you you you you you you you you you you here happy new year to everybody it seems like it's kind of late to be saying happy new year but I haven't seen y'all since sometimes last year uh but uh we'll go ahead and get started with our subdivision committee meeting do you know where that is? I don't think it's there hold on one second let's see it feels like it's going to move on me maybe not good morning um um okay the first plan we're going to be looking at is a pln uh mjdp 2495 newtown springs lot 4 uh located at 1425 newtown center um this is just south of the intersection of citation and newtown um this is uh this amendment is to depict a restaurant drive-through parking and circulation on outlot 4 um there are uh 12 oh and this is zoned uh b1 uh there are 12 standard sign-offs and then we have um to denote the purpose of the plan uh document lighting plan for article 30 of the zoning ordinance dimension all access points drive aisles and walkways uh the southeast access point rear walkway are missing uh denote a review and recommendations of royal springs aquifer wellhead protection committee um denote variances approved by the board of adjustment on september 9th uh 2024 and then upon the condition of the board of adjustment approving the drive-through facilities and b1 a drive-through is a conditional use um i'm trying to think if there's anything else off the top of my head um i think that's all i've got unless you all have questions for me questions for staff yeah thank you um you said corner of newtown and citation uh it's it's not the corner it's not the corner it's a little bit south okay like below starbucks okay all right thank you yeah slowly we're getting there uh good morning number 18 we did file the board of adjustment for the drive-through yesterday that'll be heard february 10th um and the only thing i've had is number 16 i've reached out to georgetown at least twice now is there any way that they don't call me back is there any way you guys know they don't yeah okay all right probably won't be before next week right but but the good news is your use yes no gas station all right correct yeah just some food and drinks very much similar to the next door starbucks what sort of restaurant are we talking i can't say that's why i said very similar it's not another starbucks can we i will try to find that answer out you can look at the design and try to pick from all right any other questions for the applicant all right thank you thanks do we have any public comment all right if not we'll bring it to the committee madam chair i'll move for recommendation approval of plan mjdp 24-95 newtown springs lot four with the 18 noted conditions second all right it's been moved in second all in favor all right okay okay next we're going to move to ramsey mjdp 24 96 ramsey sullivan property unit three lot one you'll have revised conditions i'm afraid if i bend it too much it's there we go um you'll see that you'll have revised conditions in your packet a revised plan had come in and it was reviewed this property is located at the corner of kearney ridge and georgetown road we saw this not too long ago it's for a convenience store with gas pumps um they had um had it originally had the back of the building towards georgetown road and they weren't able to i guess get financing for it so they've come in with a revised plan and so now they've rotated the building they still have the gas pumps in about the same location it's just they've changed it removed the drive-through on the building because they had proposed a drive-through on the previous plan this this property is zone b1 for the neighborhood business as you can see we have still we have the typical first 11 conditions are typical sign-offs clarify the size of existing trees per article 26 since we changed the the diameter of the tree i wanted to verify and make sure that they because it reduced the size of it so we asked for clarification on the sizing of the trees document lighting plan per article 30 of the zoning ordinance and then we had one discussion question discuss compliance with article 8 16 b 14 for an automobile service station since they are revising this plan it creates a new plan and when you look at the revised b1 zoning it states that an automobile service had to be approved construction as far as a certificate of occupancy or a business license prior to june 27th 2024 and so we wanted to we do not know if they had had a business license for this property to be able to continue the idea of a convenience store with gas pumps because the in the b1 zone you're no longer allowed to have the gas pumps so with that i'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions any questions for staff any questions for staff okay thank you applicant good morning uh matt carter vision engineering uh let's see number 12 the trees uh we've checked all the trees that uh let's see see what oh okay well let me just point grove of trees right here and our disturbed limits none of the trees are of the size that you have to list the uh the caliper of it so um that's why we don't have listed they're all like small uh uh pears and i think there was one ash tree but it was real small um there are there is a grove along the south side um it's on the other side of the detention basin we're not even doing any work in that area so we didn't list them um do what so okay i just know on previous plans you said if it was outside the disturb limits you weren't so concerned oh so you've never listed any of the trees we we listed the trees but there's there's probably 200 trees in that small area and we're just we're not doing any work there so um uh if you want us to list them i mean it's just this yeah and we do have that listed uh lighting plan as soon as we get this uh approved by the planning commission we'll have a lighting plan uh done for it we'll get that turned in before certification um uh number 14 this is new to me i wasn't aware of it i mean we have a approved gas station there already so i don't know why we can't do something that we already have approved because you filed the previous one prior to the text amendment so it proceeded under the old regulations and we're amending the previous one but now the ordinance has changed and we have to review your new development plan this development plan because it's still a vacant tract under the current ordinance which says you basically can keep an existing gas station that has a business license or a certificate of occupancy prior to the june 2024 date do you have either of those things obviously you don't have an occupancy do you have a business license oh i don't know i mean that's the only thing i wasn't prepared for this that's our reading of the ordinance change um we talked to long range since they they really did the heavy lifting on drafting the ordinance um and that was the reading too so i mean why why are we not grandfathered in when we did a zone change no and this was going to be gas station you didn't do a zone change oh okay that property's been zoned b1 since like 2004 so but anyway we we have a development plan i i mean it's gonna be tough to go to the owner and say okay you you can do one you just can't do it the you have to go back to the other way that's i mean we can talk to the law department but that's sort of our reading of the ordinance that you got approved for that under the previous text and now it's changed and unless you have a business license that's been issued for the site i'll look into that and my again my conversation with long range and with mr crumb here is that we had communicated that to the applicant okay that you know the ordinance was going to change and they needed to proceed with their plans in order to stay under the so they had to have a business license prior to the june whatever okay yeah june 27th 2024 otherwise now you know our reading of the ordinance is a gas station is not allowed there today unless they build what's approved so right there's all obviously a bunch of other uses that are allowed in a b1 so yeah they're not interested in that though okay okay we have any questions for the applicant all right doesn't sound like any any public comment all right committee so i've got a question uh i guess tracy um with what you all were talking about can 14 be resolved and let you all deal with that if they don't come up with it then it doesn't go forward i would think that they could provide that by next week so that you wouldn't approve a use that isn't compliant with the ordinance you don't want it to be resolved i would love for them to bring their business license next week so you don't want to be resolved yes right okay all right just asking so that we don't end up i'd rather the commission not approve something that can't be okay that's against the ordinance right i mean okay right okay that'd be the same for a minor development plan if they're something now the door doesn't change they just want to do little tweaks is it for a gas station i think we would so rory's question is about minor amendments to development plans where and if there's an existing non-conforming use we would follow article four about that any non-conforming non-conforming structure non-conforming use non-conforming lot so all of those are covered in article four yes can't make it more non-conforming so if i may let me ask one more question uh if it's not resolved can it be approved with the discussion item no okay not a gas station but based on this ordinate this new b1 ordinance and this june 24 date we have had a case where something was approved by both by his own change and then later by you all for a development plan but it didn't get meet all the requirements by the june 24th date we you all approved it then the um we got sued over it and right now we're waiting because of the i'm assuming because of the holiday but we've been we were told from the bench by the judge that that june 24th date means if you don't meet all the requirements then whatever it is for the b1 if it says no gas station if it says you have to have a certified plant if it says you whatever is in there that changed and was applicable on june 27th to 24 means you're you're stuck with it in that case she said the judge said you all have approved a use that is no longer permitted in this b1 zone for on the development plan and so she reversed your decision now we haven't seen it in writing yet because i don't know why but she told us from the bench it's on the record so that's what we're dealing with and and and many of these same questions were raised during that case about well we submitted this we've done this you the planning commission approved in it and those things are all true but the fact of the matter was the very specific requirements that that new ordinance listed that had to be met by june 24th june of 24 we're not and so i don't know going forward but that's where we are right now and so you know we're trying to alert everyone and have been since before that ordinance went into play that this potentially could happen so um you know i it might be problematic for you to approve something that we know no longer meets the requirements as of june of 24. uh we're talking about meets requirements that mean certification in that in that particular case it was certification it may be like in this case it may be did they have a business license or you know there are different things listed there but basically that june 27 24 date controls what's allowed in the new b1 and when certain things have to be met by that date in order for you to go forward okay so we um we have to postpone it is our at this point i think okay all right all right can we get a motion okay so uh i'll madam chair i'll move for recommendation postpone and plan mjdb dp 24-96 ramsey sullivan property with the now revised 14 condition leaving 14 as discussed second all right it's been moving a second all in favor unanimous postponement yeah our next case um the applicant informed us that they had not had an opportunity to meet with traffic engineering about changes and so they requested a postponement continued postponement for park hills shopping center lot four and they'll be at the meeting next week to request that or we'll email i guess okay do we need to vote on that i think you've already voted to recommend postponement from last is this a new one oh yes you do need to vote okay all right i recommend a motion to postpone pln mjdp 24-97 park hill shopping center lot four second it's been moved and second all in favor all right we're gonna move down the agenda we're gonna be on page three mjdp 24-98 hoover ford philpot evangelist association property the fountains of palomar amended we are out at the corner of harrisburg road and man o' war excuse me um the large publics that's the large structure on this property they're asking for a sign and on the at the time the zone change went through it said that they had to amend a development plan to put a sign on this property um and so they're proposing a sign here the other problem with this is um it's adjacent to an easement so they're having to go through the process of asking for an encroachment also at the same time for this sign so um at this time they're working with water quality division water quality for their encroachment um so we only had a couple um sign offs uh engineering and traffic and then we just need to make sure that they add the new site statistics box to the plan so with that i'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions you have any questions for staff yes can can you explain the structure of the sign i'm just curious okay okay um it it's a concrete foundation in a steel post and uh i believe the the base of that may be out of the easement it's it's the overhang of the sign that's in the easement um and so that required us to get an encroachment agreement we've gone through the process with the encroachment agreement and they're okay with it in water quality uh with the caveat that we have to amend the development plan uh two things we have to mend the development plan um which this that's what we're doing here and we also have to build uh a sewer extension to the property just north of that sign let me it's not shown on here but there's a sanitary sewer running up through here and the easement crosses the sign right there um we have to get sewer to this site um when when the sewer was built the lot lines were a little different well now that publics has come in this lot lines moved north a little bit so currently the lot's not sewered so we have to extend the sewer 18 feet set a new manhole and then we'll you know and get that turned into engineering apply and get that approved um we're in the process now of doing the sewer um should have it finished tomorrow and i'm sending that to engineering for approval so um i think the design of it yeah well it's just 18 feet i mean it's it's not much to design this so yeah i thought you were saying you were you were constructing the sewer not yet because you said the sewer will be done tomorrow yeah okay but i don't anticipate this being like a long process to get 18 feet of sewer approved so but anyway the bottom line is i think we should be good on this development plan to go forward but we've gone through all the uh encroachment agreement process just the last thing is to do the development plan and then build the sewer so that's where we're at okay thank you we have any questions for that thanks all right uh public comment committee we're back at the committee thank you madam chair i'll move for recommendation approval plan mjdb 24-98 hoover and ford philpot evangelistic association property of fountains uh with the three conditions can we get a second a second okay let's move a second all in favor almost unanimous we do have a few updates on postponed items let's see number a or letter a under development plans chris do you have that one um distillery district west yes okay um yeah so this one's um case mjdp 24-10 distillery district you know uh west unit located at 11 58 11 70 11 80 and 11 86 through 12 28 manchester street the purpose of this plan is to add 4 500 square foot building on 11 58 manchester street and revise use of the building on 11 70 manchester street let's see we have the 13 standard sign-offs and then we had some revisions and we still have correct the spelling and the required parking calculations table correct numbering and general notes discuss compliance with storage restrictions in article 19 of the zoning ordinance discuss proposed retail use in the new building discussed angled vehicle parking along east side of property and discuss proposed compliance with new construction requirements in article 19 of the zoning ordinance um do you all have any questions for me have any questions for staff um okay not no i'm sorry um what's the use of this is this it's a little confusing the the table says retail but then the box here on the plan says showroom and and d and r area but i do think it's still u-haul okay this is the u-haul project we've seen before yes yeah yes okay we'll listen okay let's hear from the applicant thank you staff you need more excitement when you say u-haul u-haul yes um so it's been a long process but we have been working with engineering the biggest hang-up has been the floodplain and building inside the floodplain so we had to obtain a special use permit while we're working on that but we're to the point now where engineering has told us we're good for you to go ahead with the development plan we've satisfied them enough von i don't know if you've talked to josh on this but we've been working with josh uh is i guess i don't know his title floodplain coordinator i don't know what his title is in engineering but uh we've been working with josh desarn and uh he basically said he's he's engineering's good with it now um um uh well let's do the easy ones uh the the the retail use in the building so um this is jeff he's he's the owner um the reason i put retails because i didn't know what to put they they obviously they rent u-haul but uh in the building they do have and jeff can go into more detail they do have a retail component in that they sell boxes they sell you want to yeah we sell boxes we we sell moving supplies and anything that anyone would need to to purchase when they complete their a move um and we also sell like straps and stuff like that so this it's a retail showroom and we also you know rent trucks out of there rent storage units out of there but so it's it is retail but in the sense that it only applies to rent new halls so the retail is accessory to the principal use which is the rental of u-haul vehicles yeah yes so that's really the use yeah yeah and i don't i mean you tell me what the correct title to put in the dp i don't know is it what is it rental yeah establishment for the rental of okay vehicles yeah um so yeah number 19 uh proposed compliance with uh new requirements of article 19 i mean i'm assuming we're good in the fact that we've met with engineering uh we've been working with them for months on this and josh desarn has told us to move forward so you probably will need to note on the development plan how you're going to comply with article 19 in terms of new construction for instance this building is in the floodplain right wholly in the floodplain so it needs to meet the water moving through the first floor portion or it needs to be raised two feet those kind of requirements so that needs to be noted on here so that when you get a permit von or josh or whoever is with building inspection looking at that will know exactly how you're meeting article okay and just so you know we had two options i don't know if y'all remember way back when we discussed this before but one was put fill in set the building on top of the fill get a special use permit or put it on stilts where it's above the floodplain i think we still had to get a special use permit but we opted to go with the fill and not put it on stilts so that's what we've been working with engineering that's the direction we went so we can put that in verbiage on the plan that talks about that the angled vehicular parking on the east side of the property that is where they'll be parking their uh u-hauls yes we're we've shown our our vehicles that we have for rental and it's so that's going to get us to number 16 uh compliance with storage restrictions yeah so i mean these are vehicles we're not it's not a storage yard where uh you know there's not pallets of materials out there there's vehicles so well from from planning's perspective our reading of the ordinance is that those vehicles cannot be vehicles cannot be be there for longer than 24 hours okay and that's in article 9 it doesn't have to do with 19 doesn't have to do with article 8 your permitted use it has to do with the fact that your permitted use is now in the floodplain and so the floodplain regulations have additional requirements and we just won't allow vehicles and they're there now which is a problem right they they are not allowed to be in the floodplain for 24 hours because they could get washed away right i mean that's the whole point so your use is your use is okay it's it's the storage of the vehicles for longer than a day but we don't store them on on site we we see them every day oh yeah they come in they go back out and they come in they go back out we don't have just an infinite amount of vehicles sitting there waiting to be rented which we that's not how we conduct our business so every one of the vehicles that are there moves every day more than likely yes i mean except for today like today or monday when it snowed a lot but yeah and uh doug you're here what can you i mean i i know we've been working with you guys and we have but i was watching my office doug burton director of engineering i'm also the floodplain administrator josh josh who's our commercial project manager also assists me in the floodplain management um so we've been working with you guys because we've seen 15 different iterations of a u-haul building here and other buildings apartment buildings etc and they all of them ran into the same challenges that we're trying to put a building in a floodplain um and we don't allow that um but everyone keeps trying and that's fine that you're right but at some point you're going to get to requesting a special use permit we're going to tell you no because it's not a permitted use and you're going to have to go to floodplain appeals committee so the reason i rushed down here frankly is because you said we've been working with engineering and engineering said it's okay that's not what we said you've been working with engineering to figure out what the process is the same as we've done on a couple other properties in town where they wanted to build in or near floodplain and the process is once we get you to understand that development plan submitting construction plans asking a special use permit floodplain appeals committee is the process we've had we've explained that to some people and they're like well we're not going to do this because that's a lot of process because you may get to the floodplain appeals committee and they just say no and you're done like that project is done and that's what we've been trying to explain josh and i've been trying to explain to you and again the previous other owners and folks have had plans on this site but we've never said engineering said this is okay i just want to clarify that because well what i said was okay to move forward with the development plan process you could do that the entire time the the issue that we had on previous plans is that it wasn't clear what you were going to build here or where if you built it on pillars or some way where you're not encroaching on the floodplain it was really easy yes you can move forward and probably wouldn't even need to get to the floodplain appeals committee what you're showing now i assume is on phil it's going to have to go all the way floodplain appeals committee right but i guess what i'm asking is can we approve the development plan contingent upon a special use permit and the floodplain committee appeals committee approving this yeah i think so with the understanding that you may have a long road to hoe here and get to the end and just be told no yeah i mean it's kind of the order of operations we do we want to spend all this effort doing all that if if we're not going to get our development plan approved i'd rather know that there's the potential to get this development plan approved and then we go do all that i think you can get it approved to me there's an inherent conflict with the parking spaces there um because it in it indicates that the vehicles will be parked there and once they're parked there we lose some control over how long they're parked there and so it becomes an enforcement issue and we're sending people out there to document how long a vehicle's there and then giving you violations and so is that really the best use of the government's time i i see it as an inherent conflict to show parking in the in the floodplain for your vehicles trucks trailers all of that wouldn't we want to have designated areas where we have them shunted ready to rent on a different site yes in the floodplain that is problematic because we never know when there's going to be a flood right right could be today i mean but that could be that you could make the same case for my tenants in the lower level where that we have their vehicle parking if they leave them there your tenants being the the bars yeah or there's yeah they don't stay overnight but the people who go to those bars they could actually leave their vehicle there overnight because they and there's signs that say flood right but right but it's the same thing but we have designated parking for those vehicles but it's a i mean it's a different use it's not a residential use it's not we're not permitting we're not telling the bar the restaurant hey you should allow people to park here overnight i understand that i'm just trying to make you know an example of like you said we never know when a flood can happen right and none of the rest of these uses have designated parking for extended periods of time they're all commercial uses where someone comes and gets ice cream and they leave right they're not parking there overnight but having a a oversized parking space for our size of our vehicles isn't indicating that it's going to be there more than 24 hours it's indicating it's a spot for well you just admitted that vehicles do stay longer than 24 hours when when i say on the days like when it's snowing yes okay okay yeah um what is the concern with with them staying there overnight um if there's a flood well let me just say let me finish first if there's a flood two things can happen one he can move all these vehicles out and move them to some other location yeah he has a lot of staff and they can they've got other places they can take their vehicles to also you know earlier it was brought up concern tom martin he had a picture of a car floating down a creek and that was funny but reality is these are big trucks and if something happened we we if something happened we put a guardrail along the creek to keep anything from washing into the creek so i've got a question for you if this is a different use let's say a multi-family development as we're looking at article nine which is a flood plain which relates to the flood plain the vehicles that would be parked at a multi-family development would be less problematic for because they by definition are not storage and most likely are you are moved within 24 hours is that correct and so what we're looking at here is we're dealing with article 9 excuse me article 19 which relates to the flood plain and storage of vehicles is the problem correct and the reason we can say storage of vehicles because of the use which has been identified by the owner here okay thank you yes i don't know but i i question the definition of what is storage i mean uh do you do you consider i mean it's not like stuff sitting on the ground on pallets it's vehicles that can be moved and and frankly vehicles being moved by the water are more dangerous than a pallet right i mean a we all know that floodwaters do not care about a boundary a metal guardrail is not going to stop a 2 000 pound truck or more from getting into the creek okay i mean really what we're talking about is the legal distinction between car storage for cars that for sale and for rental you're trying to say that's different because they're going to likely move more often but i'm not sure there's a distinction right is that where is that our perspective is there's not really a distinction in that respect or it becomes a maintenance or not a maintenance but an enforcement issue for our staff to be out there to in order to protect the rest of the community right i mean nobody wants the dumpster floating down the creek either we also don't want u-haul trucks in the creek at all the way to prevent that is through these regulations that's what we have well i'm glad you brought up dumpsters because there's a detail on here that i guess y'all discussed this on you know before i was involved in other aspects of this development you had dumpsters in the floodplain and you had to you know show a detail how it has holes in the side to reduce hydrostatic pressures and um so i mean madam chair if i may um i guess one of the reasons my first question was what the use was because it's i seem to remember that it was a u-haul yeah as you said when tom martin was still here um and and i appreciate the vision of engineering coming down for clarification but the age-old question originally was pretty much the storage of vehicles rental vehicles in a floodplain at that time and i'm sorry to say it doesn't sound like that's been resolved yet you know that needs to be resolved and then this thing can move forward as far as i'm concerned you've done work as far as okay fill for the building to raise it above floodplain or stilts you've done that work and so forth and when i started hearing that it's like okay are you filling the whole thing to raise the parking lot where these vehicles going to be kept no no but you know the what i'm saying is it goes back to the fact that the original discussion was storage of vehicles in a floodplain and that's something you've got to resolve before this thing can move forward i'm sorry to say and let me just point this out to the whole parking lots not u-haul storage it's it's those angled large spots so so the lower spots can be used um you know by the bars and all the you know parking is a big issue out there so they needed a lot of parking so this does provide parking too in the floodplain so so anyway okay um any other questions for the applicant before we bring it back to committee okay thank you all right thank you all right committee it'll be your pleasure just with the committee my concern here is the storage of vehicles in a floodplain and as we're looking at this development plan um i think that's something we need to um address as part of our duty here um we are getting into language what storage what's not storage but we can be um advised on that in the future but this process as was described by engineering um we can either approve postpone or disapprove the development plan if the development plan is approved they still need to go through the whole floodplain process and at the end of that process they still may be denied i think it's important for the applicant to understand that we are evaluating the development plan concerned about the storage in the floodplain i just wanted to make that clear okay yeah that i guess that's been the issue all along so until we have something that changes that i don't know what else we could do that's where i am and by right they have the ability to to provide this use but we have a floodplain encroaching on the property that restricts the right of the property owner anyone want to make a motion oh i'll try um you know i i feel for the applicant in this situation and you know i'm not opposed to the use it's just the fact that if this thing's going to end up at floodplain appeals committee i think recognizing that and coming up with some sort of solution at the beginning which means now is needed so at this point in time my motion would be for recommendation of postponement of plan mjdp 24-10 distillery district west unit one with the revised 19 conditions in hopes that they continue working on this second it's been moving improperly second all those in favor aye okay we're unanimous we do have one other amendment to discuss today and that's on page four and it's a zoning development plan scheduled for january 30th hearing for higbee mill court lot 11 so the applicant has provided another revised development plan and we'll go over the changes here you might recall this is at the end of higbee mill road on the east end and higbee mill runs parallel to man o' war boulevard in this area and then adjacent to the site are some lots that front onto cefas way and one of the issues was the abandonment or non-use of right-of-way through this area so the applicant received their half of the right-of-way of what would have been higbee mill as it came around and connected to man o' war one of the adjacent property owners has also done that and then the other two are able to do that so that's this little dashed area to the side acknowledging that those two property owners have the ability to acquire that land the applicant has made modifications to their plan and then further made modifications to address some of the infrastructure issues so higbee mill court art road in order to subdivide into different lots we have to meet the subdivision regulations too which means you need an appropriate termination to higbee mill road so the applicant has now displayed the standard size cul-de-sac whereas previously it was I would say about two thirds the size so this does meet the 40 foot from the center radius out to here so across the entire way it's 80 feet from back a curb to back a curb that does meet the land subdivision regulations and would comply in addition they do have a sidewalk that goes around most of the most of the site it stops here because of that land that couldn't be acquired by the adjoining cfas way property and then there are not sidewalks on the north side of higbee mill so they stopped their sidewalk here and then they reduce the number of units from seven to six so that allows for them the applicant to meet the side yard requirements adjacent to the single family home here as well as adjacent to the backyards of the cfas way properties so we no longer need a variance to side yards where those were requested before the one issue or two issues that remain for the site are the vehicular use area in the front yard those need to although they've reduced the amount of pavement in the required front yard which is only 10 feet here and those buildings are set back the problem is they haven't shown shared driveways so for our attached single family townhouses the ordinance now requires that there be shared driveways so these two units would have to share their access point to higbee mill same thing for the two middle ones one so one curb cut and then same thing for these last two so instead of six driveways accessing higbee mill we we need to have three that meets the ordinance and then the other thing would be meeting the requirement of article eight which is a staggering of our townhouses so this hasn't come up for a while but the ordinance requires that you only have three units at the same setback then you stagger so right now these four center ones are all the same setback so one of them or two it really doesn't matter would have to stagger slightly three feet in order to meet the article eight requirement and then the last item is discussed place builder criteria and at this point we usually ask mr crumb if he has anything to add about that i've got a question about the staggering sure would the requirement for every fourth unit to be staggered reduce the number of units that could be developed on this property in any way no okay so they are not constrained by setback issues in order to meet the requirement of staggering right they can either push this one forward three feet and be in line with this unit push this one forward that might affect their parking or even push them back slightly because they're they have a 30 a platted 30 foot building line in the back here it also has several easements so that doesn't occur until back here and so they would have they have about 20 feet between the end of the building and where that the easement starts but they're really about 45 feet from the edge of the right-of-way so that's something that can be resolved yes without reducing the number of units further on this property exactly okay that's good to know thank you and so the staff at this point now that we're i think very close um they can make these two modifications the staff is recommending approval of the development plan just wanted to update a couple things on the place builder side of things we do not have an updated zoning report yet but some of the things that we talked about with regards to place builder in the zoning side of things has been addressed with the the kind of changes that they made so once again it's meeting more of the ordinance requirements by reducing the number of units etc one of the things that we had pointed out in the zoning staff report was neighborhood engagement neighborhood involvement sort of to that point that really hadn't been a dialogue between the applicant and the neighborhood however subsequent to that the applicants provided us some information where they've reached out to the neighborhood association and the neighborhood association in this instance isn't supportive of the request but they've had that that dialogue and the applicant has made a good faith effort to kind of engage them with that so just wanted to give a quick update on that subsequent to this we should have a new updated zoning staff report in time for the 30th meeting but really that that was the major update was the inclusion of that public outreach information as well as the modifications to the site so thank you and an applicant is here if you want to okay I think this is a an improved plan of course with the the size of the cul-de-sac being increased it will be a challenge to relocate some of those utilities so I can see that there's a lot of public utilities that aren't ours that will need to be you know relocated and addressed and easements resolved which is another long process but but thank you okay applicant do you have anything to add excuse me have any questions for me anyone have questions for the applicant thank you for your approval well thank you well let's bring it back to committee for an official vote okay so Vaughn you're okay with the sign-offs considering what you were just talking about yes they'll just have to work through okay at all please go ahead motion uh madam chair i'll move for recommendation of approval plan mjdp-22-59 higbee mill court lot 11 with the now revised uh nine conditions second all right it's been moved and seconded all those in favor unanimous all right thank you and then we don't have any other revised plans but there are a few people here in the audience so we'll see if mr carter or i'm sorry i don't know your name lexi okay yeah didn't recognize you um are there any other cases you wanted to discuss okay oh okay okay all right then if that's all then meeting is adjourned you be it's all right darling here comes so here we go