right at the overpass over the interstate on Russell Cave Road. Now you can see that access is provided from Ward Drive. There are eight apartment buildings on this development. It is a 13-point acre size site with, as I said, eight apartment buildings are proposed with 192 dwelling units, 456 bedrooms. They are proposing 411 parking spaces. The parking requirement on this property has been a challenge and one that again the applicant has stepped up to address relative to staff's concerns. The lot coverage, there's a lot of open space. There's an environmentally sensitive area that you all can see there in the middle of the plan. So there's plenty of open space on this on this plan. The lot coverage is not at issue. The floor area ratio, these buildings are multi-story buildings. The floor area ratio is 0.495. What's allowed in the R3 zoning is only 0.5. So they are maximizing out their floor area ratio. And again, this relates to the number of units that they are proposing and that they need for this development to work. And as you all are aware this is an affordable housing development and when we say affordable housing we mean it in this particular case this is a a tax credit subsidized income-based affordable housing project and certainly as you all are aware staff supports these types of projects they are needed in our community. Now, we have a handout, and those of you, again, that are here will see that it's a nice salmon color. Those of you that need to download it on the Google Drive, I'm not sure what color shows up on the Google Drive. I like the color, but we do have revised conditions, and as you all are aware, there was a considerable amount of discussion about this layout, the access drive, and access to Russell Cave Road. And originally, there had been a plan that allowed access to Russell Cave Road. Subsequently, District 7 stated that no, due to the circumstances, the design, the poor site distance, that they would not allow access to Russell Cave Road. But what the plan currently does have is an emergency access to Russell Cade Road, which is very important for a development of this size and a number of units. in addition I would add that is condition number 13 which is on the back page of your handout states that this access shall be converted to public access if or when Russell Cave Road is improved and those improvements are completed by district 7 and then we would want it converted to public access. Now, in a brief conversation with the applicant, they would like to amend that condition to include the need or the acquisition of a permit from District 7. And staff has no problems with that particular addition to that note because, frankly, a permit will be required if and when those improvements are ever done, and if and when that access can ever be converted. So again, just to be aware, it is an emergency access at this time and shall remain so unless and until the road is improved. Now, staff had tremendous concerns, and we met often with the applicant. And we always had good, productive meetings. And the big concern was compliance with the design standards, multifamily design standards. And what you see before you today is a plan that is in substantial compliance with those standards. The access drive that you can see, the orientation to that access drive was paramount to that. and the location of the parking, the preservation of the environmental area, the open space, of course, is very important. And staff is very pleased with the effort that you see today on this plan. Now, again, in conversation with the applicant, they were a little concerned about condition 14, which states resolve substantial compliance with group residential standards. We'd like to assure the planning commission, the applicant, that this plan as presented to you on this exhibit does substantially comply. There are some minor, and I mean minor concerns about extending the sidewalk in one area of the plan. There remains some concern about the dumpster locations. As you look at the plan, they moved the one that was to the south and close to the residential area. And this site is a challenge, and dumpster location has proven to be a challenge. In addition, there's still some slight concerns with the dumpster location that you can see as you move up the parking lot next to the environmental sensitive area. It extends a little bit into that environmentally sensitive area. There's some concern with that. we believe that these small issues can be addressed through the sign-off process. This is not something that we believe is any kind of big problem or not in substantial compliance. Thank you. Tracy's indicating that area for you. Again, one reason we keep a resolved condition such as this on a plan is because what you see here is a cover-up, and there's been paper and electronic filings. However, the official, ultimately the official plan will be the mylar that is submitted for signature, review and signature. And these conditions, and a condition specifically such as number 14, is to remind staff to look and be sure that what has been submitted officially for signature does in fact meet that requirement. And just to give you an example, let's say that Ms. Wade is on a very, very deserved vacation and I am on my honeymoon. One of our fellow planners might well be tasked to review this plan and get it certified because they're ready to move forward. They're ready to pull permits. They want to build. So a condition such as that, and we keep them on a lot of plans triggers the appropriate staff review of the mylar. And again, I just wanted to address that to the planning commission and alleviate some of the concern that this applicant had about the condition. Because again, staff would reiterate, this plan has come a long way. There's been a lot of hard work out of both parties on this plan. and again we think we have the applicant has presented us with a good plan an affordable housing plan that as I said before is very needed in our community and so with that staff is recommending approval of this plan to you today and I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. sharing our screen in this conference. Are we, are they on open mic? Well, not yet. We've had a bit of a technical slowdown here. The signal that was coming in from Jerusalem is just at a mountain peak someplace. But we'll be right back. Mr. Martin, we hope to get him back on to make his finishing comments. He appears to be there, sir. I'm not exactly sure. Mr. Martin, can you say hi to us for a second? Hello. Hello. I can see Mr. Martin and hear him. Mr. Martin, can you say hi to us for a second real quick? Well, hello. Good to see you. Thank you very much. All right, we got him. He's right there. Okay. I don't know. I think you were coming to the end of it, but at the same time, we lost you when you were talking to us about the last 14 and how that was for the staff to trigger staff, you know, and you indicated that you might be on your honeymoon or something like that. Yes, sir. And that would be an appropriate staff response to this, depending upon who's here. Yes, sir. That is, again, the point I was trying to make. We do believe this plan, as you see, is in substantial compliance. We just want to be sure that when the Mylar is presented to us for certification, that is the official plan. It has to comply. and that condition will trigger the appropriate staff review once the mylar is certified it's not a reflection that this plan doesn't meet okay is that okay yeah uh do are there any questions for mr martin i've got a question for mr martin okay mr martin on 13 can you please help us understand what we need to add to condition 13 to meet the applicant's request and your request because you said something about permitting you wanted to add permitting I want to make sure that someone's taking this down I'm going to try to yes sir Mr. Nichols Mr. Simpson and I had a brief conversation before the meeting and he expressed a concern about the wording he believed that we needed to reference a permit from district 7 would be necessary on that access point and yes we have no problem with adding that reference to that note because that's a given in staff's opinion you're going to always whenever you access a state road you're going to have to get a permit okay so what you're saying is that staff recommends approval with all 14 conditions. The 13 conditions they want to reference a permit? Yes, the need for a permit. From District 7. Yes, sir. Okay, and then just to clarify for me, 14, the reason you discussed resolve in detail was to alleviate the concerns of the applicant because they are in substantial compliance. This is more of a bookkeeping or accountability on our side, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. I'll just leave it at that. Yes, sir. Good. So your approval with all 14 conditions adding reference permit from District 7 on 13. Okay. Thank you. And, in fact, Ms. Wade has given me some language. And Bruce can weigh in on this when he makes his presentation, that we would amend 13 to include all necessary access permits shall be obtained from KYTC. Good. So you already have the language. Thank you. Perfect. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Yeah, I have Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, I assume that that emergency access is a crash gate. Anything else? I don't believe the fire department likes crash dates, but it will be to their approval. Well, it'll have to be something where people can't get through. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Because that's the easy way out. Yes, sir, you are correct. And it's a very dangerous place to come out of. Excellent point. Yes, sir. I don't know how they're going to do it, but it's better to be where they just can't get out that way because that's the way they'll go. Okay, any other comments, questions for Mr. Martin from the commission? Thank you. Would everyone associated with the applicants team please raise your hand electronically? Mr. Eastridge and Mr. Simpson, you're being promoted to panelists right now. We'd ask that you start your video and unmute sound if you plan to speak. Ms. Basta, we're promoting you to panelists as well. Okay, you should all be in the meeting now if you'd like to go ahead. Mr. Penn, this is Fred Infridge. The fire department wanted us to put on that emergency access, a click to enter gate. So it will be gated and it will have a click to enter where the fire department, police department, emergency vehicles will have the access electronically to open the gate. Thank you, that's just very important. Yes, sir. Bruce you need to unmute yeah I can say you sorry okay you're up next if you'd like yeah thank you I'm not sure why my beautiful picture is not on the screen but I guess you all can do without it but just endorse what Tom said. We have worked very diligently with the staff in coming up with a proposal that's before you today, and obviously we're pleased with the staff recommendation for approval. And I certainly want to assure the commission and the staff that I would never attempt to pull a fast one while Tom was away on his honeymoon or Tracy was away on her vacation with respect to this plan or any other plan, particularly when Tom comes to a planning commission meeting dressed in a black shirt, I know that some applicant is about to have a bad day and I don't want it to be me. So we're pleased with all the recommendations. Condition number 13 is fine with the addition of the language that Tracy included, similar to the one that I had suggested to Tom earlier. Condition 14, I couldn't tell from what Tom was doing on my screen the areas that he in question. As I understand it, there was a dumpster location that's, it's not supposed to be in the environmentally sensitive area, and I talked with Fred about that, and he indicated that it wasn't, and also there seemed to be a six to eight foot sidewalk segment that needed to be added. And other than those two items, we would be in 100% compliance with everything. At least that's my understanding about item 14. If I'm incorrect about that, Tom, please let us know. And if you could highlight on the colored up version that you were talking to, I don't know if you've got a marker that could just show the area or maybe you did it in your presentation and I just can't see it on my screen and if you did show it and it showed up on everybody else's screen that's fine that the planning commission saw it. We have spent a lot of time and we just want to be able to walk away today knowing what all the issues that whatever is left that we need to do it may be that we can commit to doing them today because what Tom had suggested doesn't seem to be that significant. Ramona Vasta is here from LDG Development and she can certainly comment on that and Fred can comment about the dumpster locations. So Tom, if you wouldn't mind, just highlight again for us those two items that we need to take care of and we'd like to get that resolve taken off so we have nothing to resolve. Okay. Can you all hear me okay? Yes. All right. I'm not as adept with some of this. Let's see. I've got some tech help. There you go. And where's our little marker? Oh. Our little. So the, yeah, I think, well, again, we're going to get bogged out. We're not careful. Oh, yeah, over here. All right, now I think we're ready. Okay. There remains some slight concern about the dumpster area here and the environmental area. You can see this location. And then a little bit of sidewalk in this area. And again, that's it. And I would just reiterate that a lot of times resolved conditions remain on plans, not just this plan, other plans that have basically been met, but it helps trigger the appropriate staff review on the Mylar when it is submitted. okay because it's not that anybody's doing anything deliberately it's because these are created in a computer and layers can get turned off um and and actually i can we've we've reviewed a plat before that had a mistake on it because the applicant submitted uh an earlier version of his plat instead of the correct version so it's just it's a cautionary uh condition uh more for our benefit and to make sure we do the appropriate review of the mylar. Okay Ramona do you have any questions or Fred you have any comments about that? Hey everyone can you hear me? This is Ramona Vasta with LDG. Wanted to take the time first to thank planning staff for working with us on coming up with you know a site plan that works for everyone. We are okay with adding the sidewalk sections that you meant that you pointed out that's not a big deal it looks like maybe it was just accidentally left off but so we can add that in there and then the dumpster location it was hard to pick because the site is so constrained it was hard to pick locations for those but the dumpster does not and Fred can correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't actually encroach into the wetlands I think the little polka dot looking area is the actual wetlands area but I'll let Fred weigh in on that other than that we just wanted to make sure that that item number 14 was it that the way it was worded made it sound like we still needed to resolve you know the design standards so we just want to make sure that it's on record that that this plan does indeed substantially meet the minimum design standards from the neighborhood plan Mona you're correct this is Freddie stretch the dumpster Tom has picked out it is in an area that we want to try to save trees in it is outside of the wetlands area so it shouldn't be a problem I can talk with environmental specialists and get them familiar with and yes I did just accidentally leave off that sidewalk it might be there and it might be under cover so but But we'll be more than glad to add that. And I'll be glad to help the environmental specialist on the dumpster. Okay. Go ahead. Now, with that, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly request the Planning Commission's approval. And we're pleased that we were able to get this work out with the staff. This is a very important affordable housing project by a high-quality affordable housing company. one of the best in the nation. They do high quality work. You can check with all the people in the urban county government involved in affordable housing and they will tell you that LDG is a leader in affordable housing in terms of their construction, their construction of their product and the management of their product. They keep these properties. They don't flip them and turn them over to somebody else. So we would ask for your approval. Okay, very good. Well, thank you. I think the one thing that just for clarification sake, the reason number 14 was in from what I've heard from staff is that was a more of a reminder to them more so than it was a reminder for you. I think they were indicating that they felt comfortable with what you all were indicating, but I could see how that from you all's perspective, it would suggest that you hadn't resolved that particular issue. To the staff, how do you want to deal with this do you want to put that in or how do you want to deal with it the condition is on the plan for staff and we'd like for it to remain again as i've stated and i it doesn't imply they haven't met but it will tell the reviewing planner i got he needs to check or she needs to check for those items on the mylar okay and and for the most part the way i'm understanding it here is primarily the fact that from the standpoint of the applicant they were a a little bit I think concerned about the fact that it said resolved it was almost suggesting that that had not been discussed and had not been to some extent agreed upon but from what I'm hearing mr. Simpson from you are you all agree to doing what you do with the sidewalk dumpsters the staff is concerned is not concerned with that they're thinking that's a minor thing that you all can work out and that they put this notation in for the purposes of simply reminding the staff about what they need to do to get the final sign Is that a fair statement? That's a fair statement, Mr. Chairman. Based upon Tom's representations, as to item or condition number 14, we have a clear understanding and we accept that condition as stated by Tom. Okay, Mr. Penn has a question. Mr. Simpson, I think it's also important that we leave the Windburn-Russelgate neighborhood small area plan on there, because this is, this was a lot of work was done on that and this is definitely in compliance with the Russell Cave neighborhood small area plan. So I think it needs to be on there for history purposes, but mainly to say that we have all the plan. Good point, Mr. Penn. Okay, and I think that's a fair statement as well. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone in the audience generally who would like to comment on this particular plan? Mr. Chair, I see one hand at this time, Ms. Amy Clark. Okay, would you open her up? Thank you. Ms. Clark, we're allowing you to speak now. Go ahead. Oh yes, if you could please give your name and address. can you hear me yeah we can now okay I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road I'm going to take your time to do something I don't often bother to do which is hardly recommend approval of this plan I concur with mr. Simpson that it's a very important affordable housing project this is one of I believe the four projects that council took extraordinary action to restore to the funding allocation to see that this important affordable housing project with three others could be built on the need needed terms because it is important to our community I also like to hear that the applicants say that it's a site plan that works for everyone that wasn't easy to achieve and I would commend all parties for making that happen the only other observation I wanted to make and correct me if I'm mistaken I believe that the plan we saw in March had 208 units had 476 bedrooms which required parking of 429 bedrooms because of a of 429 spaces because it was nine-tenths of a space per bedroom. And the applicant had proposed 436 spaces. That's to say seven extra spaces above and beyond what was required by what the applicant represented at the time as being for them an extraordinary parking requirement. They said that usually about one and a half spaces per unit was required by the many communities they've worked with in the larger area. But since we have the alternate bedroom count, and these were family apartments, it gave a higher parking requirement. so to reiterate there were in march 208 units the bedrooms were 476 and the required parking 429 they proposed a few extra 436 in making this a plan that works for everyone they have come down to 192 units on today's plan it has 456 bedrooms so it came down 20 bedrooms it came down 16 units and there are 411 parking spaces which I believe is exactly our community's requirement by the 0.9 per bedroom the higher factor so I think that's important for us to see when we see this important housing project that provides affordable housing at a 60 percent area median income ratio which is very important and attractive it's not at the 80 percent it's at the 60 percent i think it's important to consider how they've worked with the family sized units the bedrooms and the parking requirement to make this project possible under our current requirements so my heartfelt support for this project and thank you for your time thank you miss for your comments anyone else anyone else anyone else in the audience would like to speak okay if not I don't know if there's needs to be a rebuttal I mean does a staff of the Simpson have any final comments on this I think it was pretty much it's an agreement but if you have if you like this is the rebuttal stage but I don't think there's any much rebuttal and buddy going on here but it's up to you all any additional comments I have nothing further to add Mr. Chairman, thank you. Nor does staff. Okay, very good. All right, we'll bring it back now to the Commission for additional discussion and a motion as such. Any discussion from the Commission? Any questions or comments or clarifications that are needed? The one clarification I will need, and I think as it relates to the motion, I think this wave had put some language together and I didn't capture all of that so I'm hoping that we'll have okay Mr. Bailey tells me that we will have that language at the proper time. If not then we are ready for a motion on the Windburn Estates. I'm sitting back over there so I wouldn't like commission comments. Well I did, I just asked that. No, no. No, I'm not good. I asked for commission comments, no one stepped to the forefront. At this stage of the game, then I'm assuming that the commission is ready to move forward. Let's go with a motion. Mr. Chair, we do have a raised hand from our staff of the firm traffic engineering. Would you like to hear from her? Yes, please. If you'll hold on for a minute, we do have our traffic engineering department representative would like to make a comment or two. Yes. Okay, Deepika, you have been promoted to panelist. You can go ahead and show your video and speak now. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I just wanted to mention one point before we proceed to the motion. There is a $20,000 commitment from the developer for traffic improvements, for traffic calming and improvements for the existing Windburn estate property. So I don't know how it's going to be shown. Maybe it's in the plan or like, you know, what's the terms and conditions for that. I just wanted to make a note so that it doesn't get lost. Okay. Mr. Martin? A note could be added to the plan stating that the applicant has agreed to do that. which is very generous and very helpful. Okay. And that's one thing. And the second point that I have is probably an email conversation from Greg Lingle. He mentioned that there was no parking signage note provided on the access road. So I'm assuming like this will be a discussion at the later point of time because the access road is something that traffic engineering has to discuss after a while, or do I have to mention at this point of time? I just didn't know. Because it has to be restricted parking because the access road is kind of narrow. So just thought of mentioning that as well. Okay. Martin, any comments about that? And that will be handled to fire departments sign off on this plan. They'll inform the applicant that they'll need to denote that. It's a fairly standard sign-off condition. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think now I can just say that we're all in pretty good shape and we're all ready for the motion. Okay. We're ready to entertain a motion on this particular plan. i would give a motion to approve but i do not have that salmon sheet in front of us so if someone with the salmon sheet doesn't mind okay then i tell you what taking the taking the lead please You're coaching through this. All right. Mr. Nichols has made a motion to approve, I believe, PLNMJDP 19-77 Winburn Estates Unit 3 with the 14 conditions identified by staff, changing number 13-2, and that's why I need you, Ms. Wade. I'm going to add a sentence at the end of number 13 that says all necessary access permits shall be obtained from KYTC. Okay so number 13 we keep the number 13 as is but adding at the end of that that all necessary access permits will be obtained from KYTC. Who's the seconder on that? Okay, Mr. Bell. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion would you let it be known by raising your hands? Mr. Chair, that vote is unanimous. The vote is unanimous. Congratulations. Thank you Mr. Simpson and Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our applicants team will be promoted back to attendees now. Thank you. We're going to go now back to I think it's page three the preliminary subdivision plans. Dotson Farm. I think that's the next step. Yes sir. Okay and I think this is Martin. You're the Man of the hour, I hope you got back from your honeymoon safely. Well, I haven't gone yet, so. You've got to go to come back. By the time you get married, you'll wish you had already been. I hate it. Mr. Chairman, may I just make a point before we move on? I noticed that Ms. Wade lowered her mask when she spoke next to Mr. Martin. I would tell you, we've had some outbreak at the farm and such like that. So I would suggest to everybody that we'd be very sensitive not to lower our mask. Mr. Martin doesn't have a mask on and things like that. So we can hear you well without lowering your mask. So I would just suggest that. Okay, Mr. Bell, nice observation. I think they've got the message. Let's move on, Mr. Martin. Thank you. This is on page three and we have revised conditions and again for those of you present they're lovely green and for the rest of you that are remotely tuning in it will be in your Google. This is an amended preliminary subdivision plan for the Dotson Farm subdivision, Haley Pipe, Briar Hill Road. This was a plan that was done some years ago, and subsequently, I believe because of new ownership, they brought it in to amend the lotting pattern. And you can see the yellow lines on this particular property where they have revised their lotting pattern. There's three large lots being proposed on this property. It is served by Haley Downs Lane, which I believe is at least partially public. I think part of it may be private. And then you can see the railroad line that runs through the property. And one of the issues which they have addressed is that parcel B, which is across the railroad, cannot be transferred independently of its parent parcel, which is parcel A, which you can't see what I'm pointing at necessarily, but is parcel A on this plan. And that relates primarily to the access. There's only an old farm road that accesses Parcel B across the railroad track. That would not preclude that property being transferred to an adjoining property owner, should they choose to. But they also slightly modified the floodplain, utilizing new information and new mapping information on this. there is a considerable amount of floodplain on the property. The primary issue that affected the postponement of this plan is the fact that, and Ms. Wade is indicating that for you, there's a cemetery on the property, and this was identified on the previous plan. The new owners apparently were unaware of it. It sits in a thicket of trees and honeysuckle and that sort of thing. And under our new regulations, of course, you have to have a full-blown archaeological study of the cemetery submitted. And they were not aware of the cemetery. So they did have the study done. They did submit the study. It does delineate the family cemetery. And they will meet all the requirements in the ordinance. Article 3 of the zoning ordinance requires fencing. And there's an access easement that leads to the cemetery. All these things are requirements to allow the family to visit the cemetery should they wish to. So with that, staff has submitted revised conditions and are recommending approval of this plan. Being a subdivision in the ag area, they too were required to post a sign and an affidavit, which I believe staff does have. And they have demonstrated they have complied with that requirement of your ordinance. and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Penn has a question for you. Tom, is the purpose of this to be able to sell some of those lots or the purpose to give it to family? What's the purpose of this subject? Well, it's an existing plan which they have amended and they will have to address any personal concerns or why. I mean, they tell us they're amending it. They're changing the lighting pattern. They're addressing the floodplain. We tell them, well, you've got to address the cemetery. As to their personal motivations, their attorney would have to speak to that. Well, the reason I'm asking the staff is that what do you do about access across that railroad? Well again, that's an old farm road access and there's a note that's a carryover from the original plan that we had them add to this plan. It cannot be transferred separately and they will just have to access that through the old farm crossing across the railroad. Again, the assumption being that they're going to be farming these these properties. There's no access easily granted there though, it's just farm roads. Well, it's all one parcel, so they don't really need an easement to themselves on this particular parcel. Should it be transferred, which again would be difficult unless it was transferred to an adjoining property, then we would discuss an access easement. All right. Thanks, Tom. Any other questions for Mr. Barton? From the commission? Okay, applicant. We ask that anyone representing the applicant please raise your hand electronically. Mr. Murphy, we'll be moving you into the meeting now. Mr. Murphy, you can start your video and unmute, please. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the Dotson partnership. These are the heirs of the Dotson family. And Bill McAlpin and John Hill are our engineers from Eagle Engineering. They've been working hard on this, as has our archaeologist, who is Alexandra Bybee from CRA who prepared the archaeological study for the cemetery. To answer Mr. Penn's question, this is for sale. There are, but this plant is creating, or the final plant which you'll see as a follow-up, will create three lots. Two of them are 40 acre lots and one of them is about 214 acres. That's the one that has the parcels on both sides of the railroad tracks so that'll the crossing will remain as it is today it's a it's a farm crossing over the railroad tracks and it's just gonna stay that way so we've worked hard on this for the last couple months getting our cemetery study and we're going to comply with the cemetery requirements and we're pleased that our revised plan has only the standard sign-off conditions so we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have any questions for the applicant okay seeing none in terms of question are they any comments or any anyone in the zoom audience that like to make any comments related to this particular plan see anything that's cutting out see no answer okay uh i don't know whether we need to go back to a rebuttal process here or not is anything from you mr murphy you'd like to add or anything staff would like to add no sir okay no sir okay you're in good shape okay then i'll pull it back to the Commission for any final comments a thoughts and our recommendation or emotion. Okay Mr. Buchanan. I think comment before we start I assume we will see this again down the boat at some point. Yes, yes you you will see it again. The plants in an Ag Zone must come to the planning commission. That's what I'll just say. All right. You want a motion then? Yes, we're ready for motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJSUB 200001, the Dotson Farm subdivision with the seven conditions as staff presented on the green sheet. All right, Mr. Penn has made the motion for approval. Do we get a second? Okay. Mr. The poll was off the second, so we have a motion to approve and a second on it to approve PLN MJSUB 20-1 Dotson Farm subdivision with the seven conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing that, would you please let us know if you're approved of this particular plan by raising your hand? Okay, the motion is approved unanimously on that. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. okay we'll take maybe one more before then well I think the next one is Belmont Farm can you give me a page number on that please I'm trying to find it on the drive yeah it's three yeah yeah okay so that's gonna be under preliminary subdivision plans or development plans okay preliminary subdivision plans item B okay I'm showing page four and let's see what thanks through phase three yeah it's not on the drive. It shows up as page four but it's Belmont Farm. There it is. Okay perfect. I see it. It's on page four. There it is. Thank you. And we have a revised course for those of us who are in this area here. We have this revision recommendation with a yellow sheet that we'll be looking at and this also comes I think with a waiver which will be given us as well. So, uh, staff lead off. Who's, uh, is it Cheryl leading off on this or? Yes. Good afternoon. Yes, we're at Belmont Farm Unit 7 Coventry amended. This is a preliminary subdivision plan that they're bringing back to us. This is located, um, I'm going to say to the northeast corner of Georgetown and Citation Boulevard. This is inside, um, backing up to Coldstream Park over on Newtown. This is one street in, it's called Huntley Place. We did a school, there's a public school that's going to be located on the opposite side of Huntley Place between Georgetown and Huntley. Yeah, so but we're coming in, we're doing, they're presenting to us a preliminary subdivision to create single-family lots and townhome lots, as you can see with this plan. They have typical sign-off conditions. They brought in a revision, so we were able to revise the conditions and be able to cut it down to just the typical sign-offs. Denote access greenways shall be located on HOA lots rather than easements on private lots. That is one of our things we like to see as far as a single lot instead of somebody else being required to maintain it as a private property. There is Greenway and a stream located on the southern portion of this development plan. So we want to make sure that we have access there for that. And as you said, there's a waiver. They are requesting a waiver on this plan because they're with the new layout of the streets for to the north, the main street up here on the north, and then that is offset by 250 feet from Minister Road, and then the one to the south is only 206 feet, so they are short of 44 feet, So they're asking for a waiver of 44 feet to be able to have this road just shy of the required amount because they're kind of locked in with the greenway and the stream that's located to the southern portion of the property. So that is what they're asking the waiver of for the plan. I'm getting a page open. So the staff and traffic engineering, we believe this can be granted. We believe it does not affect the public health and safety welfare of the community with this. You can see right here there's Georgetown and then citations along the southern portion and Huntley Place is coming down through there and so they're going to be right there to the east side of Huntley as it wraps around towards Remington Way and that right there is where they're located. I'll open it up if there's any other comments questions to the committee or planning commission sorry. Questions from the planning commission? Comments? Okay, if not, then we'll move to the applicant. We'd ask that anyone present to speak on this as the applicant would raise their hand now, please. Mr. Smoorstad, we'll be moving you in as a panelist. If you could go ahead and start your video and unmute you, you can speak. can you hear me yes we can perfect this is Greg Smorestad from Banks Engineering and we appreciate your time on this plan we agreed to the revised conditions well the one being that the waivers granted and then also I'm not sure on item number 10 if we just need to change those lots to say that they're going to be HOA lots to satisfy planning staff but if that's the case we can we can do that we've already broken them out to be separate lots so they're not actually just it's on private lots but that's for for your approval. Thank you. Hey, I think in a comment to number 10, what it says on that yellow sheet is, denote access to Greenway shall be located on HOA lots. Is that what you were thinking it should be there? We just want to see that it's to the approval of the green space planner and the bike and ped planner, that those are the locations best for that. Okay, that's fine. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? Okay, is it anyone in the Zoom audience that would like to comment on this particular applicant's land? I don't see anyone, sir. Okay, hands on that. I assume that then we probably, unless someone just needs to say anything in addition, we don't need to go into a rebuttal. so without objection we'll do that and we'll move it back to the Commission for a motion. Any discussion that you need to have? Then we can move on to a motion. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I'm looking for approval of PLN MJ SUV 22, Beaumont Farm Unit 7, with the 11 conditions. Okay. And do I have a second on that? Mr. Nichols. Mr. Anthony DeMoviland made the motion, and it was second by Mr. Bruce Nichols that we approved PLN MJS SUV 20-2 Belmont Farm Unit 7. This is the revised recommendations with the seven with the 11 conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in approval rating, would you please raise your hand? Very good, that's unanimous. Now let's go to the waiver if we could. Mr. DeMolman, would you like to do the motion on the waiver as well? I don't have the waiver in front of me. Oh okay. Well does anyone have the waiver in front of me? Yes sir. Well we do. Well okay then maybe. Okay. Mr. Cole, your mic is muted. Okay. Move to approve the waiver of land subdivision regulations for PLNMJSUV20-2 Belmont Farm Unit 7. Okay. Do I have a second? Okay, Mr. Bell. been properly moved by Mr. Poles, second by Mr. Bell, that we approve the PLNMJ-SUB20-2 Belmont Farm Unit 7 with the findings of the petition for waiver. Any additional discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, let it be known by raising your hands. Okay, unanimous. Okay, thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Mr. Smoorstad. You'll be moving back to an attendee now. Okay. Is this going to be a long thing? Yes. Let me, I'm going to ask if it's okay with the commission. We'll take about a five minute break and then we'll be back to finish up. And it's 2.53 right now, so let's comply with the five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you We've got a couple of people out, but we need to. All right. Good. Bruce, now Graham. If Graham is in, we're back. Sorry about that. I forgot to turn my screen on. Well, Graham, I don't know whether he's turned his on or not. So while we're waiting for Graham, can we identify that phone number? Yes, please. If you are calling from number 1-859-554-6343, we're going to allow you to speak now just so that we can get your name and know which case you're interested in speaking about. You can go ahead, caller. The caller for number 859-554-6343. If you can identify yourself and let us know which case you'd like to speak about, please. it looks like that color is disconnected okay we're back in session right now thank you all for coming back mr. chairman back on the air sir thank you oh okay thank you welcome back we're now on page four or at least on my agenda developmental development plans this is the right Plaza and so the staff who's making the presentation is that Mr. Martin? Thank you Mr. Chairman indeed this is Major Development Plan 19-71 Riddell Plaza Lot 3 also known as the Parker property. This is a development proposed on South Broadway, Simpson, and Burley Avenues are the streets that frame this development. I'm sure you're aware that a Wendy's has been developed on the front end of this property. And to the west of the Wendy's, there's an AT&T store, which is not a part of this plan. Although you see it on the plan on the screen, it's not actually subject to this amendment. It's really reference information at this point. You can see, again, the Wendy's is right on the corner of the property. This proposed amendment is to propose a 6,000-square-foot retail building behind the Wendy's, access onto Simpson Avenue with associated parking. Ms. Wade is demonstrating that there will be circulation around that building with a drive-through. And you can see the parking area in gray along with access that exists now from South Broadway and, again, as I stated before, on Simpson Avenue. and on the face of this and to the rear by the way the property that you can see is an existing before use that is being included on this plan because the access through that property is being included as a portion of this amendment you know i'm going to ask you to bear with me because there's there's a lot of history and there's some parameters on this proposed development that is very important, staff believes, for the Planning Commission to consider. And again, as I stated, this is a relatively small development, 6,000 square foot buildings and associated parking. However, it is an infill and redevelopment project. It is also located in an area where there have been known flooding issues for many many years and the original it's actually been i believe 11 years that we've had notes on plans stating that these this issue had to be addressed as development happened in the area and as you are also aware there's been considerable development uh back towards the railroad track uh in this area with multi-family development of course there's significant development again all around it, all around this area. The flooding problem that exists has, and we want, again, I want to give you the appropriate parameters and history here. This is a watershed that actually extends all the way up in the area of what I still refer to as Commonwealth Stadium, Kroger Field. It's a large area. It's heavily developed, as you are aware. And again, we have a railroad track that this stream passes under, and there's a large detention basin in that area. Again, you can see, and it is an older area of town. These subdivisions in the area were being platted and developed in the early 1920s. Mr. Penn spent a lot of his youth in this area, and that there was a large tobacco warehouse across Simpson Avenue from this development. Originally, there were two residential homes fronting South Broadway, and this area in question was a backyard. Subsequently, a gas station was developed on the corner, and of course it's gone, and now we have Wendy's. the the issue and this is a significant issue is the storm water management in this area and addressing flooding and water quality questions that exist on on this property now i will reiterate flooding in this area is historic it is not caused by this development per se, nor are they tasked with solving this flooding issue that existed for many, many, many years in this area. However, they are tasked with meeting the regulations, not making the problem worse. Now, I will add that our regulations, our stormwater regulations and our regulations, don't require that someone make a situation like this better, but they certainly cannot make it worse. The issue with the property and the reason for the multiple postponements is twofold. One, this applicant was required to do a full-blown study, a hydrologic study, basically of this watershed along this stream. And it was a large study, a complicated study, and took them a considerable amount of time and effort to prepare. The issue from the study comes down to really the appropriate design to address the problems that exist, to hopefully not have an adverse effect, not impact the public health and safety from this property being developed. And today, with the plan before you that you can see before you, and this is a good illustration, you see the 6,000 square foot building and the access behind it. You see that hatched area. That is the area in question as it heads down. That is currently an open area that the stream flows through. It is one, it's a very, it's a little over 300 feet in length. It is a very small open area. The majority of this stream, as I stated, it runs from Commonwealth slash Kroger Field all the way here and on down, of course, but it's virtually piped its entire length. It does open up in the detention basin by the railroad track, and it goes back into the stormwater facility that's under Simpson Avenue, and then it daylights here on this property. So when this is evaluated and when the stormwater manuals are applied and the study is looked at, the questions that they have to evaluate are quantity controls, which are being proposed on the property. They're going to be required a basin. An underground vault is what they're proposing. and I want to say that maintaining the environment is also the quality and the health of the stream is also an issue that is looked at and is something that is taken into consideration during the course of several conversations over the past month and several meetings staff is concerned that more information is needed more evaluation is needed and that's why you can see before you the subdivision committee recommended postponement and staff did not change that or offer a different postpone or a different recommendation on this particular plan we have offered you conditions should you approve the plan and it not be postponed. And that leads us to another little discussion. I want to make sure the plan commission understands procedurally. You need to act on this plan today, unless the applicant does agree to postpone it means you have to vote this plan up or down. Staff in evaluating the situation and in conversations, believe that should you if the applicant again agreed to postpone they have time to work on this plan they have time to give engineering additional information they have time to more fully evaluate what's being proposed and frankly if you approve this plan that process is going to continue they're going to have to submit additional information as required by the Division of Engineering to be sure that they do meet the intent of the stormwater manuals and that they can address the the problems to the best of their ability and their responsibility in this area. the recommendation that staff has before you, and it's on the back page of your handout, staff believes will help facilitate the process, and which, frankly, I want to assure you, and I understand the public doesn't always wear of how this process works, But when we review a plan and you all approve it, there is a whole huge note of process that goes on as they develop their infrastructure plans. They submit these plans for review and acceptance to get the appropriate infrastructure built. And, of course, here that is complicated because it is an infill and redevelopment site. It is complicated because of the historic flooding. It is complicated because of its small size. It is further complicated by the fact that one of the large problems that exist in this area is off-site. It is not the applicant's responsibility. But downstream, these culverts get smaller, and they have turns in them. And so they collect debris, and they cause backflow, and they create flooding by their construction. And this is across South Broadway. This is not on the applicant's property, nor is it their responsibility, not a problem they created. That being said, their design and their study indicated that they would like to put this stream in a culvert. And they also stated in the study that there would be flooding. However, the flooding would be on the subject property in their parking lot. And in essence, the inlets into the stormwater facility, into the culvert, would provide a relief valve for this flooding. And again, obviously, that raises some concerns for the public. and people are going to utilize this property with a parking lot flooding. That's a concern, and that's a safety. That is a public safety concern. And so, again, when we reviewed this and staff, we will tell you, as you all are aware, we're planners. We're not engineers. And we rely on our fellow staff and their hard work to evaluate these issues and to address them. And so with that, staff has offered you some conditions which we think will help facilitate the process and help get the best design that we can to help with the historic problems that exist in this area. Now, I'm going to go over a couple of small items as we get there. Because, again, this is a proposal to build a retail building. a small retail building with associated parking. And because they've expanded the plan, there are several things that they need to do. They need to address the zone-to-zone screening along the part of their plan to the west, the parking area, and the R4 property. That's, again, technical requirement under Article 18 they'll need to address. We would, we are, we have a condition that they need to denote that South brought 111, 100, 1,000, I'm sorry, 1112 and 1110 South Broadway. As I mentioned before, Wendy's and AT, they're not part of this amendment. They're, Wendy's is a part of this plan, but not part of amendment. AT&T site, the store site is really at this point more just an informational site. But they do share some parking with the professional office building, which is now a part of this plan. Yes, see, this area is now a part of this plan. They need to resolve the circulation around their building to eliminate any stacking in the adjoining B4 zone. They have to make sure that this site functions on their site and in their zone. and you can see clearly that there is an ability to circulate there is an ability to access the site and again with parking and that leads to a condition that we've added that the access points drive lanes parking on the adjacent properties and these properties will have to be approved by the traffic by traffic engineering and again that that's actually a standard part of our review process when we conditionally approve plans. There will be a need for a minor amended subdivision plan to address the easements and drainage and possible impacts on the site. And again that's because we have multiple properties, multiple lots, they are under single ownership. It's staff understanding which we hope will facilitate those actions. Now the the drainage study as I stated before has indicated that there will be possible flooding on the site in a in a hundred year event or potentially less it depends on the design grammars. Again I'm not an engineer we'll let the engineers address those issues and I And I certainly don't want to lead you into the weeds with that sort of thing. But staff believes if you approve this plan, it would be important to denote, and again, this reflects actually a standard give and take and process in evaluating infrastructure by the applicant and our engineering staff. and that is any additional information relative to the stormwater design shall be submitted as required to the Division of Engineering and Water Quality and accepted. And furthermore, we believe a report needs to be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission prior to certification of this amended final development plan. and what that does it gives everybody a chance to continue to work on this design and be sure that we are getting the best possible development and the most appropriate design on this site and we rarely we rarely recommend that this type of report be done because generally these issues tend to be a little more straightforward, which is a good thing. As I stated before, this is a difficult site. Furthermore, if this particular design is approved, there is going to be a loss of some trees. And if you want to call it a natural area along the drainage, along this creek, then yes, it is a natural area and there's going to be some loss there. And so staff is also recommending that they denote that they can comply with or provide an exhibit, pardon me, that they can comply with their canopy requirement, which is a 20% requirement on this site. And frankly, upon reflection and further review of this site, staff did become a little concerned with their ability to meet their canopy requirement. and I think you can see why with the building and the pavement and the parking lots and you basically have landscape islands and that sort of thing where they'll have to concentrate their efforts should this design be approved and again let me stress that this particular design that they're proposing if it's not approved by the division of engineering if they have to go back to a different design, it will impact this plan and impact this site. And that's another reason staff believes that a report to this body would be appropriate prior to certification of this plan. And in addition, staff, and we've talked this over with legal, we believe that the study itself has demonstrated that this is a flood hazard zone. It's not mapped, ladies and gentlemen. It's not on a FEMA map. It's not a regulatory floodplain in that sense. However, Article 19 does reference the fact that in lieu of that information, if a base flood elevation has been established, it becomes a regulatory flood elevation. And that has certainly been done on this site. It's been done through the study that the applicant has prepared. So your staff believes that Article 19 is applicable. And I'll explain one reason that is important. If it is determined during the review of this design, as well as the plan in and of itself, including the structure, that this is a special use permit or any variances are necessary under Article 19, then it'll have to be evaluated and if necessary referred to the floodplain appeals committee for their review their recommendations and their approval and frankly so you'll know if it does go to that body if it's deemed necessary and appropriate that it goes to that body they will wade into the weeds and they will look at the details of the design and the engineering parameters and and again it's not a place the staff wants to take this body but you know we're talking about things like head wall pressure and volumes and it it's a lot of math which is the reason that some of us planners didn't become engineers and so and I apologize and I thank you for your indulgence but I really wanted to lay this out for you so you can really understand that the nature of the problem that we have here, the challenges that we have here, this is an infill and redevelopment site. And the applicant has the right to develop the property. They also have the responsibility to meet the regulations and the ordinances. And again, you find yourself today tasked with making a decision on this plan. Now I'll be happy to answer and by the way you're going to have some extensive presentations by the applicant as well as some citizens that are that are concerned and rightly so. So I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Bruce Nichols. All right, Mr. Martin, I'm sure we're going to hear this in a minute, but could you please, I guess, explain why the applicant does not want to postpone? Well, don't explain that. So the applicant decided not to postpone, and that's why you laid this out the way that you laid it out. But we're going to hear it today, and we need to make a decision. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And again, on the applicant's behalf, they can speak for themselves. Right. But, It's been postponed for months. They've done the study. They've initiated a process. And that's one of the reasons we have the recommendations we have, should you approve this plan, because we believe that postponement and a conditional approval both accomplish that process moving forward. Okay, so what you're saying is that the conditions that you all have laid out, you're comfortable with. You're comfortable, obviously, with the conditions. Yes, sir. Okay, so that's one of our choices, that you've got conditions that you showed us briefly with all those red lines, that the staff is comfortable with those conditions moving it forward. Yes, sir. Okay. It sounds like a more complicated process, but I got you. Somewhat. Somewhat. It actually reflects the normal review process that takes place within our infrastructure design. That's something none of us ever see. That's what our engineers are doing and the applicants are doing when they design infrastructure. They help do this process. Well, thanks for providing those recommendations to allow us to make a decision. Thank you. Well, thank you. Pat? Mr. Martin, I was going to wait until after the applicant made their proposal, but Bruce just triggered a question for me. If the solution is to flood their parking lot and that big flood type thing, I don't think I've ever seen a solution to a drainage problem to flood the parking lot. What we've done, we've piped all this from there. we bought a back warehouse in 1950 and that was a problem and operated from 1975 or something and now we put all this under pipe and this is one of the few places where it can get out of that pipe for a while and then go back into the pipe. You keep doing this and pretty soon you're in a situation where it's going to flood somewhere just a question of where. Is the staff recommendation that you can accept the fact that they're going to flood their own parking lot in a rainstorm? Is that acceptable? We're uncomfortable. We are uncomfortable with that scenario. However, it may be an unavoidable scenario, regardless of what engineering design is ultimately approved. And that's part of the discussion that I believe the engineers could probably elaborate on better than we could as to what is the best design scenario on this property because it does flood, Mr. Penn. It does flood now. And according to their study, it will continue to flood. It's just it'll be a different way of flooding. The release is their parking lot. Yes, sir. It is. That's what it is. Yes, sir. And it is a rare situation except where we have existing problems already, like the distillery district where they're next to a creek and their park cannot flood periodically. I want to focus on this property, but to me it's a problem that's got to be solved and just keep putting it in a pipe doesn't solve it. Yes, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Funley? Yes, my question is, since this is going to flood knowingly, will the building code be different? Because the building, I mean, will they require to build it higher so it doesn't flood inside? Yes, sir. I mean, yes, ma'am. Oh, yes, ma'am. Those requirements have existed for many years. Yeah, the building will have to be elevated. Again, they've established a base flood elevation. And they have to build a finished floor two feet above that. that those requirements have been in our regulations in Article 19 for a long time. Yes. We're talking about the parking lot flooding, and I might add the study indicates just a few inches. And in terms of public response, ambulance and fire, they can handle anything up to 18 inches. So it's to a certain degree they're imposing this on their customers and their employees that they're going to be dealing with in a heavy rain event several inches of water on their property. Wow. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Plumlin. I'm sorry, I have a second one. Okay, go ahead. I just wonder how the consent degree people feel about that sort of thing. It seems that you're knowingly creating a flood zone. Again, the flood has existed for many, many years, and the study has just verified, in essence, that, yes, there is flooding in the area. They defined it better through the study. But water quality is part of the review process here. Okay, any other comments, questions? Well, we'll probably learn a little bit more. We'll call the applicant. Thank you. Can we ask that anyone representing the applicant, please raise your hand electronically and we'll move you into the meeting. Mr. Helani, I'll be promoting you to the panelists now. If you could go ahead and start your video and your sound, please. Is anyone else representing the applicant? Mr. Helani's the only one I see. Okay. Ms. Allaway, you're on. Still muted, sir. Mr. Helani, you're muted. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, I apologize. For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Hallani and with me is Matt Carter. We are with Vision Engineering. We'll be representing this application. I just want to go through the history about this project, as Tom mentioned, and I just want to give you a little bit of statistic about this property. This property is approximately 1.6 acres, and the drainage area, as Mr. Martin mentioned, it starts from UK Stadium, approximately 340 acres of drainage of watershed that drain into that area. There is approximately 7,000 linear feet of storm slash box culvert in that watershed, starting from UK Stadium all the way to Piccadoma Golf Course. And our site is approximately 325 feet of open channel. And then the other open channel is the area just downstream of the railroad track, which is approximately no more than 200 feet. So as you can tell, that watershed may be over 95% to 97% of it is totally storm pipes. So we, and also I agree with Mr. Martin about that property is not in the floodplain. It's not in FEMA regulated floodplain. So we are, the floodplain start from Piccadoma Gulf Coast and downstream. So just to give you a little bit of history, we submitted the drainage study, and I agree with Tom, it was very complicated, and we extended all the way to the beginning of the watershed. And we ended at the Picadoma Golf Course. And we submit this study sometimes in March. Engineering provided us with comments. We addressed the comments sometimes in April. we had a zoom in meeting between director of engineering lfucg engineering josh design and greg luback with division of water quality and based on that meetings i told us i feel comfortable for us to proceed forward with the development plan and our proposal just to speak about our proposal is basically we are If you look at the storm network, you have a six inch pipe drain into the site. And then from Simpson Lane, there is a box culvert five by four, then drain into our site. As it leave our site, there's twin CMP pipe, corrugated metal pipe, five by four approximately, that goes into Herzberg Road. that will become 12 by 4 box culvert. And then at Gypsum Avenue, it goes to 4 by 4 box culvert. And then the last section is 10 by 4 box culvert before it drains into Picadoma Golf Course. As you can tell, there's different type of pipe sizes. So what we are proposing is to have 12 by 4 box culvert and we have a drainage inlet. and this inlet, so as Mr. Martin mentioned, the flooding, I don't know if I call it flooding, so in very extreme storm event, then this inlet is going to charge and surcharge into the parking lot and we are talking about no more than two inches of inlet charging into the parking lot. The way it is right now, there's almost five to five and a half feet of flooding on that property. is going to get transferred into two inches of flooding on that property. So, and also, when we move forward, when we understood from engineering that we address, that we meet the stormwater manual, and up till now, I have no comments to address. I believe we address all the comments. I get the call from planning saying in June 9, we don't feel comfortable with this proposal, and we wanted to postpone 30 days. I spoke to Mr. Greer, the owner, and we agreed to postpone 30 days. We made multiple attempts to talk to planning, and I spoke to engineering. They confirmed that they have no comment to us. Last week, Director of Engineering, Mr. Burton, specifically said at the subdivision committee meetings that we meet the stormwater manual in that study, and this is an infill development and so it kind of meet the stormwater regulation and today we have proposal for postponement and then I get the impression reading the staff report that you guys are waiting on something from us which is I'm really on honestly I'm not sure what are waiting on us all the impression we get from engineering is that the study does meet the storm water manual and we are transferring a situation right now if you think about it there's five five and a half feet of flooding into two inches of surcharges into the parking lot and the parking lot of drainage and then in september one of the floodings that tom mentioned happened in september of 2015 so after the flooding we had one of my our surveyor went into the pipe and i find out that when the culvert kind of go from 12 by 4 to 4 by 4, there was a lot of trees and debris kind of jamming that area and creating flooding. So on this, we clean them out, and that area, those trees is coming that collapse from our site because it cannot come from anywhere else because of the storm sewers. So our proposal will mitigate for that issue. There's no branches or trees that are going to end up into the storm sewers and then backing up into where the pipe kind of changed in dimension to a smaller dimension. And then also, I read the staff, the reason for postponement is kind of our proposal is going to create some health and prevent loss of life and health. I believe our proposal does prevent loss of life. And I can tell you, somebody, you know, this area, it's full of student housing. There's a lot of residential. somebody walking on Simpson Lane and on the sidewalk there's five feet of water and then you have all this drainage area coming from UK campus heavily urbanized area water raging downstream somebody slide into that creek they're going to end up in the same situation that we have on Nicholasville Road so having that pipe totally contained that's an improvement I believe than the situation than is. And the reason, as Bruce mentioned, the reason we don't want to postpone, I mean, we would rather not to postpone, but if need to be postponed because the plan commission to feel comfortable about moving forward, we will postpone. But the reason is that when we postpone it the first time in 30 days timeframe, nothing happened. And no comments, nothing we received from staff. The only comment we receive is that we meet the stormwater regulation, and our study has been approved at this stage. And also, I agree with Tom, is that as we move forward, we have to provide construction drawings that's going to be reviewed by engineering. They're going to be reviewed by water quality. It's not like if the Planning Commission gave us an approval today, we're going to be building that property tomorrow. They still have a lot of requirement, And also we still have to get the permit from Division of Water for the water quality. We have to get the permit from the Corps of Engineers for enclosing that stream. And the Corps of Engineers, that would be the jurisdictional determination of the stream. What kind of stream is it? Perennial stream is going to be intermittent stream is going to define what kind of stream it is. And other than that, we also submitted the landscape plan. and this landscape plan has been preliminary approved from David Johnson, the landscape reviewer, that address line item 20, line item 12, and any of the landscape and vegetation that the staff has on the report, which we are in agreement with, and I just want to let you know we already submitted the landscape plan and has been preliminary approved until the building permit. It will be a final approval at the submittal of building permit. and if there's any question for me, I would be glad to answer it. Any questions? I've got a – I do have a question. Mr. Halani, have you looked at the conditions from Mr. Martin and are you satisfied with meeting those conditions if we were to proceed with a vote? I just want to see kind of where we are. It's a complicated issue, but if you – Give me your response to the conditions that were laid out by Mr. Martin, and hopefully you have that document in front of you. Yes, sir. We are in agreement with all conditions except number one, which is required us to come back to you with an engineering report from Division of Engineers. And we believe we already passed that because our study demonstrates that we actually, either the stage is going to be as is right now as pre-development condition or we are dropping it just not much. But definitely will not make it worse situation. It's either better or the same stage of water elevation. To answer your question, Bruce, we are in agreement with all of them except number 18, and number 18 basically talked about that we need to come back to the Planning Commission prior to certification of the amended development plan, and we believe we've already done that. So other than that, we are in agreement with it. Okay, thank you for answering that question. I'm sure we have a lot more discussion. I would definitely defer to Mr. Martin. on that as well. A little bit, perhaps to relieve some concern. We're not asking for an engineering study at that time. We're asking for a report to the Planning Commission on where they are in the process and in the design. What direction are they going? If this design is acceptable under our standards, we think you all need to know. If the design has problems and they need to do something different, we believe you need to know. because that will impact their plan as well. We're not asking for an actual engineering study. It's more of a progress report. Okay, that's what we're really looking for is a progress report. Any other questions? Just one, and I think the staff's given an idea here, and that is we have a couple engineers on this Zoom conference. I think Mr. Atkins is on here. Ms. Newman? Ms. Atkins. Oh, Ms. Atkins and Mr. Newman. Could we get you all to help us out a little bit from you all's perspective on this? Okay, Ms. Atkins and Mr. Newman, at this time we'll move you into panelists. You could go ahead and show your video and turn on your speaker, please. We should both be in the meeting now. Ms. Adkins, Mr. Newman, are you all with us? Yes, I'm here. Okay. And is everybody here? There he is. Okay, it has Mr. Newman. I'm hoping that you have been following the conversations that we've had here, and a lot of this is going to rely a lot on engineering, but what is you all's perspective on this? Well, I know there's been a lot of discussion with the design engineer and the Division of Water Quality and our division. a difficult situation you know with the historic flooding of the property but the you know the drainage study that the vision has prepared so far shows that you know their their proposal is not making it any worse they're reporting the peak stages to be basically the same elevations for you know existing conditions compared to the proposed conditions with the culvert. Of course they'll be raising the grade to build the parking lot and to build the culvert so visually the elevation of the flooding is going to be you know it won't be as apparent I guess but but there there will continue further report that it will continue to pond in the parking lots and and I assume Simpson as well. But the they have established a flood protection elevation for the for the new building that would be like at least two feet above their their calculated flooding level so you know the issue of continued flooding would be limited to the parking lot. Well, Mr. Milva, I'm from the country, so you're going to have to break down a couple of things for me here. Applicant is saying that they could reduce the amount of flooding that could take place maybe from five inches down to two. One of the reasons they say that could be done is because in the past, tree branches and things have gotten into the way of the flood flow. is two inches acceptable from from your perspective in terms of uh of giving an okay on this uh two inches in a parking lot that would be pretty easy for a car to negotiate and wouldn't propose a threat to floating or um you know that's that's pretty minimal okay um I think the real problem that they have there is the downstream pipe system is small, too small. And that occurs on the other side of South Broadway. and that causes water to back up during extreme, more severe storm events. Anyone else? I have a lot of questions. That's because I don't understand a whole lot about engineering. Ms. Vaughn, do you have anything to add? No. Mr. Chair, I got a question. I don't know that I heard it. How many inches of rain do we have to have in order for that parking lot to flood two inches? And what impact would that have on pedestrians or people on a bicycle? So the two inches is for the 25-24 hour storm event, which is approximately, I'm going by memory, is 5.8 inches, roughly speaking. And from impact is going to be, I mean, no impact at all. And we're only talking about like only around the inlets, not the whole parking lot, just unspotted location. Let me go back to a simple question here. Are you all saying to me that there's no engineering strategy that could be employed here that would take even the two inches out of that parking lot to clean that parking lot out I mean I heard you say mr. Newman something about downstream but there's nothing new engineering wise it could be done to alleviate that flooding issue at all I suspect it would require increasing the capacity of the downstream pipe system. And Jihad, chime in there if you agree or disagree. No, I agree with you 100 percent, Taylor. And that was what I was mentioning earlier. I mean, the parking lot now, the channel, the parking lot has way more than six inches. They have two, three feet of flooding as is right now so it's going to be reduced tremendously and it's going to be everything underground except like on very extreme storm event this inlet is going to surcharge for for just 10 minutes maximum and then everything will drain down and then two inches i mean stormwater manual allow up to six inches and i agree with tom emergency vehicle can operate under 18 inches of uh floodings i mean we are way below what stormwater manual allows below what the emergency vehicles and again to solve we are one point acres out of 340 acres i mean regardless what we do on our side to create any significant impact it's not going to happen the the solution for this is going to be opening up the pipe downstream as hillard as hillard mentioned that four by four that bottleneck is the one creating all this issue Schwab streams. Mr. Nickel, you're muted. Unmute yourself. You're muted. Gotcha. This view is complicated. I'm trying to do the switch to acting speaker and it gets me to an empty room. So my question is this. We're talking about a specific site with a water problem. Where is the downstream bottleneck? Who owns that property? Is that part of this site or is it part of someone else's site? That would help clarify my thoughts on this. Someone else's site, I believe a portion of it is under a road and a portion of it is under private property. But not on this site, is that correct? No, sir. Yes, sir. So the only thing that would correct this site would be to fix the downstream bottleneck which is on somebody else's property? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for engineering? Okay, thank you. We're going to move now to the citizens portion of this. They have asked for a little extra time, and we will allow that so they can make their presentation. But I don't know exactly who is going to be representing the citizens. is it Mr. Tim Cook? Ken Cook? Ken Cook will be representing Friends of Wolf Run. Okay, and who else? Could everyone who would like to speak go ahead and raise their hands electronically, please? So far I only see Mr. Cook. Okay, then we'll start with Mr. Cook and then if somebody comes in later we'll do it. Mr. Cook? Okay, Mr. Cook we're going to allow you to speak. Very good. Can I be heard? You can. If you wouldn't mind to hold on one moment and let me pull up your PowerPoint. Very good. Get the screen share ready. It'll just take a second. I can introduce myself. That's not part of the PowerPoint. I'm Ken Cook. I'm a trustee of Friends of Wolf Run. We're a 501c3 working in the Wolf Run watershed of which Vaughn's Branch and North Fork of Vaughn's Branch is a tributary. What you're looking at here is the watershed that everybody's talked about. This is a visual presentation. I've borrowed this from Jihad's artwork. Basically, it starts way above Commonwealth Stadium, I'm sorry, Kroger Field, and runs down to the development site at the upper left corner of this particular illustration. This is a really big watershed. We've all agreed to that. 350 acres of urban watershed is a lot of area to drain from. It's a well-studied watershed. There's a 2011 University of Kentucky stormwater study, the 2013 Wolfram Watershed Management Plan, integrated engineering study done for Anderson communities, and now the 2020 Vision Engineering Study done for group properties. We recognize the work that vision engineering put into this, and we appreciate the funding that was provided by Greer to fund this science. So go ahead and go to my next slide, please. Just one moment. Sure. Does this count against my time, Mr. Chairman? Okay. I clocked this in seven minutes, so I appreciate the accommodation. You okay. Okay, we'll make sure you get your time in. All right, let's go ahead and go to slide two and you get a chance. Are you trying to turn it into screen share mode or what's going on here? I can't see the second slide. Sir, if you'll give us just a second, we're experiencing some difficulties with our computers. And this will not be counted against us all. Thank you for the accommodation. While they're working on the technical difficulties, I'd just like to comment on the Zoom format. I really like the way this works in terms of having attended some of the meetings before, and I do like the way staff is facilitating this. This is really helpful. Okay, so are we, can you see the second slide or are you looking at the speaker notes? They haven't given us the okay yet. Okay. But Mr. Cook, you know, we appreciate that, appreciate your comment about the accommodation with the Zoom. I personally would still love to see your eyeballs and what have you. But in light of that, they've done a really good job, and I would agree that they've done a superb job of accommodating us through this method. Apparently, this is our new normal for a while. Mm-hmm. I understand it, but unfortunately, I don't have a word. Well, my son came in and gave me a little shade. There we go. That's the full screen. Now, I'm not 100% certain in terms of... Okay, here's the second slide here, and this is kind of important. In this big watershed, we have a stream, and in the 2011 University of Kentucky stormwater study done in the area, They made the case to LFUCG and LFUCG accepted that this portion of the stream upstream of the railroad tracks was a blue line stream and with documented perennial flow from springs that are near Seton Center on UK's campus and other sources that feed into this. So we're going to make the argument whether it's perennial, intermittent, that kind of stuff. But that's an argument really for the floodplain appeals committee if it gets to that point. So we've got a blue line stream. We've got a stream going through there, perennial or intermittent, doesn't matter. Go ahead and go to the next slide, please. And this stream does what streams do. It floods. You've heard a lot of flooding being discussed here. we have this is from a May 2018 flood as you can see it's over topping Simpson Avenue there's significant amount of current running through that particular area and you can see some film material the developer has brought in in anticipation of being able to bury the stream and so this is just gives you a depiction of one storm events flooding and inundation we believe that the study that was submitted by Vision Engineering and the other documentation that's been presented allows this to be a flood hazard area and a regulatory flood that falls under Chapter 19. It is not on the FEMA map. We have pointed that out repeatedly to our flood plan coordinator, but that oversight by a federal agency does not, you know, does not conclude as saying this area floods. Next slide please. Now another thing that's important is this area does have existing turf grass green space mature trees. The picture on the left there I have a winter shot of that particular area just to show you some of the tree trunks and some of the trees in that particular area and this is going to be important for some of the chapter 9 protections. It has defined bed and bank and it is a piece of green space and it does have a stream buffer. Next slide please. And this is important in terms of our Article 19 of the Flood Conservation and Protection Act in our ordinances, Lexington-Faderman County government ordinances. And in addition, look at item C on that. It also covers our ordinance, our rules cover areas adjoining adjacent in the floodplain, vegetated buffer zones, and floodplain setbacks. So it is applicable, the zoning ordinance that you all hold sway over is applicable to this situation. Next slide, please. This illustration here comes from the Stormwater Design Manual, a Lexington-Fayette Urban County government publication. So this sort of illustrates the policy that it comes from Chapter 19 and the water manual's provisions. And it sets up a 50-foot vegetative buffer. Now that does not exist currently on the site, but we do have buffer in that particular area. The floodplain, the 100-year floodplain, and then a setback from the floodplain. And this is for both new development and redevelopment that these rules apply. Next slide, please. Now I don't expect you to read this chart, but this comes out of the stormwater design manual and this shows what is allowable and what's not allowable. The letter N means nope, not supposed to do it in that particular area. The yellow highlighting is mine in terms of looking at the design plan and looking what components within our article 19 and the stormwater design manual that would apply to this particular development plan. So you can see we're running into some issues with our policies and our rules here in terms of the site plan. Next slide please. Now this is again Vision Engineering's artwork with some minor modifications on my part. Jihad, I removed the word ephemeral from the stream designation there in the middle of the thing and just said stream. I hope you permit me that alteration in your artwork. There may be other alterations here that vision engineering should not be held accountable for. Basically, this is a current design plan that comes out of an illustration from vision engineering stormwater study. Go ahead and go to the next slide, please. All right, now toggle back, please. Toggle back, yeah, and repeat that two or three more times. All right, so what I'm doing here is toggling back and forth between what is proposed and what is a current condition. You can see the condition of the building, that kind of stuff there. And I have circled, or you can stop there, I have circled the 947-foot elevation line, which 947 feet and change is where they put their flood peak at the 100-year floodplain. I'm not going to argue over the two-tenths of a foot because, again, these numbers are generated by a model. So clearly, this building and this culvert is going to be in the floodway, in the floodplain, in the flood inundation area, and is going to bury the stream. And, you know, go to the next slide, please. All right. It's going to bury the stream. Now, we have another issue that we have brought up with engineering. We haven't had an opportunity to talk to Jahad or the Greers about this, but there are three stormwater basins that were not included on the engineering study inventory. The volume for those stormwater basins will have to be made up somehow. I just learned in testimony here of an underground vault. That's going to be kind of interesting to see where they fit that in terms of making up for that stormwater storage basin. Next slide, please. uh now what you're going to hear is that from envision engineering we have heard it there's there no there's no adverse impact and what they really mean what they really should say is the model that they have used the swim model does not indicate an adverse impact on flood peaks um and so that's a big difference between there's going to be no adverse impact and everything is all right. And what we should be asking as we defend the policies that set back from streams and building in floodplains and building over top of streams is, are the impacts of this project going to be incremental? Is there going to be a loss of stormwater storage when they fill in this creek channel? Will there be a loss of green space and tree canopy? Will there be a loss of vegetative buffer protection? And will there be an increase in flow velocities through that culvert that they're going to have to pack all that water through. Now, I heard an interesting statement that by putting it in a culvert, it's going to be much more safe. And he cited the University of Kentucky University of Kentucky students that we lost in 2006. I would argue that it was the culvert that killed them, not the open channel flow. Next slide, please. They got sucked into the culvert. All right, we'll have a chance here in a little bit. They get sucked into the culvert, but if you have a culvert surcharging and you have water coming up through inlets and you are going to have openings into that culvert, let's save that for the floodplain appeals committee. All right. Now, in terms of there's no adverse impact, significance is often what they should, what they rely on with these models, with these 2D models. And it's a value, significance for us is a value judgment. For them, it's a technical term. And don't confuse adverse impact overall with their modeling and technical terms. Now, one thing that I would like to do for our commission members as they make their decisions on this is if you have an opportunity is to visit the site and look at a fill pile that the developer has deposited there without a permit, I might add, that they're getting ready to shove that into the creek and look at the size of that fill pile. Now, that is the volume that we're going to lose, that and more that we're going to lose if they are allowed to bury this creek. That's the stormwater storage volume. And you also have the constriction of channel. You pinch a garden hose, you get significantly higher flow volumes. I think you have to do 11 miles an hour through the 4x4 culvert to maintain the discharge rates that were provided. All right, I'm sorry, that's floodplain review committee stuff. And so, but look at that. And there's your illustration in terms of how much volume we're going to lose. Next slide, please. now why are we concerned about this and it is policy not the project so I hate to be on the other side of the table from the Greers at this discussion they've done some good work at other projects what they do is professionally installed and professionally managed so so it's not this particular project per se we're objecting to it is the policy that would allow filling these streams that would require the exemptions and the waivers that they're going to have to have from our rules and from our standards to put this in. And when we do this, and I'm throwing the language from LFCCG document at you, here's what happens. We know what happens. I don't want to read this to you unless you want me to, but there are a ton of things that happen bad, and we acknowledge this. We know this. And when I say we, I say Lexington, us as a community. Next slide, please. Now, this is just to illustrate this further. This is from the 2014 Stormwater, Wolfram Watershed Management Plan. This work was done by Third Rock Engineering. Wherever you see the yellow exclamation point, they have documented severe erosion, channel down cutting. The development site is marked at the top. That trash pile where the development is is not an indication of their development but it just happened to be one there. But you can see there's severe erosion going on down in that channel from the upstream development. Next slide please. And this is at St. Hummerville Road Bridge in the Pine Meadow neighborhood showing how scouring around infrastructure causes issues. Engineering had to go out and fix this after they replaced it. We have spent eight hundred thousand dollars stabilizing stream banks and bridges and pick at home golf course, $1.2 million spent on bank stabilization and flood mitigation in the Pine Meadow neighborhood and down by Cardinal Hill from the Sugar Mill FEMA project, over $4 million spent purchasing and demolishing houses, Doville Drive area, another FEMA project. And we as a community are under the $30 million flood mitigation consent decree from the state. And in other words, we admit we've been doing wrong here. And the question is, have we learned our lesson yet on this particular issue? And next slide, please. I would say we have, as a community, learned the lesson because the zoning ordinance, Article 19, has some great protections in it. It has great language. We like what we see in there. The stormwater design manual also provides some great standards, and it does accommodate infill and redevelopment. In other words, the quality requirements that are on that lot and the stormwater storage requirements that are on that lot are reduced by 80% from what a new development would be. So they are enjoying some redevelopment gifts, if you will, on that. And I'm of the opinion that they are going to have to, they being the Division of Engineering, our good city engineer, Doug Burton, is going to have to write some amazing waivers to our standards to allow this project to go forward. And I would urge the Planning Commission to save this poor guy a lot of work. He's too busy as it is to have to write those, invent those waiver standards to do that. I would urge you to defend our standards that we have published in Article 19 and in our Stormwater Design Manual. And I would urge you to save this developer a lot of time and a lot of money and future developers who think they can bury a stream and not postpone but deny the development plan as submitted. I stand open for questions or cross-examination and would like opportunity for rebuttal when that time comes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Cook. We're going to let the other people make their presentations or comments and then we'll we will recycle back to you when we get to the rebuttal portion of this. Who else would like to? It looks Mr. Chair like our next raised hand is Jenny Daley. Ms. Daley will allow you to speak now. if you'd like to unmute. Hi can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for letting me talk. I'll be really quick because I did write you all a letter. I didn't hear it mentioned that several of us wrote you all letters just saying that I had my only concern with this development is the stormwater management. Miss Daly, the point is and you make a good point, we do have the letters. At least we're looking at them right now while you're talking. Go ahead. Okay, good, good. Well, I won't repeat what I said. Stormwater is my only concern. The reason why I'm talking to you now is I want to urge you not to sign off on this until you can get a staff recommendation for approval. this has happened to several developments I live at 136 Burley Avenue I live in this neighborhood so I'm very familiar with the development but this has happened in other developments in my neighborhood where you all sign off and let the process take care of itself as Tom Martin outlined and I understand that but what happened what you may not understand is from that point on the project goes dark to the public. We have no way to really watch the progress of what the engineers, from both the developer and the city's engineers, their debates, their deliberations, what they do. In order for the public to still know what's happening with this, we have to pester engineering staff. Have you done it yet? Are you doing it? Has it come in yet? What are you deciding now so I would just encourage you please please please either postpone or deny or whatever you have to do but don't let this project still be alive and go dark until the stormwater situation has resolved itself according to you know where staff can put there can approve it thank you thank you Thank you, Ms. Daly. This time we will move you back. Next on our list is Julie Marfell. Ms. Marfell, we're going to allow you to speak. If you could please just give us your name and address for the record. Hi, my name is Julie Marfell and I actually live at 892 Somerville Drive. So I'm down in Pine Meadows. I've been here 20 years. I lived on the creek for about 17 and I'm now across the street. It's a wonderful area. And we had a lot of flooding in this neighborhood. There are 16 houses that are on the creek. And until the bridges were done, I would say it didn't take a 100-year event to flood our yards and flood some of the basements and the houses. Pretty much everybody on the creek right now has to have flood insurance because of the creek that's there. And I get really concerned about the flow that's going to be coming through based on the information I've heard today and based on what I've known from being part of the Wolf Run project. I'm the Chief Creek Stewart here in Pine Meadows, and I would agree that if we could delay and find out exactly what this is going to do, I would appreciate it because I am, as Ken showed you, where the Somerville Bridge is, I'm two houses up from that. So wonderful area. I'd like to keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Next on our list is Mr. Walter Gaffield. Mr. Gaffield, at this time you'll be allowed to speak. Please give us your address for the record. My address is 2001 Bamboo Drive in Lexington. I just have a very brief point to make. In the subdivision committee, I had some questions about the engineering study and was told to contact City Engineering for answers. And I subsequently did that and asked that engineering address Ken Cook's concerns, and I haven't heard back from them. And this hearing that we're having today is so quick, I'm sure engineering didn't have time to address them. And that's my only comment. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, next on our list is Ms. Amy Clark. Ms. Clark will allow you to speak at this time. You can go ahead. Hello, I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I have submitted a lengthy letter. You have it for review. I won't go through it. I do have concerns about the traffic by adding an additional drive-through. How many drive-throughs is enough? We all know that it's a very constrained South Broadway corridor there. We know that the roads through the neighborhood are extremely substandard, no curbs, gutters, sidewalks for a great deal of it. And the site circulation is a matter for discussion or resolution on your staff recommendations, number 14 and number 16. if you're burying that creek it looks like you're paving over the entire larger development some of which is included in this amendment most of which is so where are the cars actually going to go as they come in and out of a high traffic situation fast food drive-through I won't say more about that because I agree that the staff is right to say these things need to be resolved need to be addressed. What I especially want to say is just absolutely everything Ken raised, Mr. Cook of the Friends of Wolf Run, as an important problem is worth your consideration. And I admire him for putting it in terms that even I could understand. And I urge you to just consider that very deeply. And it all comes back to the staff number 18 denote that all additional information relative to the stormwater facility design shall be submitted as required to the Division of Engineering and Water Quality and accepted and a report shall be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission. It says, prior to certifying the amended final development plan, why in the world would you choose to approve a plan today and then set a condition that all these important matters of design to manage that stormwater have to be approved? and reported to you before you can actually sign off on it at a later date. The appropriate thing is to deny the plan if it cannot be acceptable at this time. I would add one more thing. This is not news to you. We're in a state of emergency. The governor declared an emergency, I think it was March 9th. He has not declared the end of that emergency. I would ask you to consult with your legal counsel. During the state of emergency, all the deadlines in KRS 100, the land use part of our Kentucky law, are suspended. I do not believe you have an obligation to take action on this plan today unless the applicant requests postponement. If you do have that obligation, I urge that you deny it today. But please check with your legal counsel and see whether, because we're in a state of emergency, the deadline is suspended until the governor declares the emergency over. And the part I'm referring to is Section 1, Number 9A. It says, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit provisions for continued service to the public in the area of land use planning or zoning. But it says very clearly that any deadlines provided by statute for any hearings required to be held, et cetera, et cetera, are hereby suspended. and the time for action on any pending matter shall be told during the state of emergency. So that's something I think to consider if you want a third path to give you more time for reflection. I urge that you not approve this plan as submitted. Thank you Ms. Clark. Is there anyone else we have on? Mr. Chair, I see no further answers. Okay, what we'll then do is go back to where enter into the rebuttal phase, but let me do this and I'm going to try this as kind of a shortcut. Mr. Helaney, is it? Let me ask you this. We, from the commission's perspective, we are not in a position to postpone. Only you could postpone. Would you consider postponing? I mean, one of the issues that we have here, we haven't even been able to see the waivers that might come through. It would be difficult for us to move on a particular development plan until we see what it is that's going to have to be needed to accommodate this. Would you consider a proposed project? Mr. Chairman, I mean, we want to do everything that makes you feel comfortable to move forward. But from our point of view, I mean, we have a study was required by us. We submit the study. We get the impression and we have no comment from engineering that we have not addressed. We have director of director of engineering saying that the study meet the requirement of the stormwater manual. and I believe we did everything we can and everything that's required by us and to move forward. And the second thing on the other issues, I mean, they don't apply to our site. Our site, everybody agreed that this site is not in the floodplain. So all the requirement about what you can do or what you cannot do about in the floodplain does not apply to that site. This site, I mean, Mr. Cook agree on it. Mr. Martin agree on it. We agree on it that this property is not in the regulatory floodplains that FEMA delineated. So all the requirements that Mr. Cook showed are for perennial stream and floodplain, which is our site. It's not in the floodplain and the creek is not perennial stream. It's an intimate stream. and the only entity, the only agency that will designate stream is the Corps of Engineers. And we have documentation from the Corps stating that this creek is a poor quality and that stream is an intimate stream, it's not a perennial stream. So I don't know what us postponing will help anybody from moving forward. And second, if you approve us today, it's not like we're going to go build the culvert tomorrow. We have to go back to engineering for their final approval to give us approval on the construction drawings. We have to get the Corps of Engineers approval. We have to get Kentucky Division of Water approval. And this is all government agencies. And they are the second and third tier of review. And it's not like if we are gone today, that means we are moved forward. And then any postponement is going to put us in the winter construction. And this is going to create more and more delay for us. But again, if the Planning Commission feels it's needed to move forward because there is information that needs to be provided to them that I still don't know what this information yet, we'll be glad to postpone. Other than that, I don't see any reason to postpone. Okay, Mr. Penn has a question and then Mr. Nickel, you'll get you in. Mr. Penn? So are you telling us that you don't need any waivers for our regulations? Mr. Martin is resting his hand. Mr. Martin is over here. Let's go to Mr. Martin first and then come back. Yeah, Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin is currently muted. Mr. Martin, you are on mute. Mr. Martin has to get the mouse. There we go. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yep, we can hear you. I want to facilitate this discussion. You all heard the word waiver. There are no waivers on this plan that requires planning commission action. Okay. Okay. They're talking about possible waivers to stormwater manual and Article 19 standards. This would go to the Flood Plane Appeals Committee. If there's any waivers under Article 19, not the Planning Commission. Okay, thank you. Okay, I just wanted to be sure you understood that. Okay, thank you. Now we'll go back to Mr. Finn. You've already asked your question. Yeah, I asked about the waivers. if I was asking to jihad, but if there's no waivers that we have to approve, it's a big question. Okay. Mr. Nickel. Yes. Can you, Mr. Martin, again, so we are not in a, our position in this body is to look at the full ordinance and read Article 19. The requirements that you, the staff recommendations, the 18 recommendations, if they are to be met, would meet Article 19. Is that correct? they would have to meet article 19 exactly so that keeps us it would have to meet article 19 makes provisions for waivers variances as it were special use permits which can then if necessary go to the floodplain appeals committee and what we're saying is that this body is not the flood plains appeals commission correct you are exactly correct you are not good so i don't we don't have That's not. Okay. Although we do need a planning commission representative on that committee. No, thank you. Mr. Nickel, you may have volunteered. Any other questions? Well, first of all, let me go back now to a little bit more structure here. Have you, at this time, we're kind of in the rebuttal question session, but let me go back. Mr. Is it Helene? Yes. You've got a couple more minutes if you wish to make any other comments related to the... I think you sort of did in a way, but I'll give you a couple of additional minutes if you'd like to clean up or make a concluding statement from your position on this. Yes, sir. Thank you. First of all, the software or the hydraulic hydrology models that we use is an XP SWIM model. This is one of the most sophisticated models to look into this kind of situation. So we are using the right tool for that scenario. And also, again, this property is not in the floodplain, and there's no FEMA-delineated floodplain on this property. Second, the Corps of Engineers is the only federal agency will designate stream classification between perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream. And third, when it comes to the velocity, that pipe, yes, the stormwater pipe that we are adding, the culvert, is going to increase the velocity, but that velocity is going to go into another pipe, an existing one, twin culvert, a twin elliptic pipe is going to go to another pipe, is going to go to another pipe. That velocity, when it leaves our system, is going to be the same velocity as it's leaving right now. That energy is going to get dissipated into that pipe. And about the basin that Mr. Cook mentioned, this basin, I included them in my model before, and they are so small, they are less than 4,000 cubic feet. And then if you look at how much that drainage area contribute of runoff, it's 6.1 million cubic feet of runoff. And these basins are less than 4,000. When I add them to my basin, they create instability in my basin and did not change any of the results. So I took them out to make the model more accurate and more representative. and think about it. There are small basin. You have rain. This basin is too small. It's going to fill number one. The first thing they're going to do is they fill out. They are too small. And then you get all this peak flow coming from UK. It's going to be over flooding them as if they don't exist because they are already going to be overtopped. They are so small. And the pipe leaving that basin, there are eight inches and 10 inches of a pipe. Based on current regulation, this detention basin does not meet the current regulation of the stormwater manual. They are too small and they have no significance to the hydrology. And again, to end my point is that I believe we did everything we have been asked for on the drainage study. We addressed the comments from engineering. We have not received any comments that they are waiting on us to provide any additional information. And second and third, we believe what we are proposing is going to improve the situation from prevent the loss of life, health of property. And what I'm saying that this open ditch that's going to have five feet or five and a half feet of water is going to be totally covered with only a few inches on the top, a couple of inches, which does not impact the safety or the welfare of anybody. and third we are removing any potential issue by trees kind of collapsing into that creek getting washed clogging the pipe and creating potential flooding in the future so that's why we believe our proposal is improving the situation as is we are improving underutilized property and make it more efficient property and we ask you for an approval with all the condition and if there's any way we can remove condition number 18. Okay, thank you. Citizens, Mr. Cook. Yes, Mr. Cook has his hand raised. We're going to allow you to speak, Mr. Cook. Go ahead. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond. I do think we are going to be debating this again in the floodplain appeals committee, but that is under 1910. I believe that Planning Commission does have to take an action to set that up but I think your staff will advise you on that. First, I would like to comment on Mr. Helani's statement that it is not in the floodplain. I would agree with Mr. Helani that it is not on a federal flood or a flood insurance rate map and it is not on that particular federal document. but we have sufficient documentation that it floods. There is water that is there, and the answer is not throwing 30,000 cubic feet of dirt in the middle of that flood. He talks about 4,000 cubic feet in the three basins that are there. I would like to see those numbers. I do think they're a little larger than that, but we can talk about that later. But that is 32,000 gallons of water, and it may not be significant to you, But if it shows up in your living room, it is a significant amount of water. Basically, I would like to know, and this is another question we've heard Mr. Alani state several times that engineering has said it meets the manual. I would like to know what format that approval or that came from from Mr. Burton. Was that an email, a letter, or was it just a verbal conversation? I believe that there are going to be a significant number of waivers that the engineer is going to have to issue to this project under our Article 19 protections and our stormwater design manual protections. And Mr. Burton has already indicated to me that he's already composing those in his head in consultation with the lawyers if he has to do that. So there will be significant exceptions to our current standards that they're going to have to have for this project to proceed. Based on that, please save us all a lot of trouble, a lot of time and a lot of money. Deny this plan now. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the community? and we'd like to encourage not to be redundant, but if there's anything new, which is what the rebuttal is, now's the time. No one's name is racist. Okay. Then let me go to the staff then. The staff, you get the last side of the comment here before we get to general questions on the table. Mr. Marshall. Thank you. I want to apologize if staff has failed to give you better direction on this plan. It was not our intent. In fact, I think everything you've heard today just strengthens your staff's concern about getting the appropriate design to address these issues. And I want to stress the fact that we do believe they are design issues. And hence the conditions we wrote, and I will clarify for you that we're looking for a progress report in the future to be presented to you, just like we would on a subdivision, preliminary subdivision plan, where there's a required progress report. That's what we're looking for. we think that would be valuable for you to hear, to know where things stand. That being said, I believe that's possible. Staff believes it's possible that that can be done as part of the process as it exists. It can also be done during the time frame if you do postpone this plan. And under the emergency decree, both by the governor and the mayor, you can postpone this plan again. you can do that and and again staff would reiterate we believe that more work needs to be done on this design and we would we do believe that the planning commission needs needs to hear where that is going and what the conclusions are of that of that work on the design because this is that it is important it is important for this site it's important for the community it is important as a policy. Because infill and redevelopment is an important component of our community, and getting it right and addressing these issues are very important. So again, staff would just reiterate that if you want to approve this plan, subject conditions, we believe that you can get the information you need. We believe if you postpone this plan that the applicant and our staff will get you the information you need. Okay. Mr. Poe? Mr. Poe? I guess I'm, Mr. Martin, I guess I'm hearing a conflict between what you're saying and what Mr. Helene is saying. He's saying there's really that they've done all they can do. At least that's my understanding. So I guess I'm curious about what you see as being the open questions that could be answered by further design study. It is staff's understanding that there are some issues that remain that need to be addressed in the evaluation of the design. Now, this is from a meeting. This is a conversation staff has had with engineering, and that included Water Quality, the Division of Engineering, and the consultant that has been in charge of developing and refining our stormwater madness. Staff is also of the opinion that this property will fall under Article 19 and therefore there are circumstances there including the possibility of a floodplain appeals committee being necessary to finalize a decision on this problem so we think time is necessary and granted that time is inherent in the review system and it's also obviously inherent in a postponement but this is one of those circumstances again where we really do believe that a progress report is something uh to address the the concern with the a lack of transparency and i'm not saying there is a lack of transparency necessarily but the perception that may be there and it certainly would not hurt uh at all to have another discussion about where this where this project stands in terms of this this difficult engineering design so I hope that helps okay now let me define where we are in our deliberations here first of all we've had the petition of the applicant then we have the citizens and then we had the staff at this time I had kind of opened it up a little bit so that if any commission member had a question related to any of the things or any of the people here they could do so so this is your opportunity as commission members that do that. Mr. Bell? Yes, thank you. Like Mr. Pohl, I'm just confused as to whether or not we are the proper authority or the experts within this particular arena. I mean, I feel as if, well, it's over my head, certainly, and it seems as if there's another group that it will go to who really is that authority. And the postponement, I don't know what we'd quite achieve in doing that amongst ourselves because this isn't really our area of expertise particularly. So that's the confusion that I'm dealing with currently, and I just wanted to put that on the table. Okay. Mr. Nichols, you're a mute. I concur. I mean, I like what Mr. Bell said. And I would also like to say that the staff has done us a great service by providing us conditions that need to be met in order to make a decision on this case. and um i would just say that that your 18 or your 20 requirements um if that's what needs to to get this project approved and if everyone agrees to do it even though um this can be done through a postponement or through an approval these 20 different um recommendations need to be met I think you gave us a great option because I think we do not want to become the stormwater committee or whatever that is because that's way over and I understand that. Well, I admitted a long time ago that I was out. Thank you. I agree. This one is particularly heavy, but we are often called on decisions. That's why we're here. And we don't have to be experts in 100 different things. We go from what we hear, what is presented before us at these hearings. So I just like to throw that in. I'm no engineer, but I think I can make a judgment as to what I hear presented by what occurs at a meeting. Okay. Let me ask, are there any other questions for either for the applicants, for the citizens, or for the staff? Any other questions? Yes. Just to follow up, and I appreciate your thoughts, Carolyn. But do I understand it correctly that experts at the next level whom are more informed will be asking and understanding better these particular questions or that they're facilitating what they need to do to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Am I correct? Is that correct, Mr. Chairman, that that's what the next level would be or not? Well, I think for our position, at least what I heard from Mr. Martin, and he's here so he can tell us, but we could say we could approve this, but we can do it with certain conditions. We could postpone this plan and we'd still have to comply with these conditions. So those are the two options out there. Of course certainly we could deny, but I was thinking that that's at least not what we are. We're trying to do what we can because of the infield development and what have you. So we've got the really it comes down to do you want to approve it with certain conditions or do you want to postpone and still have the same condition this is as simple as that now Mr. Martin is that right or wrong? I would agree yes sir we our system functions with conditional approvals. Okay now Mr. Poe you got a point? The conditions are are related to time so there's an assumption that with time we will have the Planning Commission the staff will have more information more detailed information so if it has to go to engineering for a decision about a special use permit and the floodplain appeals committee comes into play they will make those higher level decisions in terms of the engineering and that can inform your decision I think those things are going to happen no matter what It's whether you are making a decision based on that happening in the future, or if you want to have that information before you make your decision. All right, gotcha. Now, Mr. Poe? That's a tough one. I guess I have a question for Mr. Martin. my concern about just approving this and assuming that because there are all these conditions that it's going to come out okay is that as Mr. Cook pointed out in his presentation some of the determinations that need to be made are qualitative not quantitative and it seems to me that when we're looking at Article 19 in particular, it requires a body more like the Planning Commission to make appropriate qualitative judgments versus quantitative judgments. So that's my fear, that to be vulgar about it, just handing it over to engineers to measure the amount of water and make some determination is ducking the responsibility that we have. Am I way off on that Tom? Well not exactly but then again the floodplain appeals committee is comprised of more engineers than not and it takes a lot of engineering testimony and it does work on technical issues and that's really in staff's estimation this is a technical design issue and I think it's important to remember that the problem is historical and it is not of this applicants making per se and they're being a like other developers and other people in the area have been asked to to address it as best they can and not make it worse and as you've heard a big part of the problem is downstream and they can't they can't address that so uh it uh there is some qualitative issues yes but i you know the stormwater manual and to mr cook's point uh with the with the buffer and the vegetation all those things do enter into the decision. They will be looked at. Mr. Bell, just two things. First of all, Tom, what is the age of the four foot pipe about? If you have any idea, would you know that? No, sir, I'm afraid. That area's been developed for many years, but there's been projects here and there. So sometimes it's a mix. secondly Mr. Chair Vaughn was on mute before and she was commenting and I see that she's not on mute and I didn't know if she had a comment or not and I'd like to ask if it'd be okay for her to comment sure does not if you like to make a comment on anything you can do so I think at some point I was agreeing with hillard you know 10 or 15 minutes ago um let's see um i don't know there's a lot of good discussions and i know vision has pointed their finger to us saying they haven't received comments but it is because there's been a lot of side conversations between our division and law and the planning division and all of us. So that's why we haven't maybe gotten back to them with any additional comments. I know Josh had mentioned in our meeting yesterday that, you know, they're not, and as you said, they're not ready to construct today. So they have to make a formal application and we have to see the full design analysis of the site. And we considered the study preliminary at this point because there have been additional comments brought to us from Mr. Cook. And so there are additional steps to take before we would actually permit this. and all of the things that planning mentioned about special permits and dealing with the committees, the floodplain committee, and the regulatory agencies that they have to go to to put a pipe into a stream. So there are a lot of steps that they need to take. And Vaughn, if I may ask, do you agree with the staff's recommendation of postponement? Are you part of that decision making? I mean, yes, I agree with postponing it at this point. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Penn has a question, I think. Well, I don't have a comment or whatever. I don't have a question. And this situation is very fresh to me because I've dealt with it my whole life, that same creek. The thing that concerns me most about this is that every time we have an opportunity to put a stream under in a box or to pipe it or whatever it is, we always make it based on the fact, well, we're not going to make it any worse. So we'll just put it under a pipe and go ahead and do our development. and that gets back to Graham's question about the quality versus quantity issue I don't know whether this I know I don't want to defeat it because we have to have reasons and I don't see reasons what I want to do is to get some kind of clarity I don't want to come back here and have to approve a bunch of waivers because it doesn't meet the condition article 19 and I don't know whether we have absolutely through that or not we've heard both sides of that but if we go ahead and if we postpone this then we'll get the reason we'll get the waiver request if we approve it we're not going to get the waiver request the waiver request is going to be asked by the review board to approve or not to approve those things and I think if we have to have waivers that's the most critical part of this whole discussion and I'm not sure yet that we don't have to have waivers and so I personally would like to postpone this thing and I would like for the applicant to do that but if he wants I think we've been given an opportunity to do it I think the staff done good work I like these 20 groups I think it's a good a good thing but I'm really concerned about the waivers to article 19 because I'm not convinced yet that we're not going to have those. any other comments then let me just pull it back to the commission now for example the uh this time the applicant and the citizens and the staff are kind of out of this stage do we have any additional discussions to have on this are we ready for a motion of some kind bruce i've got a comment or just something to think about okay as i'm looking through these 20 different conditions. Most of them are either stormwater related or they are your typical sign-offs. There's a handful of them that are not, but it looks like they can be cleaned up pretty easily. It's 12, the zone-to-zone screening, 13, which is a denote on the development plan, 14 is like resolve access points 15 is parking 16 is resolve drive-through and 20 is provide a landscaping plan exhibit so that's one two three four five that's six other items that need to be cleaned up that aren't related to the storm water um are those those are kind of just traditional cleanup items is that you're all understanding it looks like it to me i don't i i want to hear your thoughts on it because we do have 20 conditions here and I'm not I'm not compelled to remove any of them if I were to vote any way on this I would keep all 20 conditions actually I have a motion whenever you're ready oh okay is everybody ready okay Miss Plumlee go at it Well, this one kind of reminds me of that old saying, the possible is easy, but the impossible takes a while. And for that reason, and I have some findings, I'm going to move for disapproval for PLNMJDP 1971 by Del Plaza. The finding number one, the development plan as submitted contains significant encroachments into stream floodway and buffer zones. Number two, the development site contains over 300 feet of perennial stream fed by a 350 acre watershed. Number three, the perennial stream floods with a pre-development floodplain elevation at 947.5 feet above sea level, based on the developer's own engineering study. Four, the waterway is surrounded by an existing vegetative buffer zone with large mature trees. Five, the proposed development plan includes designs to bury those resources by filling the floodway and enclosing the stream in a concrete structure, a 330-foot-long box culvert. Number six, the development site contains three existing stormwater retention basins that will be filled by the plan. seven plan should this plan be approved would put at risk adjacent property and public safety and provides a political precedent counter to long-standing developed policy protecting streams and floodways so moved okay okay it's been moved and seconded. Now the findings, I would say that we'll have to probably put in a pending legal review. It's hard to do with Zoom. Yeah, I hear you. Okay, moved and seconded that we denied and disapproved of this particular development plan. Any discussion on Moses? okay you know the discussion for me on this is that it's a bigger picture than just this one drive-through restaurant or whatever it's going to be it's it's a matter of what article 19 says that we should shouldn't be doing about these different quality versus quantity issues and and I didn't see this coming and I recognize that Carol's put some time on this and because I'm worried about the waiver requirements I'm going to be inclined to support the motion. Anyone else? Just my thoughts on it overall is that I would be I would do a proof with the staff's recommendations or at the least would be a postponement. So that's just my thoughts. Yeah, I'll concur with that. You know, I wasn't thinking of denial myself. I trust the staff to come up with the 20 items that are on the list, but overwhelming the preference would be a postponement and put this in a position where we can really act. Let me just say from the Chair's position, I thought I would probably be a, I didn't catch her denial point, but let me put it this way. I thought postponement was a better option myself as it relates to an option that we have, but that's just one person's opinion. So any other questions? Yes. So with that, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I'm still young enough in all this process to fully I don't fully understand. So do we vote just on this motion here that has been seconded? Is that what we do? That's what we do. And then the game's over, as I understand? Well, it depends. Okay. Well, that's what I don't understand. I'm going to enjoy being a spectator, I guess, or a participant. We're going to find out. Absolutely. Any other comments related to the motion? Okay. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. How many? Is that three? I see two. I see two, sir. Two, that's the two. All those opposed to the motion, raise your hand. Three. Five. Five. Yeah, okay. All right, so the motion is defeated. Is there another motion? Sir, if you don't mind, could you speak out the names of the individuals that voted for and against, just so that we can get it on the record? Okay, the persons who voted for the motion, Ms. Plumley, Mr. Penn, and that's it. Everyone else, as I understood, voted against the motion, is that correct? Okay, now, is there another motion on the table? yes mr nickel all right I'm gonna go I would like to recommend approval of PLN MJDP 19-0071 with all 20 of staffs recommendations is there a second is Is there a second? Motion fails on the basis of the no second. Is there another motion? I'd like to move to postpone PLNMJDP 1971. Okay, is there a second? Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Pol, second by Mr. Anthony DeMovilland that we postpone PLNMJDP 19-71. right else possible any discussion on that motion i have another i have another thought about that i would recommend that the applicant clean up all items that don't have that don't have anything to do with stormwater so if this does come back to us it should only be a stormwater issue that's my opinion i don't want to see six other conditions that haven't met staff's approval i would rather i'd like it to only be a storm water issue that's I don't want another three hours of this I'd like to do what we can to move forward is there any other condition that you want met before they are ready to come back to the Commission no I was just that was just a recommendation that to work with staff to solve all items other than the stormwater items that need to go through this other process because I did see a handful of other items that looks like with a little bit more time they could have met your needs all right here's the way we can do this first of all do you want to make that as an amendment no I don't okay I don't know you tell me I don't know well here's a couple things you've got a couple options on this Number one, you can ask the original person who made the motion to include that as a part of the motion. Or, if they don't want to do that, you can come back and make an amendment on the back side. If you don't think it's worth it, then we go with the motion as stated. We'll go with the motion as stated. Okay. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion to postpone, as we've indicated with the 20 conditions identified by staff, let us know by raising your hand. yes miss miss wade is is your motion to postpone to a particular date that's the question that he just brought to my attention do you have a date in mind 30 30 days mr poe 30 days sounds lovely to me 30 days? Okay. August the 13th. All right, August the 13th is the day. So we're moving to postpone until August the 13th. Correct. All right. Any other discussions? All those in favor of this particular motion raise your hand okay thank you that's unanimous okay did anybody bring any food we're not through yet that's the beauty of zoom we're right here at home I'm here. Okay, let's see where are we now on this thing? We've got I think a couple of... Yeah, we got... Page seven, Thistle. Thistle station, page seven. LN MJDP 2023. Got it. Got it. We got two of them on here. We got a yellow one and a blue one. And Mr. Martin, who's doing that? You, Mr. Martin? Yes, we are getting prepared. We are, yes. We're sharing our screen. What were you all doing for the last hour and a half? We were sitting on the edge of our seats. Thank goodness. Yeah. All right. I'm going to take the annotations. All right. All right. Very good. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. We are at Plan MJDP 20-23 Thistle Station. There are revised conditions. For those of you here, they'll be yellow. For the rest of you on Google, I assume they're white. I happen to be using a green sheet because that's what my notes are on. That was the original color. but thistle station is out on newtown pike uh near the fourth street intersection was just a little bit to the north of this property there is there is a lot between this property and fourth street now thistle station was originally approved some years ago as a form-based b1 form-based site It had a large 15-story residential tower with residential below on the site that subsequently was not developed. It was approved but never developed. The plan before you is an amendment. It is an affordable housing project, and again, it is an affordable housing project as we mean it. It is income-targeted and restricted. It is a five-story, L-shaped apartment building. It'll have 22,000 retail space on the first floor along Newtown Pike. On the wing that heads back towards 4th Street, there is parking, surface parking, that'll be under the residential floors above. It's not a structure. The building will be built on a deck above that surface parking in that area. Now, it's a 3.7-acre site. As I said, they're proposing a five-story building. There's going to be 169,456 square feet of residential. That will contain 200 dwelling units and 360 bedrooms. utilizing their traffic deductions available to them they're going to be required 230 parking spaces and they're showing 241 so they're certainly not really over parking the site and again you can see the l-shaped building they're proposing along with the parking and to a certain degree this is very similar to the original layout the site is is dominated very much by the building and the parking. The key to this plan was that the applicant had not completed the form-based study, which has also been distributed to you. It is blue for those of us at hand. There was a form-based study done. It took them a little while to get it done. Now, the previous study that was done looked at basically the same area and looked at a lot of the structures in the area. And as you all are aware, it's an older area. It's dominated by commercial, industrial, institutional with BCTC and some multifamily residential buildings. And there are some areas in the neighborhood that I do have single-family homes that range from 25, 35 feet in height, one or two stories, all the way to the other institutional industrial buildings that range up to three and four stories in the area. There's, of course, the grain elevator in that old building, which is somewhat taller and higher. But again, they completed their study, and they are building, in staff's estimation, a project that is sensitive in terms of context to the area, both in bulk and spacing and height. One of the keys to B1 is of course integration into the neighborhood, pedestrian facilities, additional landscaping. Now along the frontage on Newtown Pike is where the Legacy Trail is going to run. And they're proposing a nice wide sidewalk and pedestrian way along that frontage. They are also proposing some public space, some plaza areas, small courtyards, as it were, in that. They show additional landscaping and open space primarily at the ends of the building in this area. And then along 4th Street, there's a large open space area. And this open space area has been labeled as future development. Now, in terms of all that they proposed, as I've stated, we believe that the building, the height, basically the design are consistent with the area and consistent with the requirements of a form-based zone. The open space, the sidewalks, those are good elements. They're going to complement Legacy Trail and be working with the Legacy Trail to ensure that it will function and be an amenity. They have, and again, that's a pedestrian amenity. There are sidewalks throughout the site, including the sidewalk that leads to 4th Street. they've submitted a plan that does show in their study landscaping perimeter landscaping all along the property they will have to meet the Newtown Pike landscaping ordinance as well and that's along their frontage on Newtown Pike it requires large mature trees the staff does conclude that this does meet the requirements of a form-based study now Now we do have a few recommendations. We believe they need to better indicate the plaza areas, the public space areas along the legacy trail along the front of the building. And that just needs to be clearly delineated in the study and on the plan. And they can use various ways to do that if necessary, including additional landscaping and other elements that will just help clearly define that area. We also believe it would be important that they consider utilizing the open space along 4th Street to better integrate into that neighborhood. That, in staff's estimation, looks like an opportunity for open space, an activated open space, and an element that could help this development and its residents be a part of the neighborhood, particularly along 4th Street and in the area of the residential properties. In addition, they have nice renderings that they've submitted on the study that shows there's going to be a good facade, it's going to be broken up, but they have not specified materials. And we believe it's very important that they specify materials. As you know, we know what's predominant in the area. There's brick and stone and those types of facade materials that dominate the area. Now, obviously, there's some exception in the industrial buildings. But, again, that relates more to the mass and spacing as opposed to the facades that dominate the area. And I know it's been a long afternoon, so staff is recommending approval of the plan subject to the conditions. and we're recommending that you do make a finding that this plan does meet the intent of the form-based B1 zone and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff Hang on. Are there any questions? All right, I've got one. That's okay. Mr. Martin, are you saying that this is, when you said this is a true affordable housing project, is this a 60% area median income project? I don't know what their target population is, Mr. Nichols, but it is the same developer who did the Bersales Road project just recently with the 24 units. Okay. According to our understanding, he uses tax credits, KHC financing, and that sort of thing. So, yes, it's going to be targeted. I don't know what level. The reps there can answer that for you. Great. Thank you. Any other questions? applicant Mr. chair Mr. Scott South Hall is with us we'll allow him to speak right now okay Mr. South Hall if you can show your video and unmute please go ahead Mr. Chair? Yes. Member of the commission, can you hear me? We can. Okay, good. I had a power outage earlier, about 45 minutes ago, so I'm glad I'm back on line. to keep the afternoon moving swiftly to answer the question in return in regards to the affordable housing I do not know at what level they've received financing through KHC but they have received financing through KHC for affordable housing so the entire development will be the residential units will be a part of the affordable housing. And to again keep brevity here, we would concur with staff's recommendations for approval and we will make the necessary adjustments to the form-based study to reflect things such as the building materials. Our intent was to keep materials in consistency with the surrounding institutional structures, that being the BCTC, the industrial structures, and also the recently completed 4th Street housing project. So that would be those types of materials, but I will specify that in the study. Thank you. Any other comments from the Zoom-based audience? Chair, I see no hands raised. Okay. Anyone on the commission have anything else to say about this particular, any questions? Okay. I'll make my usual comment. Okay. I'm concerned about what you're going to do with the outside of it, but I'm also concerned about what you're going to do with the name of it. I've told you that before. It's one of the most noxious weeds in the world. Why are you going to name a development after a noxious weed? I don't understand. I will inform the owner to work on the name, sir. There's only two ways to get rid of thistles. Okay, moving right along. What's the motion? Do you have a motion? Anyone want to make a motion? I can't. Okay, then go ahead. but please include the form base also. Do you want that as a finding? Yes, as a finding. It's all in the same, it's set up with the same code number, 2023, so. Okay. Mr. Tope, you ready for the motion? Yes, unless there's any objection. We're ready for the motion. Mr. Finn. I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2023, Thistle Station, LLC, with the 14 conditions of our revised plan and including the acceptance of the form-based survey or form-based neighborhood business project. Okay, have a second? Okay, we got a second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, hearing none then all those in favor of the motion let it be known by raising your hand. Opposed? so well I think it's consensus okay okay thank you that's one more I think here thank you mr. chair member of the Commission hey Jay Red Mile Square who Who is the staff member who's going to do that? Is that Cheryl? Yes. Is she still around? Yes. Oh, okay, there you are, okay. She's there and ready to go, but she's unmuted. Then unmute her, let's go. I can't unmute her. Cheryl, you are muted, if you guys could unmute there. Okay, you're unmuted now. Good afternoon. This is Red Mile Square, Incorporated the Courtyards. This is a development that's been around for a number of years, close to 20 plus years. It's an apartment complex located off Red Mile Road and Horseman's Lane. they're in today to add building square footage to the the structures and to what they're doing is they're changing the number of apartments they're increasing the number of dwelling units they're changing them from four bedroom units to one bedroom and two bedroom units but also the additional building square footage is my understanding to put bathrooms they're stacking bathrooms for the different apartments. These are three-story tall buildings. So we have typical sign-offs. Then we had one condition because they did some cleanup and we had one condition to resolve the pedestrian improvements to Red Mile Road. This is located adjacent to, if you all remember, central equipment, the superdome, I had that on the next point, right here, where they came in and did some work not too long ago, and we asked for a sidewalk to be added across the front of the property. So this is adjacent to the property right here where the red line is. So what we're doing is we're asking to have pedestrian improvements go across the front of this property because they have a bus stop right there at their main entrance and we would like to be able to have a sidewalk for people to be able to get to that bus stop instead of walking along Red Mile Road just as we had talked before so with that that is the plan if there's any other comments or questions that I can answer Any questions from the Commission? Okay, thank you. Then the applicant? Mr. Chair, it looks like we have Mr. Kaley. I will move him in as a panelist. Okay. And Mr. Elliott, who since he's on a phone line we can't add as a panelist, but we can't allow him to speak. Okay. All right, Mr. Cayley. Hello. How are you doing? I'm awake. Rory Cayley with EA Partners. With staff's revised 12 conditions, we are in agreement with those, request approval, and we'll be working with the staff to see what we can do pedestrian-wise. The site has some limitations. You saw the drainage ditches and stuff there in that area. Any questions? Anyone else like to say anything? Mr. Elliott? Yes, I'm here. You know, sounds like everybody's in agreement on approval. Just figure out this sidewalk and we're good with working with the city to try and figure that out and reach a resolution to make everybody happy. Okay. Very good. Anyone else? All right, then we'll move. Is there anyone in the Zoom audience that would like to speak to this particular project? I see no hands. Back to the commission then. Commission members, do you have any questions, thoughts, comments? If not, then we're ready for a motion. Yes, Mr. Poe. I'd like to move to approve PLNMJDP 2030 at Red Mile Square, Inc. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Poe, seconded by Mr. Bell, that we approve PLNMJDP 2030 Red Mile Square with the 11 conditions provided by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please let us know your approval by raising your hand? Okay, Ms. Plumley, did you get her hand? Were you voting against it for it or what? Ms. Plumley? I gotta get it back on here because she's got to make the report from the nominating this plan is here can you hear us you cannot she says she cannot hear us just a minute I think all our earbuds ran out of juice about 20 minutes ago. I hear that too. She's smiling. She must have heard something like that. She's laughing in response to our laugh. She's got an unmute. She's not. You went away. There you go. There you go. Well, Ms. Plumlee, how did you vote on that last motion? The motion was to approve PLN JDP 2030 with the 11 conditions provided by staff. You're gone. Ms. Kelly, can you hear our room? I can hear you now. Okay. Mr. Wilson, Chairman Wilson, wants to know if you voted for the motion, which was for approval. Yes, you were absent. I didn't hear. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Have we voted? Yes, sir. You are unanimous. All right. Unanimous. All right. Very good. Thank you. Well, we've got just a couple more items here. Performance bonds and letters of credit. We need a motion to approve that. Okay. Do I have a second? Who's second it? Bruce is second it. Okay. Who made the motion? Mr. Mickels. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we've approved the performance bond letters of credit. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please raise the hands. Bruce? Carolyn? Carol, raise your hand. All right, great. All right. All right. Election of offices now is the last thing on the list. We've got a couple of elements there. We'll have a report from the nominating committee chair. Carolyn can you hear us oh my god who else was on the committee I can hear Carolyn can you hear us Carolyn I can hear but it sounds like transatlantic I need every other word I was on the committee. I can give the report that the committee sent forward for nomination as Chairperson Larry Forrester, Vice Chairperson Frank Penn, Secretary Carolyn Plumlee, and Parliamentarian Bill Wilson. Okay, are there any nominations from the floor? No. Then I tell you what we'll do. We'll take the, very quickly, we'll take the first three, which is the chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary. Because I'm chairing the meeting, I'll have to relinquish that and you'll have to come back and vote on that a separate time. So if nominating committee report is the position, you can make a motion to accept the nominating committee report, that the officers would be elected by acclimation. Is that agreeable with you all? Someone would say yes to that and we'd be on our way. Yes. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, let it be known. Raise your hand. Okay. Now, the parliamentarian, I have to relinquish the chair to you, Mr. Overland, until you have to do the thing for the parliamentarian. All right. All in favor of the parliamentarian being Mr. Bill Wilson, please raise your hand. I'm voting against it. All right. Anyone opposed? No, nobody opposed. Everybody is in. Now, one other small thing. We have a delegation of secretary's duties. Commission has to approve that. The commission passed procedure for clearing out the secretary's duties. has been to uh except for the signing of minutes has been to delegate that authority to the director of the division of planning and his staff the chair will request that we should consider taking similar action this time so we have a secretary who reviews it but at the same time the actual minutes are taken by by the staff that's all that says can i get a motion to approve that i move all right all right second and we got a second by mr anthony any other questions on the motion hearing none all those in favor say well raise your hand all right that's good all right here is there anything from the staff related to anything you need to tell us just a reminder that we do have a special zoning hearing next week in lieu of the regular scheduled work session and we do have three items scheduled for that public hearing So 1.30 on Zoom for our convenience. Okay. I guess at that time all the officers will be in their place and position. We will also have, I'm thinking, three new members by that time. Yes. They're undergoing confirmation hearings today for the three members. So we'll reach out to those individuals that are confirmed to make sure that they're sworn in and sign the oath. Okay. Well, thank you all very, very much. Thanks to the staff for doing this and setting up the technology part of it. Thank you all for hanging in there for this rather long and lengthy day. And appreciate it. And without objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.