Good morning, everybody. Well, it's about it's about 830. We'll go ahead and get started. Just want to make everybody aware, remind everybody now our TRC meetings will be televised, so if you're gonna make a comment or have a question or something, make sure you talk into a microphone so we can hear you. And I think other than that, we're pretty much ready to go. I'll turn it over to Cheryl. Good morning. Sorry for the voice. We're gonna start on the first plan is MJSUB 25-3 Patchin' Wilks Unit 1 Phase 2. We looked at this not too long ago as a preliminary subdivision plan. They've come in with the revised plan to reconfigure the number of lots, increasing the number of lots to 115 buildable lots with one HOA lot. With that, this is Patchin' Wilks Drive. We have Winchester Road up here. There's a neighborhood already built, large homes here, and then we have the townhomes that going across Winchester Road. So, we're gonna move backwards, back towards the remaining piece of, not the remaining, but a portion of the property and we show the 115 lots. We have engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike, green space, divisional water quality for your CAP program, denotes source of contours, addition of note 11 from the previous plan referencing the HOA maintenance, and discuss the loss of the shared use trail along Patchin' Wilks Drive. That was note number 14 from the previous plan. So, I'm opening it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. I guess the applicant can step up. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. 1 through 11, we're all good with. 12, there was never a shared use trail along Patchin' Wilks Drive. That was standard sidewalks. The note on there talks about a shared use trail that was connecting across from Patchin' Wilks Drive to the open space. The cross-section, we never had a multi-use trail in Patchin' Wilks Drive. From Patchin' Wilks Drive to where your open space was on the previous plan? So, is there, is that? The wording was a little funny, so. Well, and I put in my comments that we need something connecting that greenway from this property. So, either across slots 1 and 2 or somewhere between 1 and 12, there needs to be an access with the sidewalk provided to that greenway. Yeah, and I saw that. I gotta get with the clients to see what their options are. Okay. So, I guess I would suggest modifying that condition to resolve access from Patchin' Wilks Drive to the greenway. Yeah, that makes sense. Is there any other comments from tech committee? This is more of a question. Given the clientele that will be here and the existing conditions that we've heard about the crossing of Winchester Road from this development at the bridge, trying to get to, is there any commitment from the developer or the builder about any improvements at the intersection for getting school kids across over to Summerfield at this location? No, I've never heard anything about off-site improvements. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Steve, are they not within a mile? Are they within a mile? Is that the issue of the high school and so they have to walk? Yeah, we currently have kids walking across Winchester Road at the bridge. 7 or 8 lanes of traffic. Patchin' Wilks Bridge. I know it's signalized, but at the time that that was built, the state was less apt to allow you to put curb and gutter and ramps. I know haymakers have built ramps on the other side. I don't think we've got anything of significance at this location, but that was more of a time-being-built thing rather than I think it was built today. It would probably be a little bit different, but just an ask. So the staff recommends approval with a change to number 12 to resolve access from Patchin' Wilks Drive to the Greenway. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Thank you. All right, moving along. The next plan, MJDP 25-25 Enterprise Industrial West, Unit 1, Lots 6, 7, and 8. Thomas property located at 790 Enterprise Drive. Purpose of this plan is to depict the proposed expansion to an existing commercial building. The original building, which is a little hard to see on the screen, down here in the bottom right, and actually north would be oriented. In our plan view here, south is to the top, so this would be the northwest corner of the property. There's associated parking with the existing structure, and they're proposing to add a 15 and a half by 30 foot addition to the rear of the existing building. The existing building was built in 1993. It's been in place for a while. We do have 12 standard conditions and then some cleanup conditions. Number 13 is to orient the design scheme and vicinity map with north to the top of plan. Add north arrow to the vicinity map. Denote written scale in addition to graphic scale. Update plan title to match staff report. Depict subject property boundary with solid lines. Depict contours with dashed lines. All line types should be different and distinct. Depict a 20-foot building line. Delineate and dimension all parking drive aisles, bicycle parking, and walkways per Article 16 of the zoning ordinance. Depict the vehicular use area perimeter buffer per Article 18-3A-2. Denote height in feet of existing building and proposed addition. Depict all existing and proposed easements, and because this is a final development plan, to provide a tree inventory map and tree protection plan for Article 26 of the zoning ordinance, and provide a lighting plan in compliance with Article 30 of the zoning ordinance. And with that, I'll open it up to you all for discussion. I don't know who to direct the comments to. Kyle back there in the back. There's some standard notes that we look for on development plans, and so you can look at all the comments in a CELA and with some direction on those. This is more of a comment for planning. This original landscape plan did not have any side screening, and they're not modifying the parking. They're just doing that little, so I don't know what they're gonna have to do other than what's existing out on Enterprise. So I think our concern was this plan doesn't really depict what area is actually parking. Sure. So even in an industrial zone in the 90s, you were still supposed to be screening parking. Absolutely. If it's storage area, then you know, no screening was required. So you just want to see that. First, we need to know where there's parking, where it's parking, and then they should have screening associated with parking spaces. It should. Yeah. And it would have been required, should have been required in the 90s too. Absolutely. It just wasn't on that approved plan from back in the 90s for whatever reason. Yeah. So at the very least, we need to see on this plan where their landscaping is shown, and then if there's any modifications to parking, because it looked like from the aerial, the building is being placed where parking was previously. So, yes. Any other questions for staff or comments? Applicant, you want to come on up and introduce yourself. Kyle Hoag, Mizzou Engineering. Yeah, so I think he's pretty well explained it. Just a smaller expansion to an existing building. So open for any comments, questions. Is there an existing pedestrian connection to the public right-of-way on on this property? I think planning had mentioned that this is just missing like content, like sidewalk connections, bike parking, things that are requirements. It does have sidewalk in front, is that what you're talking about? Up to the building entrances, access ADA compliant access to the building. That's what we're looking for. So if that's not the case, when you put that on here, that would be something that would need to be added. Just add a note, is what you're saying? Add a sidewalk connection from the building to the public right-of-way. Sure. And that needs to be ADA compliant. Please. Sure. Can you show your parking lot? Yeah. Where stalls are, the dimensions. Obviously there's gonna be some changes in a parking lot and with this addition. So can you show if it's existing, that's fine, but it needs to be shown on the plan and then what you're proposing as far as changes to the parking lot. Yeah, it's a little, we'll call it mixed-use. They don't really utilize the line work as much, especially in the back where the expansion is going. Yeah, in the front especially, it's more clear on the parking. I'll add some detail there. As far as the the lighting plan requirement, is that something, nothing's being adjusted, changed? Does it still need to be reassessed? You're not installing any outdoor lighting with this addition, on the addition? No, none. Not to my knowledge, no. Well if they change their mind and they get to building inspection, building inspection will ask for a lighting plan. But if there is no lighting, I can just add that as a note that. Yes. It's okay. Any other questions or comments? Staff does recommend approval with. Actually, sorry, one other thing before we go. The tree inventory plan, the tree protection plan, we had talked before. Hey, Eric, sorry, we had talked before a little bit. Are we still okay on just sort of identifying what's there? We're not going to be anywhere close to existing trees, no real chance of damage. Any other thoughts, comments there just before? Yeah, anything specific on a tree protection plan or we're far enough away that there's not really any protection proposed that far away? Sorry, hello world. The tree inventory is basically just a listing of what's on-site, the size, species, location that transfers to the tree protection plan, all that information. And then you need to show tree protection areas if you're going to have construction happening near the trees. I think from my understanding, there really wasn't anything going to be happening that people, any construction vehicles are going to be coming in the driveway, etc. So we just need to know what's there and then if you have to, existing canopy coverage stats, that kind of thing, and then just to make sure you're meeting what's required. And if you're not, then you have to provide extra trees for that and that's what the TPP would be. Okay, just but it does need to be formalized on a separate plan. I'd try to convince it all on the same one. But yeah, I would just just take that whenever you update that, just take it and you can just create another document. Yeah, exactly. And then you just have all the tree information on it. Sure. Okay, I'll get you an updated plan. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Staff doesn't recommend approval with conditions. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. We're going to move forwards. We're going to MJDP 2529 Coleman Property, Newtown Pike, Hampton Inn Suites. We are out Newtown Pike and this is Coleman Court. You have the I-75-64 up in this area here. They had a development plan that was signed and they came back. They're coming back because they've changed the footprint of this building. They said that they're changing the location of square footage, which was lengthening this building footprint. So that's, excuse me, decreasing the open space. So that's required to make it a major amendment. So with that, we have the following sign-offs. Engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike pad, green space, fire, waste management. On our site statistics box, we need to add a total column, remove the copyright note from the plan face. This becomes public information after submittal. Remove note number 26 and submit the lighting plan per article 30 of the zoning ordinance. That is required at time of filing. Addition of record plot information, dimension access points, building and canopy. Denote the review and recommendation of the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Committee. This is located within that area. Addition of number of rooms in the hightail site statistics. You have it on the plan face, but we like to see all that kind of information in our site statistics. We need to clarify the numbers in the site statistics for square footage, floor area ratio, open space, and tree canopy. Addition of the proposed and existing easements. Addition of frontage in the site statistics. To note the height of retaining walls. They have reconfigured some of the, there was a parking that went all the way out to here and they've reconfigured the parking and they have got retaining walls labeled that are coming all through here. They had these in the first plan, but this is a, I believe, new retaining walls. We need to know the height of those retaining walls. Clarify the area or areas for the parking, bike parking. They show, they labeled bike parking in two different areas, so I'm not sure, is this the correct location or is this location? We need to verify where those notes are. Correct direction of vicinity map. That should be the same as the plan. Addition of an open space exhibit. Since you are decreasing the amount of open space because you're increasing the footprint of the building, we need to have an open space exhibit. And discuss the relocation of the dumpster and the removal of the access, emergency access lane from the previous plan. Let's see if this, okay. On the previous plan, this driveway access was connected over to the adjacent property. Now they are removing the connection. As you can see, there's a parking area here. They're removing that connection, adding parking spaces here, and putting in a dumpster. This was an emergency access for the other property and for your property, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed for removal. So that's a question as to, I know you're relocating the dumpster because of the detention area that you were, you added up here due to that. So I'm not sure if that's been all discussed with our other divisions. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Maude, did you have something? Just to clarify, some of the, one of the reasons for bringing the plan back was to, I guess, reduce the amount of disturbance to the existing stormwater management in that area. There's an existing drainage area there, just to note it as do not disturb on this plan, which was previously, they were going to put it underground and going through the calculations and everything, we think this is a better solution. Okay, but they still intend to put something underground? It's just up front here? I haven't seen all the details of the stormwater plan. Proposed underground detention area. That may be what's required for this development, this hotel, this parking, whereas the one that's do not disturb was related to everything outside of this property. I understand. Is there, are they here? Oh, sorry. The, on the previous development plan, there was a connection out to Coleman Court from the proposed five-story hotel, and that is gone, so there'll need to be some type of connection out to Coleman Court. I see this one down here to here. Oh, he's talking pedestrian access. Yes, sidewalks. Pedestrian. There was one that, where your existing, where your new retaining wall is that continued on out, so just if you can find another location or some way to accommodate that, that'll need to be added back in. And then, the other thing I want to bring up, the state has terminated the sidewalks right at, about where you're, or just past where your property line begins on their project on Newtown Pike, and we've requested that they build them all the way out to Coleman Court, and they've said that they may need some additional right-of-way in order to do that. That may impact, temporarily impact where those trees would be located, so if you have a second after this meeting to talk about that so I can explain that in more detail, it would really be just a timing issue. I don't think it may not have to even be dedicated right away. It might just be temporary for grading, but just so you have what you need to talk with your client about it, because we want their project to get those sidewalks built, and then connect to your sidewalk that you're proposing. So, it's a kind of a coordination thing. So, if you got a second after this meeting to talk about that briefly, I'd appreciate it. Anyone else have any other comments or questions? Yes, Scott. So, with the proposed location of the dumpsters, is there other options, like, where you could install those at? Come over here, Scott. Yeah, just come up here. How do you do that little zoom-in thing? So, we could look at shifting that, and initially, so it's a two-part thing. Cheryl's right. I mean, one of the main purposes of this being major is because we did increase the building square footage by, you know, it was eight feet longer, so it added, you know, a couple hundred square feet. But also, one of the other main things, as Vaughn mentioned, was really we had a lot of issues in trying to mitigate receiving water from off-site and putting it underground, and just trying to meet all the criteria. And so, after about a year of going back and forth and trying to figure out what would be the best thing, we decided the best thing would be to not change it and leave it as existing. And so, that was the other part to it. And so, the dumpster was previously over there, and so we moved it here. I do think we could shift this or provide some sort of still emergency access if we had to. We hadn't had a chance to discuss it with you all, but we could shift that. As far as the parking, they have the ability for shared parking right across the street. So, if we lost a spot or two, they can still make that up on the other side. So, if that's absolutely necessary, we could still provide an access for emergency to get back and forth between there. So, this is emergency access down there where it's at currently? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, there is. Like, because currently there's, I mean, like, it just, the parking as existing is just kind of what's going across, but the property line's right there. And so, that's why you see us not touching anything over there, because that's not on our property. But the previous one did have just a connection, just a little drive-out connection for that. So, we could either shift this dumpster up just a little bit or even provide, you know, since that's the access we can maybe provide. It probably makes more sense to shift the dumpster up just a little bit and have a little drive-out connect right there so you can still maintain. I don't know how much you'd need, 12 or 14 feet for emergency access, because it wouldn't be a back and forth. When I look at the main thing, we need to get on and off the property as safe as possible. We don't want the dumpsters located around any parking or, you know, but if it's location here is not going to work, then up there where you're, I'd be happy to come out and, you know, do a site visit, you know, if you need me to. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, so is, is the, I mean, that point seemed to be the direct access for the dumpster. Is that not gonna work for you there or? I mean, it looks fine to me as far as, you know, if it's emergency. I mean, everybody with fire, that access point will need to be open and unobstructed. So, we need that to stay there. Yeah. As far as connectivity over into that other property. Yeah. So, as long as we had a straight, you know, straight shot where there's no obviously turning or backing up, it's, you can just go right, right into that either side. That's, that's what you need. And is it 14 foot wide or how? I need that access point to be maintained. I don't want anything to restrict us from being able to get across there. The other thing is that your dumpster is crossing a 40 foot setback. Okay. So, that's another problem. Yeah. I did want to make a comment too, just on, we're actually not decreasing open space because we've basically opened up more green space and shifting parking and taking some away. Just general comment, but one of the comments on here was provide an open space exhibit, which we'll provide that updated open space exhibit so you can see that. One more thing about the dumpster location, which I didn't see it, but Tracy was pointing out that there, it's over a sanitary sewer line and easement. So, we want that moved. Okay. Looks like that's where we'll put the access then, shift the dumpster. Are there any other comments? This time staff recommends approval. So moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. We're moving forwards. Now we're going to PLN, MJDP 2526, South Broadway Place, and Wingrove Addition. This is the first zone change on our list for the agendas today. This property is located off of, South Broadway is out in this location. We have a shopping center with the Sonic and everything. Then we have Export Street right here, Virginia Avenue, the railroad tracks. They're coming in to rezone a piece of property, a portion of this property down here, this that's located right here on Burley Avenue, and then we have Simpson Avenue and, I missed this one, Fern, I'm sorry, and there's a portion of it being rezoned here. They're proposing to come in to put in 220 multi-family dwelling units and then some townhomes down here in the bottom. With this being a zone change they're wanting to rezone it to the R4 zone. It's currently R1D and R1T and they're moving it to R, asking for R4 zone. We have our typical sign offs, engineering, traffic, urban forest or green space, environmental quality. We need a note that says to note, no building permits shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. We need addition of the cleanup conditions, addition of names and address of the developers. Remove the gray shading because that turns around, makes it hard to read and plus some of the text on there, once you start making copies you can't read the text any longer. To note the location of the construction access, addition of proposed and existing easements and building line setbacks. To note location of common open space when you're, there's a number of dwelling units you're required to have a certain area of open space for that. Addition of sidewalks to Burley Avenue. On the previous development plan, on the previous development plan, these townhomes down here had an access point that brought it out to Burley Avenue. So the only access for these would be to be up here through Simpson and bring it back down and around. So we're questioning the removal of that. That's a discussion question, I'm sorry. But addition of sidewalks to Burley Avenue. Addition of exhibits to meet the multifamily design standards. Remove note number 18, addition of contour elevations. I looked and I was only able to find one note so I wasn't quite sure which way the contours were sloping. Correct, the height information and the site statistics total. Discuss termination of a public street on Simpson Avenue. This does not meet the public street standards for a determination when it's bringing it into the development. There'll need to be a waiver as for or meet the public street termination. Discuss the removal of existing drive at the townhomes which on Burley Avenue which I just spoke of. Discuss the stormwater management plan including proposed relocation of existing modified detention basin from previous plan. The detention basin was a good part of this area and they had modified it because of other parts of development around it. Now, with this revised plan, it's showing... Right there, that's what they're showing as today. Okay, so with that we're questioning as far as the size with all the new construction and the new buildings and paving and then discuss place builder criteria which that'll be done in a later time. Open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Yeah, Water Quality has indicated this is a major designated flooding concern area because of downstream issues and as well as concerns from what is coming through this site upstream. So, there's major concerns about removing, basically removing what's on site currently. Okay. Without addressing those concerns. Anybody else? Okay. Yeah, the current configuration there's a sanitary sewer trunk line that they're not showing that they have their couple buildings on. Okay. I do have list existing and proposed. Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions? Okay. I don't know if the applicant wants to speak. Thank you, Tony Barrett. Barrett Partners here on behalf of Anderson Communities and the applicant. Just really don't have a whole lot more to add. We'll have to continue to work with Vaughn's group to address the stormwater management on the property. I'd like to leave the gray on until we get certified because I think it's easier to read from this perspective. Yeah. Yeah, I can do that. Yeah. Yeah. And then, open space, the common area open space is between the two longer, bigger buildings that back up to the railroad track there. That loop sidewalk is our common area open space. So, that's where we're defining that. And I'll get you an exhibit on that, boy. Other than that, I think we just need to keep working our way through and communicating and identifying what, how we need to address plan to move forward. So, I don't have any specifics at this time. If there's no other comments at this time, staff is recommending postponement. So, moved. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? Motion passes. All right. Moving along. Our next plan, MJDP 25-27 Patchen Wilkes Unit 2 amended, located at 1811 Winchester Road. This is a preliminary development plan in conjunction with a zone change. The purpose of this plan is to depict 127,000 square foot grocery store with parking, a gas station, and 154 multifamily dwelling units in support of the requested zone change from a neighborhood business B1 zone and planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a highway business B6P zone and removing the conditional zoning from the remaining B1 zoned area. So, this is located near the previous plan that we looked at. It's in this area up here. This is Winchester Road here. Frederick Douglass High School is just off of the plan to the bottom. This is proposed Charleston Drive to a roundabout and this is an extension of Thunder Stick which will go into the development to the east. The existing, currently the zone line runs roughly like this with the R3 to the north and B1 to the south. I believe the proposal is, trying to remember where the line ran, through the, oh yeah, right, right, right. So, the proposed change will include B6P to the north and then the remaining outlots to the south will be the B1 and where the applicants are proposing to remove the conditional zone. We do have seven standard notes or conditions. The first is provided the Urban County Council approves the zone change to B6P and removes the conditional zoning. Then engineering, traffic engineering, urban forester, green space, Department of Environmental Quality, and then to denote no building permits shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Then we have eight additional conditions, add a north arrow to the vicinity map, add a section line for cross-section EE, provide a tree inventory map for Article 26 of the zoning ordinance, depict the vehicular use area perimeter buffer per Article 18A2 of the zoning ordinance, depict proposed development of outlots two through six per Article 21 of the zoning ordinance, discuss lack of pedestrian connection between the multifamily residential and grocery store, discuss orienting proposed grocery store to Charleston Drive instead of Winchester Road, and discuss place builder criteria. With that, I'll open it up to you all for comments, questions. Number 14, it's a discussion item to discuss orienting the proposed grocery store to Charleston Drive instead of Winchester Road. So, it currently faces Winchester Road with its back to the residential to the north. So, we just had that as a discussion item. I guess from our perspective, it would make a bit more sense to put the rear of other commercial buildings that are already in existence off of executive and share the rear of this building as opposed to what Chris said was the rear of this building to Kroger to residential. If you orient it towards Charleston Drive, then you share the service areas of commercial and commercial next to each other and you're not creating noise or lighting issues for residential development. So, we're going to allow the applicant to speak first and then if there are people who want to speak from the public, we can allow that as well. Comments, they would be just about the technical issues of the plan, not the zone change itself or any aspects of that. I just had a couple of comments. Most of them are all in ESSELA. Some of the floodplain information is not shown on this DP that were on the previous DP. I have improvement plans for some of this area and what I have doesn't show how this lot's being specifically served by sanitary sewer, so that'll need to be worked out. The plans that have also show improvements to Winchester Road and this doesn't have any reference to that on this DP at all. They're adding a turn lane. It's shown, but there's not a lot of information on this related to that. We can read the rest in ESSELA. So, Traffic Engineering met with EA partners last week. Once we realized what was being proposed here and the Kroger's, we have talked about the size and dimensions of the shown roundabout and actually asked for them to reduce the size of that to be more in line with a 25 mile per hour speed. The cross section for Charleston Drive is currently a 74-foot cross section and we have some concerns about the speed. We went and looked at the Kroger's on Richmond Road, the width of the road along that property and have discussed with EA partners to come up with a to use a 60-foot cross section that is more in line with the collector of Blackford Parkway into the Bellhurst section and what that would do is reduce the lane widths, move the bike lane to a multi-use trail on the west side of Charleston and allow a connection that may be more comfortable for inexperienced bicyclists and pedestrians along the corridor from future connection to Crawford Middle School down all the way to Frederick Douglass with the with the floodplain being a greenway multi-use trail connections. What you're asking for doesn't meet the subregs. Correct. The subregs require a 74-foot cross section. But it doesn't forbid you using, it's still a collector. We can have that conversation offline, but a non-residential collector has a 74-foot right away. That's what's required. So less than that requires a waiver. Right, and that's what we've asked EA partners to do, is ask for a waiver. And then the first intersection there at the outlots, we've looked at the crash history of the outlot Furnage Road at Richmond Road, the provers. They're averaging approximately 15 to 20 accidents at that intersection. Very similar numbers across town when we have this very, very similar design. Some of the concerns we have there is we don't know what is going to be proposed on those outlots and independent on the user of those lots, you can create a very intense intersection there as well. So the goal in all this discussion is speeds, safety for the pedestrians and motorists through a year to try to reduce accidents and be more in line with our future LFUCG goals. They haven't, say EA or NA, I think they have some concerns about, I think, holding up the plan. Hello. I'll hit the big issues first, I guess, right away. Yes, what Steve says, we did meet with him Friday. The zone plan in front of you is for the lots. The roads are on a certified preliminary subdivision plan. Construction plans have been submitted. We're a little bit beyond redesigning the roads. And any sort of waiver, any sort of delay in going back through this process with a plan that would address that, that we're trying to get the roads in so we can get the development moving. The orientation of Kroger's, we have this little restriction to how much VUA we can have out in front of the building. We, to get to the parking that we need, we're 350 feet of asphalt in front of the building. I think this orientation is the one that meets the ordinances the best. There is a waiver for the drive-thru. what we did did at New Market, New Town Springs, yes. It's basically that same layout. It does sound like there's probably going to be a meeting with staff and we'd like to be involved so we can go through some of the other, I guess these big new ticket items listed here. There was, let's see, pedestrian linkage from the multifamily. We've got the public sidewalks that link it all to the front of the store to the apartments shown. There is a 20-foot grade elevation change from the apartments to the Kroger's and where we'd be bringing them in is the loading docks which is not a safe nor preferred location. So we feel as though public sidewalk that gets them to the front door is appropriate. And tree inventory. I've got it on there. I'm wondering is there's what I missed? You didn't have any comments. Planning staff asked. We're trying to get those separate from the plan. Oh, that'd be great because it's a mess. Yeah. Okay. So just pull that information off, put it on an exhibit. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Easy. Outlots two through six. We don't feel it would be wise to put anything shown on them because we don't have a user at this point and it would be foolish to try to design something to be reviewed and have it be a part of this when it's not true. It's not even in the, I mean, the reason we have the B1 portion for everyone. Overall, 20 years ago, new urbanism, we had a B1 zone across this whole area that talked about buildings would be two stories. You had to have residential above the businesses. Buildings were scattered throughout. That hasn't worked. We haven't developed that. So we're trying to do the B6P portion now. The outlots two through six up front can stay the B1 zoning. That makes sense, but we have to get the conditional restrictions that carry with all the B1 property removed because it was limiting. It said we had to have 125 residential units that had to be on second stories and that's not really possible on those outlots. You have to meet Article 21, so you needed to pick something on those lots. It's a conceptual plan. That's what the zoning ordinance requires. Well, maybe there will be some legal talk about that. Okay, my attorney would love to be there too, so that's good. Other than that, you know, first sign-offs and the first add arrows and stuff, all that we can do. Any more questions? Rory, I had some general comments in Estella regarding like the, there's like a stop bar condition that's shown prior to a crosswalk past an intersection. Just make that a true intersection at the location where your main entrance off of Charleston Drive up. That needs to look like a real intersection, so crosswalk at the intersection, stop bar behind the crosswalk in both directions. You know what I mean? That's it. No, I didn't understand your stuff. We'll have to meet and talk. Okay, well, we'll look at it. Again, it's not, it's suggestions more than anything. That, that's not a suggestion, but the other stuff is, so we can talk about that offline. Rory, can you tell us about plans along Winchester Road and your discussion with the state? I mean, the intersection or what? We don't have any plans to do anything along Winchester Road. I don't know if she saw the construction plans. What time turn in? I didn't see them. It's a turn lane. Okay. It was shown, but not mentioned on this plan. Okay, we can add dimensions on to the turn lane. I know they have, the lights got to get fixed. We got to have a turn lane. There's timing and stuff. Our cross sections show that we're going to run a sidewalk to Winchester Road. Then I, I guess from there, it's up to the state as to what gets built out there. Part of the permit with them, I believe. Well, it should run adjacent to your, if you're removing the shoulder, you'll need to put a sidewalk in or a shoulder to replace whatever pedestrian condition is there now. So, if you're adding a turn lane, it's going to be in the space of the shoulder. You'll need to add something. If there's currently a shoulder there, you'll need to have a shoulder on it, or you can add a sidewalk and replace it, and place the shoulder depending on how they're draining it. I don't know if they're doing curb and gutter, if they're doing sheet flow, whatever they're... Yeah, there's no sidewalks out there. Well, when you depict all the development on those five outlots, they'll need to be accessed from those buildings out to the right-of-way too. So, we'll have to coordinate all that. To the right-of-way. Yes. Yes, to the right-of-way. Currently, you have a guardrail across there in a steep ditch. Yeah. You have trees there. Yeah. So, either you're not going to, you know, what I'm getting at is you have a lot of trees there that currently meet the new standards that you have to protect those trees. You say you don't have any clients, and I understand that, but you, at a minimum, you should be trying to present to potential clients that this is the amount of buildable area I have. So, that's what I'm trying to find out is, have you all explored building this right-turn lane? How many trees are going to be removed as part of that? You're going to have to have a minimum building pad. Currently, it is way into those lots because of a guardrail, a deep ravine ditch, and trees that you either are going to take out or not, and or you're going to build a retaining wall. Along with those pedestrian connections, that's what I'm trying to figure out is, what improvements are you all planning across there? Or you're not that far? That's another answer. Well, the preliminary subdivision plan carried that each lot was going to have to take care of its own stormwater, and it would have its own individual development plan. So, that was always our goal was to get the roads in there, get the grades established there, and then each user would come back to this group with this development plan and handle those issues. I imagine there's some clients that would love to have those trees removed, but I believe they're in a protection area right now, and we haven't had any plans to do anything more than what's necessary for roads and utilities. I didn't look at the construction plans. I don't know how hard Tom put the shoulders in and stuff, but I know you all met with the neighborhood in the area, and one of the discussions that we had with the Patchen Wilkes Neighborhood Association is they said they have a lot of people that walk along that corridor of Winchester Road, and either you're going to want those people walking through your parking lots, or there's gonna be a design where you have sidewalk on the state right away, or not. Hey, what's going on? Brandon Gross. I'm just real quick on the sidewalks. Our plan was to, with that access easement, there are gonna be sidewalks on both sides of that access easement. I guess a question with Tracy is, are you saying you want a sidewalk from the building to Winchester Road for every lot? Bizarre idea was not to do that. Well, the zoning ordinance requires sidewalks to the right-of-way, so if it's an access easement, that's not the right-of-way, so there would need to be something out to Winchester to get pedestrians out to Winchester Road. Now, Scott and I were just talking, you could share an internal sidewalk on the inside of the ravine, the guardrail, the trees that gets you to a safe location to go out to the right-of-way, but there should be something. So, again, once you show some development on those lots, proposed, conceptual, I think we can assist with, you know, making a connection out to Winchester Road. So, yeah, I guess that's my question is, our idea was the access easement would be a pedestrian connection to Charleston, which would then be to Winchester Road, and not have anything along Winchester Road, given the topography, and there's a tree protection area. And so, I guess, yeah. Go around it, yeah. You can go around it. Okay, well. Yeah, so Brandon, the other thing, too, is there's a shoulder adjacent to this roadway, and so when they put in that right-hand turn lane. I'm presuming that shoulder stays. But a lot of times when they put the right-hand turn lane in, they use the shoulder, and so that is the current pedestrian facility, right? So, if they're proposing to put a turn lane in as a part of improvements, they need to accommodate pedestrians for the length of that turn lane. So, that can be a sidewalk, or that can be a shoulder. Does that make sense? I mean, that's easy. My guess was it was going to be a shoulder, because I think right now the city has that as a 10-foot on-road trail, is what is shown. We just show them as shoulders. We classify them as shoulders. That's what, you know, in a rural road cross-section, obviously, this is an urbanized area, but that's what the state qualifies as their pedestrian and bike facilities. So, that's how we label them. But, yeah. No, my assumption was there was going to be a shoulder next to the right turn lane. I may be mistaken, but that was my assumption, is that we were going to put in the turn lane and the shoulder would continue, and we can have some kind of, we can talk with Tom on whether or not the state will allow us to put in some sort of buffering between the turn lane and the shoulder. Again, it would be either, you know, curb and sidewalk or shoulder, whatever condition is there. They generally add rumple strips into those. I don't think there needs to, you know, that's, again, just making sure that that someone, there's a place for the people that walk on the side of that roadway, not in the turn lane. That's all. Yeah, that's our assumption, and then we'll have the sidewalk. It's not an ideal condition. We recognize that, but it is what it is. And then we'll have the sidewalk attached from Charleston to the Winchester intersection, so that there is pedestrian access between Winchester Road and Charleston. I would encourage you to read Article 16.6 for sidewalk. Is there someone from the public that wants to speak? Oh, you want to come up to the, sorry. Good morning. I'm Jennifer Bryngardner. I'm a resident of the Patchen Welks townhomes. I'm not representing the HOA in any capacity. I don't think anybody else is here. I think some of these questions are real quick. You know, we're actually, my husband and I are pretty happy at Kroger's coming in, so, because we're Kroger shoppers and so forth. However, our biggest concern, of course, is noise and light mitigation, and we talked about that at the high school meeting the other night. So, we're interested in knowing, I understand there are plans for those things, lighting plans and so forth. Is that something that's just approved, or does the public have an opportunity to see those once they're, like, you know, we have a visual of where, for example, the Kroger sign will go on Winchester Road and the pharmacy lights on the sides and so forth? So, the applicant will need to submit a lighting plan with their final development plan, not at this stage. Right. And they would do that in the citizen portal. It just has to meet the ordinance. There's not really, yeah, there's not really a comment period. There's height limits for lights, also luminescence limits. So, this is a fairly new ordinance. I would say within the last year to 18 months, that limits the height of the poles or mounting in the parking lot. What else? Temperature of the light. Sure. So, it's a much more comprehensive addition to our ordinance than was ever in place before to address those specific concerns. And they mentioned light trespass, which is, you know, at the edge of the property, the lighting should not overflow the property line and, you know, encumber someone else's property with your light. So, they will have to address that at the next stage. Any development that has a final development plan will need to include that. Okay, great. So, the fuel station and all of that, you know, and I know you don't have the, is that the west side of Charleston is not included today, but, you know, that's the direction that we're concerned about. Correct. The residential area on the west side is not part of this plan because they're not proposing to rezone that. Right. But they will also be required to have a lighting plan when they file their final development plan. I know there's been a lot of discussion about Winchester Road at the meeting, again, at the high school. Denise Gray was there and she spoke of a Winchester Road study. Just curious if anybody knows if the timing of that relates to the finishing of this plan. Yes, so there is a corridor study for Winchester Road that has not began yet and that will be probably at least a year-long process, if not longer, and that's to look at a lot of stuff along Winchester Road. So, it'll be looking at bus rapid transit and bike and pedestrian and traffic mitigation, that kind of stuff, and safety along the corridor. That's it. It's 55 miles an hour, you know. Oh, I'm very aware of that. Right in front of you. Okay. Yeah. Okay. It's an interstate. Yeah. It's built like an interstate. And it's already so many lanes, yeah. Certainly. And I guess, lastly, and again this touches on what you just spoke to, this meeting today, I understand, is not about the other side and I understand it's already zoned residential, but we obviously have a strong interest in seeing our community townhomes not connect to Charleston. We get a lot of transient folks walking through our neighborhood already and it, so that's a safety concern for us. So, at what juncture, although they don't need to seek zoning changes, at what juncture will we be able to comment on the connectivity on the west side of Charleston? That really is up to the property owner when they file the plan. So, they will be filing something that... Well, they can't build anything unless they file a plan. Okay. I didn't know since it was already residential how much... The zone is in place, but they don't have an active plan to be able to build anything from. And we'll be notified when that takes place. Probably not. Our current process does not notify anyone nearby for a final development plan. Am I forgetting anything, husband? Okay, thank you. No, I think we're good. Staff is recommending postponement because there are questions regarding the intended uses of the outlots and incomplete information for Article 21 of the zoning ordinance. Assembly, all in favor? Anyone opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. All right, moving along. Our next plan is also in conjunction with a zone change request. This is a final development plan, MJDP 25-28 on the block LLC property. It's located at 400 Chestnut Street. It's actually at the corner of Chestnut Street and 4th Street. This is an existing structure that was, according to the PVA, was built in 1930. The purpose of this plan is to depict an existing structure and lot in support of the requested zone change from a R3 zone to a B1 zone. I believe there are no proposed changes to the structure or the lot. This is just in support of the zone change to show what's there. So, obviously, the first condition is provided the Urban County Council approves the zone change to B1 and then we have engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, addressing, urban forestry, Department of Environmental Quality, bike ped, green space, fire, waste management, documentation of Division of Water Quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, postal service, and then to denote all buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls that are depicted, described, or required on this development plan shall require a separate review and building permit from the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction, and then we have additional conditions to denote the written scale in addition to graphic scale, orient the design scheme and vicinity map with north to the top of the page, correct plan title to match staff report, depict contour lines at two-foot intervals, depict all doors on existing structure, provide a variance, provided a variance is approved for the zone-to-zone screening for Article 18 of the zoning ordinance, to denote the height of the building in feet, and provide a tree inventory map and tree protection plan for Article 26 of the zoning ordinance, and then also to discuss the place builder criteria. So, with that, I'll open it up for any questions or discussion. Thank you. Any? Kyle, do you wanna come up? I had a question on the open space. We noticed that your backyard has a fence that you have no access to, and we just wanted to know how you make the open space with that. There's no fence for what? There's a fence in your backyard. Yeah. And you're meeting your open space in the backyard, and that fence has no access from your property. It's like your backyard is divided into two, and you cannot use it. Suggest that we can't count. Part of that is fenced off. I see, unless there's an access. Yeah, I'll have to rework the square footage or figure out some way to get access. Like, once it's opened up, then it can recount. Yes. Kyle, is there a reason that the fence kind of cuts through the open space currently? Are you aware of? I don't know the history on it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I think there is a history between this property and the adjacent owner. I just don't know. I think there's a background there. I'll just leave it at that. Now, just a general note. The purpose of rezoning this property had been utilized with conditional use for a long time. It's always operated as a business. This is just formalizing it into a business so that the next purchaser of the property no longer has to continue going for a new conditional use every time there's a new tenant, because you lose your your CEO with every new tenant. So, any other comments? Is there anybody from the public that wants to? Staff's recommending approval with conditions? So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Okay, we have one more item. This is Locust Hill Shopping Center. This is located at the corner of Richmond Road, Man o' War. This is the Kroger's that Mr. Parker had made reference to. They are proposing to come in at the front here and one of the outlots for what is called Jagger's Restaurant. Showing the structure, multiple access points across the back and their parking and their drive-thru lanes come around here. With that, we have engineering, traffic, landscaping, addressing, urban forest or environmental quality, bike, green space, fire, waste management, division water quality, U.S. Postal Service. We need to make sure you have the note from building inspection, all paving, all buildings, paving, signs, fences, walls, that needs to be added to the plan. We had cleanup condition. Remove Texas Roadhouse off plan face and replace with the title on the staff report. We always like to see the title of the plan along the left side of the plan. Texas Roadhouse is no longer part of this plan. Clarified topography lines. Are these existing or proposed? Not proposed. On the previous plan, you'll see that there's contours. Those are the existing contour lines and they're done in dash. Now we're showing a solid line. We always have what is existing, not what is being proposed. Dimension canopy on lots eight and nine. This is two lots, so we need to get the dimensions of the canopy and the height of the canopy for clearance. Denote the location of access points for the construction vehicles. Correct commission certification for a major development plan per article 21-6A-16. Addition of zone line and zoning information on adjacent properties and remove the labeling from each lot. You can see where they put in the labeling here. Typically what we show is a zone line which will go down the center line of the road coming through the center line because that is where when you rezone a piece of property, you rezone it to the center of the property. So we show the zone line and then show the zoning on the outside on the adjacent properties. This is what I was asking for, what we were asking for. Document count with lint imaging per article 21-7. This is free reproduction after your plan has been signed and certified. We have other copies made for permanent record and for other agencies. Provide lighting plan per article 30 of the zoning ordinance at one inch equals 40 scale. The plan was submitted but it wasn't at scale. It says not to scale, so we need to have one submitted to scale. Addition of street cross-section on access easement showing the sidewalk location. On this plan, right there it looks like we have a sidewalk that's being proposed. We'd like to see how that fits into access easement. Correct owner certification for a major plan per article 21-6A-15. Clarify the number of parking spaces on the ground and on the plan faces versus the number in the site statistics box. We went through counting parking spaces. There was several, there's parking spaces that are shown in the back here and over here. They don't show any parking spaces here and then on when you look at the aerial they have parking spaces that are all labeled down through here. So we want to make sure that we clarify the parking spaces because this is part of what has us in question right now to move this plan forward. Additional notes from previous plan in reference to the access of Richmond Road revised Urban County Council ordinance to the waiver of Richmond Road landscaping and the retention volume to be maintained. On the previous plan we had a note that made reference to some other items from previous development plans and that needs to be pulled forwards. Correct the parking layout in front of building on outlot 9 to meet article 16. We have a 90-foot dimension. You're showing 12 parking spaces so that's greater than the 90-foot dimension before you have to have an island. Denote bicycle parking of 10% of the proposed parking. You only show a couple parking spaces up here in the top and we need to make sure that meets the minimum requirements. Denote the removal of parking on-site until proposed future office building is constructed. We had discussions and a building was added right here. This whole area here was parking at one time and they removed the parking in this area and put in a building of 4,900 plus feet square feet and so we want to make sure that this parking is removed and it's denoted that that you cannot have parking there and unless there's a parking unless this building is constructed because we're trying to meet the parking requirements. Addition of parking spaces in the shopping area depicted on the front of retail shops as I pointed out down through here there's a whole parking spaces all listed in front of here in front of these retail shops. Discuss parking maximum of four spaces per thousand for article 12-8 of the zoning ordinance. Discuss the functionality of the second drive-thru lane. You see two drive-thru lanes coming up. There's one pick what looks to be a pickup window. Question is you know usually you see a merge to the pickup window. Not quite sure how this one's gonna work. So we're questioning that. Discuss the number of access points from the access easement. This seems like quite a bit of access. I know you have to have this point here to get out and we have our waste management but you have three additional parking spaces or three additional access points into the parking. I don't know if we can have that reduced. That's an awful lot of traffic in and out. I didn't know if parking traffic had any comments about that and discuss the removal of the parking spaces in the rear as I said on this previous plan. I'm not quite sure if any of these spaces behind this building and these noted parking spaces here. I don't know if they're being used. If they're they're not required I guess people aren't parking back there I don't know. So just question to be able to meet get closer to your parking numbers is what we were looking at is possible removal of those parking spaces. So with that I'll open it to the community to see if there's any other comments or questions. Steve you want to make any notes? Yeah obviously the access points for four access points along that frontage road is there's an existing conditions very similar to this already. There has been a challenge with a Texas Roadhouse there so we'd like to see improvement of that. One question I have for the applicant is I believe it looks like the Texas Roadhouse building it's going to be torn down so I'll make sure that is indeed the case. Okay Scott correct me if I'm wrong waste management does not close the doors. When they open those doors they remain open. Well they may have to have gates on it. We don't cross sidewalks. We don't cross curbs. So the sidewalks being there with waste management picking up and then if that those doors are open it may create a sight distance issue when I leave the drive-thru and or use the access easement that heads directly to that frontage road. So that's a concern of that I've got just looking at the orientation of those dumpsters and knowing that those typically the doors are left open. So that has been another challenging spot even without a drive-thru lane just the access easement from Richmond Road onto the Richmond Road. Viewing to the left. You're talking about this access easement? Yes the existing access easement. Looking left we've had some deliveries and employees parked behind what was the Texas Roadhouse that have created some issues behind there. So that area may need to be looked at as well. And then addressing the changes that Kroger's has made in their parking lot and making sure those changes are reflected on this plan. There were several changes made to the parking lot that didn't necessarily require development plan changes on some but some of those did and they would they went through the process but I don't think those are reflected on this plan. I'll tell her now. Let me point out also since we're talking about the dumpsters that I just want to get this out but even though if I get this a lot where we're gonna have private service on our dumpsters the city won't be servicing those dumpsters it will still have to we you know that truck will not cross sidewalks curb now they may get out close the gates but if this business were to change down the line another business goes in it's gonna be the city serviced area from the start where you have to have it comply with the ordinance. Anybody else have any comments questions? Yeah I know there's a lot to discuss. Currently using medium trees at a large square footage right so I'm not sure if they're here or not but whenever you all get to the cleaning up everything else and you get to the trees please use large species and if you want to bounce that off me I'd be happy to help but the the maple and the hornbeam you have listed are medium trees and so you'd only get 400 square feet canopy coverage for that per tree. Anybody else to the applicant room to make any comments? Good morning all Jason Taylor equity management group or the owner and then this is Brent. Hi Brandon Goldberg Greenberg Farrow we're the designers for the restaurant. And you all know Brandon Grist so a couple questions just generally on the plan where we're at the dumpsters if we took that sidewalk off at the cross of the drive lane would that work because there is connectivity on the other sides does that solve some of the answer? The sidewalks are a part of the larger development plan they have to connect to each side of your property. So they can't cross I mean we can get there's a sidewalk. But it's got to be direct like you can't expect someone to not walk in the roadway for that section if you eliminate that sidewalk and that's what we're trying to prevent so if you remove that sidewalk then people walk in the road so there has to be that connectivity it can't be indirect like okay take a left turn right go here you know what I mean it can be a detour. Do you have a suggestion on where those dumpsters should move to then? I mean you get all kinds of spaces on the property so out there by that 3015 number you could put them probably. You see this 3015? And that's south in the bottom? Yeah I mean again that's a you can change all kinds of stuff so I can't really comment to that but I can comment to you gotta have the sidewalk there. You can't remove the sidewalk. Okay and then the second question on the drive-thru though this is a walk-out window door it's not a window. So it's a door so staff walks out and gives delivers the food to the car. Well it can't be off the building. Does it go across both or just one? No it's a bigger square. Yeah Tony Barrett's gonna help Brandon in his assistance getting some of these corrections for you. They'd have a question on the denote the removal of parking on-site until proposed future office building is constructed. Can you just tell me what exactly what that is? Are you actually wanting the parking removed or just it just a note that says the parking will be removed? So it has to be removed prior to construction? I guess the concern is meeting the ordinance right so not just on paper but in reality if we're proposing a building there the parking would be removed right? So once constructed. Is the building a faux building just to meet the square footage requirements? I think. Or are you really building it? Well it sounds like I mean on the parking we need to get with Cheryl anyways because it sounds like there may be some discrepancy between what's in the field, what's on the paper, what is on the paper that could possibly be eliminated because it does not have a use and so I think we need to get with Tony, Cheryl, Brandon, Gee and then look at find out where exactly we are on parking. I think there's a discrepancy right now and then we will address whether or not you know. There may be some non-conformity on this shopping center. So there's what happened was our minimum parking requirement became our maximum. So in essence there are likely more parking spaces out there than what the current ordinance allows. But you can keep the existing non-conformity. So if your requirement is now 1020 and you always had 1080 you you get that buffer of at 60 extra spaces that you can keep right? But we we have to really know where they are and the plan doesn't match the reality. So we're struggling with you know if you have a non-conformity that's fine and we just need to document it so that we don't run afoul of the ordinance. And my understanding is just given it don't have just a random number. If we have 500 spaces today we can continue to have 500 spaces but we're not gonna have 500 of one unless we increase the square footage beyond what is already there potentially. Potentially. So yes. So what we need to do is figure out how many we currently have and then we need to make sure those numbers match. Same thing with floor area ratio. Yes. Yes. So I think it says lot coverage on the report. Well there are two requirements in B6P. One for lot coverage and one for FAR. Yeah. One's a min and one's a max. Yeah I think the lot Well I think you may have meant floor area ratio. Maybe I'm mistaken. We'll double check that. Yeah just double check that because I think we're below our lot coverage max. I think it's our floor area ratio that is a problem with these older shopping centers and the new requirements. Yeah. If you look on the reason for postponement recommends it says lot coverage and parking requirements. I think that may be floor area ratio. And then see here and then we'll talk with should we direct our discussions on access easement with traffic engineering. Okay we can handle that and then like I said we'll talk about through the parking spaces. The removal of the parking spaces in the rear will be behind the curb. Is that right? I think I know what those plans those spaces were put on by the Roberts group at all. They're not in use. You're correct. But as a reminder there are there are spaces being used along the smaller shops on the right-hand side between Hooters and the post office place. Yes. Well and let's confirm with traffic engineering that they you know think they're okay. So the Roberts group took out some tree wells and they told us they were going to bring the parking lot up to a better standard. Some places that happened in some places it didn't. Is this when the clip-ins went in? Yeah. Okay and we can go back. It's created some challenge the you know and I'm not asking for total revamping of the whole parking lot. I think you all know where the problem areas are and maybe you could address those with a few markings at some very confusing points. But I would like to see the accuracy brought up there because what's out there and what's on the plan you know I think I think it'll become clear when you go out there and you start start counting the the spots and go where did these come from? Because it's just like the striper just was like hey I can fit one in here and so they fit some in. Okay and then Steve one question about your access easement comment you had. We're gonna we're putting in a sidewalk along that access easement. Do you want us to put like no parking sign or something you know or is that okay you think okay I just want to make sure we're addressing your concerns but yeah we're gonna have a there will be a we're gonna install a sidewalk along that access. There is a very odd spot behind when you come in behind the Suttons and come up we get complaints about that area and you'll know it because there's a single stop spot. Yeah we get complaints about it and what we tell people is it's we can't really do anything about it but they changed all that for some reason when CNR paved it out there so. Yeah it's the exit of the Little Caesars with the drive out there that creates the problem. We'll get together and come up with something but I that's just what there's that's where the plan doesn't meet that to park parallel parking along the the post office and things there's some just oddities out there that I think you'll see when you when you compare this to that. Well I think that's all we had and we know there's some work to be done and we will sounds like it was Steve Parker is the first person we really need to talk to and then figure out what we need to upgrade and then start getting our math right with Cheryl and then the other things like I said Tony Bear is going to be assisting Brandon G. Brandon Goldberg with interpreting some of the comments so we make sure that the plan's updated to include all those items so thank you. Hey Cheryl real quick. If there's no other comments at this time the staff is recommending postponement. So moved. All in favor? Anyone opposed? Motion passes. So that concludes our technical committee today. We did have a lot of questions and motion passed. So that concludes our technical committee today. We did have some notes from vision about reviewing another plan but I don't think they got them back to planning in time so we'll just have to review those either at subdivision committee or next time. Just a reminder we're going to be on LexTV live going forward so everybody use your microphones and we might have to start having people introduce themselves to Tracy way division of planning like that. Okay thanks everybody. Maybe. Thank you everyone.