# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - April 11, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 11, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6087 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6087?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-04-11 - **Last revised**: April 11, 2024 - **Length**: 10,587 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on April 11, 2024, at 1:31 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed two preliminary subdivision plans during the session, both of which received approval from the board. The Quintana Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan and the Tuscany Unit 12 Preliminary Subdivision Plan were the primary agenda items considered and voted upon by the commissioners. Throughout the meeting, the commission conducted a total of 10 motions and votes on various matters related to the subdivision proposals and procedural items. The meeting included one public comment period, allowing community input on the development proposals under consideration. Both subdivision plans successfully navigated the approval process, indicating that they met the necessary planning and zoning requirements established by the commission's standards and the city's development guidelines. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 11, 2024: • Larry Forester • Judy Worth • Bill Wilson • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale (arrived late) • Bruce Nicol • Robin Michler • Janice Meyer • Johnathon Davis • Mike Owens **Absent:** • Zach Davis **Late Arrival:** • Ivy Barksdale Ten members attended the meeting, with one member absent and one member arriving late to the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on ten items during the April 11, 2024 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously. **Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit** [timestamp: 00:30] Mike Owens motioned to approve performance bonds and letters of credit, seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion passed unanimously with all 9 members voting in favor: Larry Forester, Judy Worth, Bill Wilson, Graham Pohl, Bruce Nicol, Robin Michler, Janice Meyer, Johnathon Davis, and Mike Owens. **Postponements to May 9, 2024** The commission postponed four development projects: - **PLN-MJDP-24-00010** (Distillery District-West Unit 1): Motioned by Janice Meyer, seconded by Judy Worth [timestamp: 02:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00011** (Idle Hour Subdivision): Motioned by Judy Worth, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 03:00] - **PLN-MJDP-24-00021** (Ramsey Sullivan Property): Motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 04:00] - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** (Wolf Run Industrial Park): Motioned by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale [timestamp: 05:00] All postponement votes were unanimous with 10 members voting (Ivy Barksdale joined after the first vote). **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 06:00] Bill Wilson motioned to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Johnathon Davis. The motion passed unanimously with all 10 members voting in favor. **Quintana Estates (PLN-MJSUB-24-00001)** Bruce Nicol motioned to approve the preliminary subdivision plan with Condition 13 removed regarding Paris Pike Corridor Commission, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 07:00]. A separate waiver motion by Bruce Nicol, seconded by Mike Owens, passed without conditions 1, 2, and 3 regarding pedestrian trail and access [timestamp: 08:00]. **Tuscany Unit 12 (PLN-MJSUB-24-00004)** Bruce Nicol motioned to approve both the preliminary subdivision plan [timestamp: 09:00] and waiver [timestamp: 10:00], with Johnathon Davis seconding both motions. Both passed unanimously with no conditions. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the board regarding a local development project. **Debbie** spoke at [timestamp: 11:00] about the Quintana Estates development. She expressed concerns about tree removal associated with the project and made specific requests to the board. Debbie asked for larger setbacks to be implemented in the development plans and requested that any mature trees removed during construction be replaced with mature tree replacements rather than smaller saplings. Her comments focused on preserving the environmental character of the area and ensuring that the development's impact on existing vegetation is adequately mitigated through appropriate replacement measures and increased buffer zones. ## Contested Items The April 11, 2024 meeting featured one contested item that drew community opposition. **Quintana Estates Development** A community member raised concerns about the proposed Quintana Estates development project, specifically objecting to planned tree removal as part of the development process. The resident requested that the project incorporate larger building setbacks to preserve more existing vegetation and require the replacement of any removed trees with mature specimens rather than smaller plantings. The opposition centered on environmental preservation concerns, with the community member advocating for enhanced protection of the area's existing tree canopy. The specific requests included modifying the development's site plan to increase the distance between structures and property lines, which would potentially reduce the number of trees requiring removal, and establishing requirements for mature tree replacements to maintain the neighborhood's established character. The meeting materials do not indicate the final resolution of these concerns or whether the development proposal was approved, modified, or deferred for further consideration. ## Quintana Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan [timestamp: 07:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJSUB-24-00001 for the Quintana Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan, which proposes subdividing property into 55 single-family residential lots. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin, Chris College, and Rory Kaley, who presented details about the proposed development and addressed technical requirements for the subdivision. The discussion centered on several critical infrastructure and regulatory issues: • **Stormwater management** - The commission examined plans for handling drainage and runoff from the proposed 55-lot development • **Sewer service** - Representatives discussed connections and capacity for wastewater treatment serving the new residential lots • **Park boundary road frontage waiver** - The applicant requested a waiver from standard requirements related to road frontage along park boundaries The speakers addressed technical aspects of the subdivision layout and how the development would integrate with existing municipal infrastructure. The commission evaluated whether the proposed infrastructure improvements would adequately serve the new residential community while meeting local development standards. After reviewing the presentation materials and discussing the various technical and regulatory considerations, the commission **approved** the Quintana Estates Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The approval allows the project to move forward in the development process, with the 55 single-family lots proceeding toward final subdivision approval pending completion of any remaining requirements. The approval represents a significant residential development that will add substantial housing capacity to the area while requiring coordination of multiple infrastructure systems including stormwater management and sewer connections. ## Tuscany Unit 12 Preliminary Subdivision Plan [timestamp: 09:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJSUB-24-00004 for the Tuscany Unit 12 Preliminary Subdivision Plan. The discussion centered on a revised layout featuring 55-foot lots and included consideration of a waiver request for a cul-de-sac configuration. Key speakers Tom Martin and Rory Kaley presented the subdivision plan, which required special consideration due to challenging site conditions. The proposed development includes a cul-de-sac off another cul-de-sac, a design that typically requires a waiver under standard subdivision regulations. The applicants explained that the unusual street configuration was necessitated by significant environmental constraints on the property, specifically floodplain areas and steep slopes that limited conventional street layout options. These natural features restricted the ability to create a more traditional grid or loop street pattern. The commission discussed the technical aspects of the 55-foot lot design and how it would integrate with the overall Tuscany development. The waiver request for the cul-de-sac configuration was evaluated based on the site's unique topographical challenges and the need to work around the floodplain and steep slope areas. After reviewing the preliminary subdivision plan and considering the environmental constraints that drove the design decisions, the commission approved the application. The approval allows the project to move forward with the proposed lot configuration and street layout, including the waiver for the cul-de-sac off cul-de-sac design that was deemed necessary due to the site's natural limitations. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-24-00010** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Distillery District-West Unit 1 to May 9, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00011** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Idle Hour Subdivision to May 9, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-24-00021** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Ramsey Sullivan Property to May 9, 2024 - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Wolf Run Industrial Park to May 9, 2024 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of consent agenda - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00001** — passed (10-0): Approval of Quintana Estates preliminary subdivision plan - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00001** — passed (10-0): Approval of waiver for Quintana Estates - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00004** — passed (10-0): Approval of Tuscany Unit 12 preliminary subdivision plan - **PLN-MJSUB-24-00004** — passed (10-0): Approval of waiver for Tuscany Unit 12 --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's now 1.31. It's April 11, 2024. Welcome, everyone, to the subdivision items meeting. Planning Commission and first on the agenda we do not have any minutes to approve so I would like for the Commission to take a look at the performance bonds and letters of credit and I would like to move that up on the agenda for reaction and a motion for that the floor is open Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. I'll move for approval of the, that's the compliance report, the memorandum that's dated 4-11-24 for the releasing call of bonds. I'll move to approve that. Mr. Chairman, I second it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens and Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. What do we got? Okay, all righty. Next up, any postponements and withdrawals? Do you have any? Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Mark McIntosh with Vision Engineering on page four of today's agenda. It's the bottom of the page. It's Development Plan 24-10, Distillery District. We would like to request a one-month postponement, and that's to the May 9th Planning Commission. Okay. Thank you, sir. Bring it back to the Commission. Is there any questions? If not, the floor is open for that request. Ms. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for approval of, for a postponement of MJDP 2410 Distillery District to the May 9th meeting as requested by the applicant. Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, thank you. Ms. Worth, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Okay, yeah, a second request. Yes, sir. On page 5, item C, development plan 24-11. This is Idaho Hour Subdivision located at 2041 Richmond Road. We filed a board of adjustment variance yesterday, so we're going to be on a parallel path and I'd like to request a one-month postponement for that plan. Okay thank you sir. I'll bring it back to the Commission for a motion. Ms. Wirth. Mr. Chair I move for one month postponement of PLN MJDP 2411 Adelauer subdivision unit 1 as requested by the applicant that would be the may 9th meeting thank you second okay thank you mr pole and let's vote via granicus okay that motion passes thank you good afternoon uh this is johan graham with au associates i'll direct your attention to page 8 of the agenda item i major development plan 24-21 the applicant is requesting a 30-day postponement as well on this plan okay thank you mr ground that's uh may knife correct okay all right floor is open for a motion mr poe chair move to postpone mjdp 2421 ramsey Sullivan property till May 9th. Thank you. Second by Ms. Barstow. Okay, so all right please vote via Granicus. All right that motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any postponements and withdrawals? Staff? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff does have one item to bring to your attention it is on page three the bottom of page three under development plans this is major development plan 23-50 Wolf Run Industrial Park block a it is staffs understanding that the design and use of this property is still in flux and they've yet to determine a final outcome of those changes so they're requesting a one-month postponement. Okay. Thank you, Tom. The floor is open for that motion request. Mr. Poe? Mr. Chair, move to postpone MADP 2350, Wolfram Industrial Park, until May 9th. All right. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Bartstale. Please vote via Granicus. I think it's yours. Ms. Barstow, your vote. You did, I saw it too. That motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Bring it back to staff. Do you have any consent agenda? We do have several items on the consent agenda today. I'll read through these and if there's anyone in the audience or if the commission would like to have these heard, you can raise your hand. The first item is on page two, item B, PLN MJSUB 24-2, Tuscany Unit 11 amended at 2599 Old Rosebud Road and 1970 Winchester Road. Would anyone like that to be heard? Okay. The next item is page three, item D, PLN MJSUB 24-4, Tuscany Unit 12 amended at 2599 Old Rosebud Road and 1970 Winchester Road. Would anyone like that to be heard? On page six, item D, PLN MJDP 24-15, Terrace View Subdivision, Unit 2B at 1702 Versailles Road. Page six, item E, PLN MJDP 24-16, Tuscany Unit 13 amended at 1970 Winchester Road. Page seven, item F, PLN MJDP 24-17, Lucille Cottle Little Property, Unit 1B, Lot 5, amended at 2440 Mackinwood Drive. And then on the back of the sheet we have page seven, item G, PLN MJDP 24-19, Hamburg East Bellhurst Townhomes amended at 2585 Polo Club Boulevard. Page 7, item H, PLN MJDP 24-20, NDC Property Unit 1A, Lot 11 and Unit 3, Wellington Park amended at 410 Sporting Court. Page 8, item J, PLN MJDP 24-22, Givens Property at Lot 3 amended at 2210 Georgetown Road. And finally, page 9, item K, PLN MJDP 24-23, DeLong Edition, Habitat for Humanity, 7th and Maple, at 220-228 East 7th Street and 628 Maple Avenue. Thank you, Autumn. So we can take that motion as one for the consent agendas, and the floor is open. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the consent agenda as provided by staff. thank you and seconded by mr davis please vote via granicus okay that motion passes unanimously thank you chair thank you there is also a finding required with that consent agenda regarding the expansion area master plan that will need to vote by the planning commission i believe you should have copies of that okay is Is that the? The Hamburg plan is an expansion area plan. And you're required to make a finding that it complies with the AMP. The nature of the amendment is to enlarge the front porch stoops on the townhouses. So you have been given a memo from staff stating that that has no impact on the findings of when it was previously approved until 2022. Okay. That's an action item. We need a vote for that. So the floor is open. Ms. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that regarding PLN and JDP 2419 Hamburg East, Bellhurst Townhomes, the amended development plan is in compliance with the expansion area master plan. Thank you. Second by Ms. Worth. Okay. We can vote via Granicus. You want us to show our hands for now? Okay, I'm okay with that too. Mr. Nickel. I'm sorry. Fine, okay. All righty. So that put us on page two of the agenda. PLN MJSUB 24-1 and we do have a waiver with this request as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The item is, in fact, on page 2 of your agenda. It is a preliminary subdivision plan, 24-1 Quintana Estates. this is for property that is located out on Paris Pike you can see Paris Pike at this point here we have the railroad right of way that runs behind the property Kingston Road is located right here runs in that direction from Paris Pike we are just a little bit to the north from the recent development plan that you approved for the apartments at the curb location were just a few properties removed to the north from that development that you just recently approved. What you see before you on this preliminary subdivision plan is a proposal to subdivide 32 acres of property into 54 buildable lots with 7 HOA lots. Now this property is zoned R1B. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. That's what's governing this property. It's a preliminary subdivision plan with R1B zoning. That is large lot zoning. We don't see that very often any longer in our community. The minimum lot size in the R1B is 15,000 square feet with 100 feet of frontage. They are proposing lots that meet and in some cases exceed that minimum requirement. One of the key aspects of this development is they come in, they have a right in, right out off of Parris Pike, taking advantage of the median that exists there to help control the traffic ingress and egress from the site. They are proposing, again, as you can see, a curvilinear street system that curves through the property, allows them to lot the property off. They are providing a stub into the property to the south per your land subdivision regulations. You can see that this particular design has a traffic circle that emphasizes open space and green space, HOA space, in the center of the development. They are also with the seven HOA lots. They have detention here, here, and along the front of the property. They are proposing a pedestrian facility along Paris Pike through here, and then it's going to come over into this direction and serve the park. This is a recently acquired park. It was donated to the city by those property owners. Again, this is a preliminary subdivision plan. It was reviewed by staff. There are your standard sign-offs for a preliminary subdivision plan. And there's several resolve issues on this property, one of which is resolve stormwater management. That's important, and it's also important to the waiver requests that we're going to go over with you shortly. Again, you can see detention here, detention here, detention here. There's a pond. Apparently, we've been told that's a spring-fed pond in that area. That speaks to the topography of the property. So this applicant is going to have to grade it in such a way, put in that stormwater infrastructure in the locations that you see there and of course that is always subject to approval by of their infrastructure plans their construction plans that they will submit to the division of engineering once this project moves forward the sanitary sewer service was another question that was raised and again for informational purposes on how this property is going to be served because it's a serious challenge for them, one that they're very much aware of, one that they have been in communication with both Division of Water Quality and the Division of Engineering how to address it. The property is located right in here. sewer is down over here in the subdivision some distance away they have to get their line there they're aware of that challenge that challenge is going to involve a pump station now those are not facilities we encourage but in this case based on the topography based on the location it's going to have to be what they utilize to serve this property the property itself, the laterals will be gravity fed, flow to the pump station, the pump station will then move that sewage back to the public line. The country club many years ago built their own dedicated line which is under pressure to move their sewage back into the public line. It is dedicated to them and for their use only. So again, it's a challenge but it's one they're aware of, one they have to meet. There was a question about buffering along Parris Pike. They are proposing a lot of green space right through here along with their detention. They have stated an intention to landscape that. Staff has not necessarily explored any specific details with them other than the fact that they would like to put up. They're going to plant trees and perhaps a fence and some other things to address that frontage along Parris Pike. Now that brings us to item 13, which is the recommendation of the Parris Pike Corridor Commission. I spent a fair amount of time at the subdivision committee trying to frame this and put it in its proper perspective. This is a recommendation from an advisory body. And that's all it is, is a recommendation. It has no regulatory support along this section of this corridor. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. That's a ministerial plan. It's subject to your land subdivision regulations. The R1B zone requires a 40-foot setback. That's what the law says. They require a 40-foot setback. And that's what this plan is subject to. But it is a recommendation. We understand that. The committee exists. They look out for the Parris Pike corridor. The overlay that does require the 250 feet starts at Johnston, which is much further out. It does not apply to this area. It never did. it. And the basis for that is not health and safety, it's not community welfare, your normal standards were set back, it's for an aesthetic. That's what it's for. And it's for a farm aesthetic, it's for a rural aesthetic that never frankly existed along this part of Paris Pike at least in recent memory and you can see if you look setbacks vary commercial setbacks in this area a church houses on up in this area these houses are sitting at a certain setback their immediate neighbor is right up on Paris Pike if you go to the country Club you can see that their front yard area is dominated by parking lots. So when all this was created, when all this was put in place, it was recognized that this is in the urban service boundary and we were going to have urban development. And this residential subdivision is a urban development it's matching the zoning of the property now be happy to tell you that under our new comprehensive plan where we've encouraged density frankly we would love to have seen the zone change and seen increased density on this property just like you saw the apartments done because we need that in our community and we've recognized that this body's recognized that but nonetheless what we have here is a subdivision. It meets the requirements and the rules. We very much respect the Parris Pike Commission and their goal in guarding the corridor and how it looks. But again, I just wanted to explain that to you and give you some perspective as to that recommendation by the committee. Now, moving to the waiver request. This subdivision is subject to your new standards and this is the first time this standard has come into play. And interesting enough it has to do with access and relationship with a public facility, the park, which was recently donated to the city. So they've come in and now they share that boundary. The subdivision regulation in question would require them to provide on their property 60% of road frontage based on the total perimeter of that park. Well, frankly, they don't even have that much shared boundary with the park to actually meet that condition is one problem they faced. The other is, again, I mentioned the drainage, the curved linear street system, the large lots. This overall design is intended to be somewhat rural in nature. They want it to look a certain way. These streets help lend that atmosphere, that personality, as it were, to this development. to allow this this lighting and they will have right through here They have about 800 just over 800 linear feet that they do share with the park That is basically open. It's off of the street. It's off of the green space So they requested a waiver to that particular requirement in support of the waiver again, they they've offered a pedestrian facility through here, curving here, to again access to the park, pedestrian access to the park. The topography, the drainage, getting the infrastructure in the ground to handle that water. The street system also handles water. You all heard me say that before. We forget that curb and gutter is part of the stormwater system. In conjunction with that, if they were to build a street and provide a single-loaded street along the entire park boundary, they would have to elevate the fill in order to get a proper road bed in there and get it to work. And that design, and they shared that design with staff, then results in a straight shot into the property, a little simple loop, and then a straight shot down the property. It's a totally different design and character from the nature that you see before you today with this particular design. So again, that was, and it would in fact do away with this central feature. This area would become dominated by the detention basin if they were to meet that waiver requirement. So staff has reviewed that. We talked it over with engineering. We also have a memorandum that should be with you from the Parks Department. The Parks Department reviewed this plan and they stated in that mentor animal that they support this design, that they believe it meets their requirements and their needs for access to the park. Now, staff has made a recommendation in support of the waiver request, and that is to extend the pedestrian trail at its 10 feet down the entire boundary. They have room to do that, they can accomplish it, and we've recommended that they add additional access points from that trail into the park. Now we had a slight discussion with them this morning when they saw that recommendation and they pointed out that they felt that they're happy to do that, but they pointed out that parks should ultimately agree to those access points because sometimes the Parks Department literally physically blocks access to their parks they may have put up a fence and other things and again so again that's public property as parks department manages it so we felt that that's not a reasonable caveat to add to that recommendation for that trail with the access that obviously ultimately parks should agree to that so with that your staff your subdivision committee recommended approval of the plan your staff is recommending approval for the waiver request be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff mr. Wills just a clarification I see where it says that this on the map it's a right in right out to Parris Pike okay how far do you have to go before you're able to turn around do you get to a signalized area oh I think there's a break in the median up I forget the street name it's further up but it's not far it's just off their property there's I believe there's a break in the median where they can do a u-turn okay thank you yes mr. Owens Tom thank you one question I guess right now I want to hear from before I have others. You mentioned sewer pump stations and so forth. In what you said with the Lexington Country Club, you said that their sewer line was under pressure. Does that mean a pump station? I believe so. In essence, they'll be doing the same thing. LCC will be doing. Okay, thank you. Mr. Nick. Yes, Mr. Martin, you did a great job. Clarifying us the roles and responsibilities in the jurisdiction of the Paris Pike Corridor Commission. My question is, why did staff feel it appropriate to leave the condition number 13, which says resolve the recommendation of the Paris Pike Corridor Commission? The committee maintained that condition. We presented it to the committee. The committee felt like they were moving this plan forward, and they left it on there. And I think part of the reason, and I think it's a good reason, is to explain it to the commission as a whole. So it was left on to explain to us. Yes, sir. That jurisdiction does not apply? Yes, sir. Wonderful. I think that's helpful. Thank you. Mr. Mikula. Tom, I've got a few questions. The first one has to do with that committee recommendation. You alluded to it being a recommendation. What was their recommendation? Oh, their recommendation was for a 250-foot setback. I see. And they provided, did they provide justification for that in their recommendation? No, sir. They just requested it. What was the, can you go to the, like, you had that shot of the overview of the property boundaries? Oops. that's one can you highlight for me just because uh it was a lot of information quick what which property exactly is the park property boundary i can see it better when i look back than i can up there so i'm going to look back i don't have to but it's right i'm not using see that little lot right there yeah that's the boundaries you come down through here that's the boundary with the park property and so the 90 is the park the park is 2490 there mm-hmm can we go back to that then this happens to me a committee every time I and can you I mean I understand why they may not want to but can you explain why they just I'm just under to understand the logistics of why they cannot meet the 60% park boundary road frontage the park frontage Yeah. The ordinance reads the entire perimeter of the park. That means the entire perimeter, all four sides. And they have to meet 60% of all four sides. And in this particular circumstance, the math isn't there with their shared boundary for them to meet it. So they could meet a great portion of it, but that's the design that would then provide a straight shot with the street, require more grading, more work, and that was part of their waiver justification were the topographical issues there, as well as the fact that they want that curvilinear, nice street system in their development. Again, remembering, these are 15,000 square foot lots. I mean, that's, to give you a perspective there, we are seeing 5,000 to 6,000 or less square footage lots in our expansion area and in our R3 zone. I mean, these are... So, I'm a little bit confused about that justification. Could you go back to their development plan there? Mm-hmm. It looks like, if I'm not mistaken, the road from a topographical perspective, basically runs the entire length along the park except that they jumped over in order to fit that extra row of houses in. Well it does in this design yes. The other design would also get the same number of lots but you would basically just have a straight shot road down through there which would require additional engineering design and work to make it function to meet the requirements. and we've had a lot of discussion and included in the comprehensive or included in the zoning ordinance that regulation in a way to try to really open up our parks going forward instead of limiting to them to smaller access points and staff feels that that extra work for grading would not is is sufficient to justify not continuing that that road down yes staff along with engineering staff support the waiver they have access off of Paris Pike and again this isn't a brand new park in the sense it's a brand new development or it's contained within a brand new development they're dealing with something that was dedicated that has an existing shape and existing circumstances and again the impact on their property is is a little much in this regard to ask them to bear that solely on their own and then my I have a question on the, we had an email from the neighbor that one of the points that she raised was that, quote, someone had suggested that the naturally occurring spring-fed pond between the two properties should be filled in. surely no one has the authority to require me to fill in my half of the pond no no one does and and that point was raised by tom martin because my job is to ask questions to provide information to you all and the question when they showed that pond was what are you going to do with it at the time we were not aware that it was spring fed it appears now they can build on those lots and leave that pond alone. Okay and then my last question when we heard the development down the street there was quite a bit of discussion about a large water easement feeding the Toyota plant does this does that go by this property as well? They didn't indicate that on the plan and that's a good question so they will have to answer that question it may cross Paris spike and go on the other side frankly they didn't indicate it so I staff can't answer that question they'll have to answer where that is okay thank you Tom do we have any more questions thank you Tom thank you mr. chairman members of the Commission staff and Chris Clendenin I'm pleased to be here today representing the applicant hazard land company i'm joined today by robert mcgoodwin who is our developer and you you all know rory kayley from ea who's helping with the design on this project as usual mr martin has done a very succinct and credible job of presenting most of the salient points, so I don't want to necessarily go over and retread ground that he's covered. I do want to try to emphasize or clarify a couple of things based on some of the questions that were raised. I'll see if my slide is... I got a little bit of PowerPoint here, but I won't probably do most of it, so I'll cycle through it. Okay. Okay. This question here. This is the way these subdivision regulations are written. And I highlighted the 60% of the total perimeter length of the facility. I had Mr. Cayley do a count for me. If we were to literally go by this, we would be required, see the total perimeter length of the facility which is the entire property is 6100 feet 60% of that would be 3660 there's no way we could do that with the park and do the shared boundary because the shared boundary is only 1714 feet So that's the first problem. Second, hang on. See if I can get back here. Get me back. keep going yeah right there number two thank you all right very good if we were to try to put a road there even for a partial length part of the problem is this we have the green space the tension basins set up for a reason based on the natural topography and what we're trying to do is make sure that we minimize the storm water run off as much as possible rather than put a road in there if we had to put a road in there abutting the park it would take out if you see that center hoa green space where the below the the circular roundabout it would take out 30 40 percent of that and we really reduce the effectiveness of that i've talked to the engineers about that and in in engineering and staff agree that it would be you know detrimental to the storm water effort and the detention base and so we we it's one of the bases for the for the waiver um Okay, Mr. Martin mentioned this is the letter that we received from Parks. They support our design. They like it. Part of the appeal of design is if you notice when you go... All right. Thank you. Can you expand that a little bit? Okay, thanks. You see along Paris Pike, we have a 10-foot wide length of trail. It comes down towards the park. Then it drops off at an access point that gets to an additional 5-foot width of sidewalk. It goes around the street. It goes around the base. And so in essence, what we're doing is providing what I think is a better design and more aesthetically pleasing because it's not abutting a road and you don't see a road. What you're doing is having an additional pathway where people who are walking on the 10 foot trail and the five foot sidewalk are getting a view of basically a single loaded street. and their view is the park and the detention base and the green space area and not a street all right mr. Martin covered the Paris Pike corridor Commission this gives you an idea of where we're at if you can see the the map the highlighted area up there where it's sort of orange colored that's the paris pike overlay if you look where the the handwritten thing is with the design it gives you where our property that site is located there so we're clearly not in that overlay so we shouldn't be subject to those recommendations even though we do appreciate the work that they do it just doesn't apply to this property the opposition letter we there's no plans to do anything with that pond again as mr martin said that was just something an issue he raised at committee and we have absolutely no plans to do anything with that pond so it shouldn't be a concern and as far as the corridor again we're just not part of the overlay so we shouldn't be subject to the recommendation now as far as the landscaping along paris pipe this is a rendering that ea did this gives you some idea of not the entire link but a section of what we're planning for this to look like if this helps i'm sorry this was not submitted to staff but i just got this the other day so this gives you some idea so with that um i hope that we've covered anything that you've any issues that you you have or questions or concerns i'm happy to answer any questions or mr caley or mr mcgood the good one can do that uh let us know okay thank you mr clinton i think we do have a couple of questions just clarification when mr martin was up mr mickler raised the question of i think it was kentucky american utility easement along there do you know whether yes we i did look at that and it is in the vicinity but it's not part of this property that easement is recorded and it does show a water line and it runs near the property but does not come into the property. Hold on one second. Hold on one second, Mr. Nichols. Mr. Michler. I was going to ask you here, this is a preliminary development plan, but a lot of the sort of framework and roads often. Excuse me. No, it's a preliminary subdivision plan. Sorry. So, with this, I guess we're laying out the roads and the property boundaries. There are a lot of, based on what I see on the aerial imagery and from the street view, a lot of mature trees on this. I guess since this is not a development plan, there's no tree overlay on the… No, a tree protection plan is required with a preliminary subdivision plan. They have provided that information and they've met with the urban forester on site. And what is the impact for that road network that they're putting in on that? I think Mr. Kaley could probably be better to answer that. I do know that some trees were taken, basically not substantial trees that were diseased or needed to be taken up, have been cleaned up and then some additional planning is mentioned but i'll let rory talk about that um yes the canopy requirements are going to be met mostly with new plantings there were some trees out front a lot have been removed as you ask if we had tried to keep them all we wouldn't have had room to put a road in i mean that's when you just look at the ordinance and what the protection ring does, we couldn't have entered the property. It's a pretty substantial property with a lot of trees on it, and meeting the ordinance with all new trees, I think, certainly doesn't meet the spirit of what we're trying to do here with our community. Mr. Nickel. Yes. Mr. Cayley, we are concerned with multimodal transportation, and I noticed that on Paris Pike, you've made some improvements above and beyond what is required to provide access to the park. Do you mind explaining to us what you have done above what is required to provide access to a traditionally underserved area? Okay. I believe the apartment project to the south of us has a five-foot sidewalk across the frontage of their Paris Pike. I believe that would have been continuation here. The owner met with the Parks Department and asked them what they wanted us to do up next to them, and they requested the 10-foot wide multi-use trail be across the front edge of our property. We show it meandering back and forth between the HOA areas we've established and then within the right-of-way of Parris Pike. So that 10-foot path goes across the front of us, and then we brought it into our site to tie into the park at that location somewhere in the middle. So I think we probably doubled what would be the requirement. I commend that effort and that investment and hopefully those properties closer to town continue that improvement that you all put in place so that the public can get to the public park. So good work and good job setting a precedent for others to follow. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Oh, yes, ma'am. Mr. Meyer. Would you, Mr. Cayley, or someone just show us on the development plan what the recommendation of approval is made to three conditions by the staff, which is one is where the changes are improved. Oh, for the waiver? For the waiver. Okay. Can I shoot at either of these? I don't think it's on here. Okay, so within say in the center of the circle, we've got the 10-foot path coming along the Parris Pike up along a road frontage there and essentially where there's a bend in the property, we show the 10-foot path tying to the park's property. That's what we present to the parks. That's what they base their recommendation of approval letter on. For the waiver request, they are now asking that the 10-foot trail would extend through the rest of the area, the HOA area, over to the yellow, which would be our first single-family lot, keeping it 10-foot all along that park frontage, and from that point, then running a five-foot sidewalk next to the first single-family lot up to our street system and tying into the sidewalks there. So that HOA area you see in the middle, kind of oblong shape, would have walking paths all around it. The third one is at the back corner here, back property is up near the railroad tracks, and they're asking off of that elbow to run a pedestrian access. I don't think they specify size, but they want to run that over to the park property in the back. That was a conversation we had with staff that probably should be up to the Parks Department, how many access points they want, whether they're protecting them, leaving it wide open, and it probably would be more appropriate at the time that Parks is developing this. Right now there's a fence up there, a property line fence, and Parks is not actively in there. They probably don't want too much advertisement that it's out there. Thank you. Could you talk a little bit about the barn? It looks to me like looking at an aerial view that there are some considerable trees immediately around the barn. Are those to be preserved? Yeah, the way he's talking about it is in our central feature here is an old barn. There are five catalpa trees that have been pruned and worked on. There's going to be a report as well by an arborist on how to try to protect them during construction. So we've created that. It's a high point. It's the center of the design. You can see all the streets come back to it. Mr. Goodwin's putting money into restoring it. One of the things we propose, we'll probably have the mailboxes there, something, so it's a central focus that everyone can walk to and being presented protected. I think I've got a 100-foot radius out from there for that circular drive. It looks like it's a square barn with a hip roof. Is that right? Oh. Like that. Yeah. It's interesting. It has a clear story. What was the, you know, what the use of the barn was? Ladies and gentlemen, members of the commission, I'm Rob McGoodwin. and I'm the developer of this site. The barn in question was the only usable structure on the property. It dates back to the 20s and was part of the original fairway farm that Mr. Floyd acquired through several acquisitions. And we are going to restore it. it's going to be an amenity for the HLA to use but it's it's really a really cool barn and it's got a what they call a clear story on the top of it with windows around it and a pitch roof it's a it's a very neat architectural feature and that's why we we wanted to save it and all the roads lead into it so it's it becomes a central hub that roundabout does. And we feel like it's in keeping with what the original use of the farm was. It's also in keeping with Mr. Floyd's desire when this was rezoned that it be this size. and that's the spirit that that we've used to create this this plan did i answer your question grant thank you mr ellen's thank you mr chair um a couple of questions back to the sidewalks and the waiver requests and so forth um i think rory you mentioned that currently you're proposing a entrance where they the the angle on that property line is yes pedestrian access did I hear in subdivision committee that that detention basin which is lot 55 the property on there's a fairly significant grade change yes yeah yeah we've we've kept a lot and stuff back on both sides because we're gonna need to get the volume in there okay and and then you you do have an internal sidewalk system throughout the private streets but there's it public standards sidewalks on both sides so all the streets lead back into this trail as well all lots have access to the internal streets so therefore they've got sidewalks and they can get to that trail system correct without the waiver request oh no the way I'm sorry not without without the conditions the conditions request yeah okay okay good deal one other thing with the pond I'm just curious because the way it sits right now I'm not to presume there's gonna be three landowners to that pond yes would it be that I don't know would it be better that it gets fenced and comes a little bit of HOA I don't know that'd be better or not either? I'm just asking a question. So, you know, I don't know where, I haven't seen the pond. I know of it, but I really haven't seen it. I don't know where the spring is or anything. No, we made the lots there extra wide so that there's still buildable space. I understand the buildable space. I just think if it becomes HOA, it's probably a little bit more protected. That's just a thought. So my question is right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Do we have any Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Do we have anyone here that wants to speak on this? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Yes ma'am. So I'm Debbie Aminoff and I live on Swigert and I apologize, I've got a cold right now. so my voice is not so good, and it looks like all my fellow folks bailed because of the rain, so you're stuck with me, and they had all the notes. Just a few things. Agreed that the overlay requires the 250-foot setback, but this is a lead-in to the Parris Pike quarter, and we would ask that you give serious consideration to having a bigger setback on this property I don't know whether it's okay to put a can for you to put a condition that the pond not be filled in but since it's been brought up that it might be by somebody and we my concern that at some point it might get filled in the last thing is that the there were a significant number of trees on this property the two properties and if you drive by there and you look at what it was before and you look at what it is now it makes your heart hurt to see what has been done because all those mature trees were taken down I can't imagine that every single one of those that was taken down was diseased I would ask that they get replaced with mature trees as to the extent possible and not new growth Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we bring this portion back to the commission. Further conversations, questions, concerns? Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chair, if it's agreeable, I'd like to hear from the applicants as to, based on what the lady indicated about the trees and the replacement, etc. Yeah, I thought they had answered that, but I'll go ahead. Mr. Wilson, when we acquired this farm, it had not been a working farm for 15 years. The majority of the trees that have been removed were diseased and dying. They were covered with vines, and a great many of them had exceeded their useful life. And so we have taken those out in favor of putting a new canopy in that will last a whole lot more than some of the trees we took out. There is a significant beech tree that is being saved and protected. There's a poplar tree that we designed the road around to keep it. And then there's a set of catalpa trees that are around the barn area. And we're taking great pains to protect them and see that they're preserved. are you willing to put in larger trees than might normally be planted in a subdivision like this native trees i mean you know just to just you know you want the rural feel to the to subdivision and the sooner you can get canopy the more rural it's going to feel Well, one thing to keep in mind, there are still a lot more trees on this site than have been taken out. And in strategic areas, we do plan to use larger material at the entrance, around the roundabout, and around the detention basin in the middle of the park. So, yes. Do you have any more questions for the applicant at this moment? Thank you, Mr. McGill. Okay. Yes. Mr. Mickler. I've got a question for staff, and this is a – the first question for staff is, this is in the plans a private street network is that correct they would like for it to be private streets yes they have to be built to public standards and this sort of came up in the in the last hearing which was skipping a property with the creation of stub outs there and I see this creates a stub out here how How does that work if the street networks are private as far as connecting them up eventually to service multiple communities, for example, say, to get them to an actual signalized intersection? When the adjoining property, should it come in for development, they will have to stub into that existing stub. If they want public streets and they dedicate them, there will be a demarcation required between public and private. But in terms of day-to-day use, that would not impact the day-to-day users. It would not, right. There will be no gates. There will be no impediments to any cross movement or anything like that. And then just for our statistics here, is there a number of and an inventory of the significant trees that were removed that was reviewed by staff? The urban forester was involved with that. I don't know an exact number. I don't know if the applicant has an exact number of what they removed or not. What was the report by the urban forester? I do not have a number of the removals we've been working, I have going forward with getting the ordinance met with what the plantings will be. There's a planting plan that goes along with this that the urban forester has to approve as we go through with the construction plans. that will get into the species tentatively I gave him a list of some of the native species there's some that he'll add and subtract with it as we go forward to get that approved but that's an ongoing process once we're past this and then we're into the construction plans then we hammer out all those details as to what meets it at subdivision committee I mentioned the several ordinances that we have to meet for the screenings on the site of the property when you're up against railroads when you're up against agricultural uses all of those have to be reviewed and the species vetted so it's my understanding that the urban forester reviewed the tree inventory and the tree protection plan but we have no report on that is that correct he's a sign-off on the plan and he's been on the property and he's interacted with staff and the applicant during the course of the review. So there's no report? Is that correct? He doesn't furnish a report in that sense. We've never requested anything like that. What he does is he goes out and evaluates the trees with the applicant, and then they establish pre-protection areas. And that would include a significant tree, if necessary, or it would include stands and areas of trees. and then those are shown graphically on the plan are those shown graphically on the plan no I don't have any at the moment not yet it's one of those ongoing processes with him I mean we talked to him we show him what we were planning on doing we had enough information that we can move forward with the approval and then we get into the planting plan with them and that's when you get into the species, the locations and such. We're being asked to approve a final plan, or this is the preliminary. You're being asked to approve a preliminary subdivision plan. And so the processes then in those discussions, those areas end up delineated on the final plan? Yes, the processes, the urban forest will approve that final plan before it comes to planning, and we will check on that approval and be sure that he has what he needs on the plan before we'll sign it, or stamp it in this case. We stamp these, we don't sign them. So that final does not come back here, is that correct? You will not see the final record plats on this property, which will also have the tree protection areas on them, because you have delegated that to staff. Thank you. Mr. Kelly, thank you. A number of questions, answers to those questions so we can bring them back to further questions as I mentioned before or not. The floor is open. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. more of a comment than anything, maybe a question for the applicant. My comment would be considering the elevation of that tension in the middle. I think including a sidewalk through there would be, as we're talking, an additional hardship to the applicant. with the internal sidewalk system throughout it definitely provides access for all the residents to get into the park and again even do not see a need with a sidewalk going through the detention in the back corner along a pump section so I would you know I'm good with the waiver and the reasons and and the approval of the waiver itself, but I found difficulty with three conditions. The question for the applicant would be, going back to the pond, is it better to leave it as is with a condition of protecting the pond, preserving the pond, or does that become part of an HOA? The pond has three owners, right? I know. If I may. At this point, I think they could fence it out and make it HOA. I don't know. I don't know the legal ramifications of that. But if I may, this spring fed pond would constitute an environmentally sensitive area. And if you wanted to designate a condition that it be non-buildable and protected, would certainly be appropriate uh to what you could do here well we're focused on the buildable portion of those two lots on the property that the applicant owns again half of the pond is owned by another property owner and we don't really have any control over that um right now we were looking at just leaving it alone and because it's private land and it wouldn't be act it wouldn't be necessarily accessible by the rest of the subdivision committee but their two lot owners would own each portion of that pond if you want to make it an environmentally sensitive area then i don't know that we would object to that um the hoa you know i think it's more about we didn't really want there to be a tremendous amount of access to the pond other than by the property owners if if i own this and there's a pond on my property you know there's a pond on my property it's not accessible for everyone else and i think that was generally the attitude from the from the developer yes I'll let him speak for himself mr. Owens we we do intend the pond is in really bad shape number one number two we do not intend to drain it as it is spring fed we would we would hope that we could get the cooperation of the adjacent landowner to work with us on creating what used to be when we bought the property there was a fence actually through the pond which restricted access between the two properties we intend to put that back and we also intend to put deed restrictions on those two lots that those two homeowners have to maintain and cannot modify or change the character of the pond. Okay. I would be good with that, yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Nichol. Are we finished with the questions? Are you ready for a motion or I'm looking at my fellow commissioners. Have we answered all the questions everybody may have? Thanks, Joe. So we'll close this portion out and the floor is open. All right. With that being said, I'm going to recommend approval of PLN MJSUB 24-1 Quintana Estates. I would like to remove condition 13 because I feel like we've resolved that with Mr. Martin's comments on the authority of the Paris Pike Quarter Commission. So that leaves 13 conditions. Okay. All right. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. By Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Yes, Mr. Mickler. Well, I'm just going to note that I see some thought was put into this plan and the preservation of the barn as a central focus feature is definitely a positive. And given the large lot size and natural area, I would have liked to see more information about the environmental areas and the trees in particular on this plan. And I do think that I would have liked to see more connection effort further down on that park boundary as well. And those are my comments on this. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Okay. If there's not any more comments to be made, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. We need a waiver. I'll make a motion as well on the waiver. I recommend approval of the waiver with the findings provided by staff for PLNMJSUV24-1 Quintana Estates. But as we've discussed, I do not want to include the recommendations of 1, 2, and 3, which are the additional extension of the 10-foot pedestrian trail, the five foot sidewalk between lot 55 and 23 and pedestrian access through 60. And the reason behind that is through the applicant's explanation of their conversation with the parks group and them not knowing how they would like like to provide access to their parks so i don't think this is necessary at the time and that's my recommendation okay so we have a motion um basically without the conditions is that correct okay second okay we got a motion and a second by mr owens uh ms meyer any question so since this is preliminary will there be opportunity to have further conversations with the parks people and you know seeing but I has the parks people the park people have already said this is this is all we want and we're fine with it the parks department has membership on the technical committee and they all plans that come through technical committee are available for their review okay so So they will have an opportunity to weigh in. Yes, ma'am. They will see the final record plates as they come through. Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Glendina, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cayley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, let's put this on page two of the agenda still, PLN MJSUB 24-3, and we have a waiver with that one as well. Okay. Again, we are working with a preliminary subdivision plan, so you all will see the preliminary, and as Tom explained, the final record plat for this will, when they come in and file after this plan has been signed will not be seen by you but it'll be seen by staff so with this being as a preliminary subdivision we still have the the same conditions this property let me see here there we go okay this property is located off of film each it comes in and stubs into this odd shape looking piece the property the subdivision is already under construction on this side of it there are several lots that have already been homes have been constructed upon and then on the back side of this as you can see along the back side of this property here we have a floodplain which then there's creates sleeps steep slopes into the flood area so this area for development is surrounded by already constructed street patterns and lotting and then we have the floodplain that wraps around on the far side so with this they came back in to revise the lotting just because they reduced the width of the lots and created a couple extra lots in this so we're always looking for improving density so this is a plus we just had a couple cleanup conditions with this and then we had one of the conditions was to resolve the timing of the proposed trail just to kind of point out they're showing a trail here but at this current time this trail hasn't been completely worked out with every through the floodplain they still working to find out where the best location is it could wind up on the other side of the floodplain if I understood it could correctly then with the waiver they're asking for a waiver the land subdivision regulations have changed slightly along with the zoning ordinance and so we are not allowed to have a cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac but with this being such a small piece of property this was the layout that they had previously this is part of Tuscany a small small part of Tuscany Tuscany is a large area front that has been already laid out and as I said a lot of it's already been lauded and streets have built so what they're proposing here is the same thing that was approved previously it's just that they weren't able to work on it because of some other issues outside that they had no control of and so now they're coming back with this revised preliminary so that they can do the lawning they can complete the streets they've already started with some of the improvements as far as utilities into the property so with that they're asking for a waiver to be able to have the cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac as they proposed the first time because there's not a there's they're very limited to the amount of land that they can develop with the floodplain and the steep slopes on one side and the development of lots and streeting on the other side and to the south so this was the best layout to get the best number of lots so with that as you can see this was a hardship for them to be able to come up with another way to do a layout and with it being a small portion of the overall Tuscany subdivision y'all have any other comments or questions any comments questions was there yes sir mr. Micklin so it's a cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac what is there a is there a regulation for length of a cul-de-sac as well yes I I don't know the depth of it. 800 feet? And does that not, would this not really be an extension of a cul-de-sac? Or, I mean, this is all, it's all coming back. It looks like you've got to go. We have one street here, Bill and Michi. and so then it comes and it stubs into a cul-de-sac but to be able to use the rest of the land within this they created another cul-de-sac so that's a cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac technically as the way they and I guess Villa Medici pass doesn't count as a cul-de-sac the whole length of it because it has another little loop off of it that circles right back into it well they have over here on this part here that they have more subdivision other streets that collect that connect over on this side here this probably better I apologize I should move this on forwards so you can see where this is the other existing subdivision it's already been built and and here's our cul-de-sac off of a cul-de-sac. Here is all of our floodplain and our greenway. And this is why we're saying that they're kind of restricted to, they have nowhere else to develop, to connect, because of the steepness of the floodplain and the floodplain being adjacent to them, and the fact that the subdivision has already been under construction and being built adjacent to them. so they've kind of locked themselves into a small part where it can be built. That view helps. Thanks. Okay. Do we have any more questions for staff? Thank you. Mr. Cayley. Rory Cayley, the partners. We agree with the conditions. Request approval. okay thank you mr kelly do we have any questions for the applicant thank you sir thank you oh hold up mr mickler you're gonna be shocked but uh the that tree buffer along the stream this this is i'm under i'm seeing that you have that marked on as tree protection area all the way around is that am i reading this correctly or Or is the tree protection area only the area adjoining the subdivision? I'm just trying to look at the line. Yeah, I've got three line weights on there. The tree protection area is the back of the lots as it abuts up against the existing neighborhoods. Those were, to the left side of that, well, now it's reversed. One of them is an old fence line. And then the other one is other lots that had a low spot. and we've protected trees on their side, so we've extended it to this side. The hatching you see going through the majority of the lots, that is just steep slopes. And then there's a longer line down in the greenway, and that represents floodplain. Is there opportunity to put tree protection area where those steep slopes border that stream? steep slopes there's well I don't think I have trees there by that aerial for one thing the back of the lot I'm going to say no just in general steep slope areas will have to all be investigated as for buildability when they place the lots on there and then the open space behind it's an 18 acre area protected trees Creek I think we're meeting all of our requirements the interior area where you see the lots that a lot of that's been graded a few years ago this was ready to be developed they graded it they got the sewer in there through there and then the Gatton trust mr. Gatton died in trust has been held up for several years so that's why the aerial there shows that it's that that gray color is treatless and then where you see the dark areas most all that is off of these lots and in the greenway thank you all right all right thank you mr kelly there's only one person in here is Mr. Nicholson back there, but I don't think he wants to speak, so I'll bring him back to the commission. And if there's no questions, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval for PLN MJSUB 24-3 Tuscany Unit 11 Phase 2 with the 15 conditions provided by staff. Second. Thank you. We got a second by Mr. Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously and we need a waiver. Additionally Mr. Chairman I'd like to offer approval for plan MJS SUB 24-3 Tuscany unit with the findings and petition for a waiver for the land subdivision regulations. Second. Okay we have a motion and a second by Mr. Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Okay that motion passes unanimously as well. Thank you. Thank you. All righty. Mr. Duncan. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you all for dispensing with the items on this agenda. We will see you all again in one week on Thursday, April 18th for the Planning Commission work session in the third floor of the Phoenix building. Okay, thank you. We will send that out before the meeting, yes. Okay, thank you.