Diolch yn fawr am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. Diolch am wylio'r video. We have a Beaumont and a Belmont today, so I grabbed the wrong one. This item is PLN MJDP 25-73 for Beaumont Farm, Unit 1 Block B, Section 1 Lot 3 for Texas Roadhouse. It's an amended final development plan. Do we have someone present for it? Okay, great. From Greenberg Farrow. Is that right? Great. So this is a proposal to add square footage for a cooler to the side of the structure off of, I'm not even sure I know the name of the street, Lake Crest Circle. So here's Lake Crest Circle to the south on the plan, really southwest, and the existing Texas Roadhouse structure, which is approximately 7,200 square feet, and then the proposal to add 200 square feet-ish for a cooler. That cooler is taking up open space, so that's what prompted an amendment, a major amendment that goes through this process. We do have a number of requirements that need to be addressed on the development plan. The first is a new note that wasn't even part of our requirements the last time you amended this plan, and that's just to denote that buildings paving signs, fences, walls, and retaining walls that might be depicted on this plan do require a separate building permit from building inspection. We also need to denote structures in areas of alluvial soils have to have a foundation and footer detailed by a licensed engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. We do need to correct the spelling of Huntington Silt Loam in one of the notes for the types of soil in the area. We do need to ask for a submission of a street inventory, sorry, not street, tree inventory map for the urban forester so that they can confirm your tree canopy is being met on site, provide an open space exhibit, include open space requirements in the site statistics for our open space planner to review, correct the title block. We do seem to be missing information about the Beaumont Farm piece, so that name helps us track all the plans related to this site, so we need the title from the staff report to be put back on the final development plan. We also need to modify the property boundaries of the subject property needs to be solid lines and adjacent properties are dash lines. We need to dimension all the ingress points, and I think it's the access on the left-hand side here didn't have a dimension to it. We do need to locate the cross section on the plan face, so the section is available for Lake Crest, but we don't know where you're cutting through for that, so if you could just put a section line. Verify the lot coverage in the site statistics. It appeared to jump to 14,000 square feet as opposed to the 4,700, so double-check that. There are two notes about the purpose of the plan. One is titled in purpose at the top, and then one down here says requested site changes, so if we can merge those two together and describe the cooler and how much square footage it is, what not increase that you're making. And then the commission certification, again, has changed since the last time this plan was reviewed, so that's down here in the right-hand corner. That needs to be updated to our existing certification. There were no waivers identified. The Division of Engineering just said to double-check Acela for additional notes from them. There was a question or concern from the Division of Water Quality about stormwater. It says clarify note 10, where is the detention located? And, again, that has changed. It just says off-site, so we'll need to know the address of that. And then the last thing is the staff is recommending approval and subject to typical sign-offs, and then correcting all the deficiencies. So is there anyone that doesn't need to still remain on here as a sign-off? You can take us off. Addressing can be removed. Thank you, Rob. Fire needs to be removed. Landscaping can be removed. And solid waste. Thanks, Scott. Okay. Bike and pet as well. Okay. So that's okay. So removing number three as a sign-off, number four, number seven, number eight, and number nine. Is that one right? Okay. So the staff recommends approval. Anybody have anything else? Oh, yeah. Is there any as an applicant? Oh, yeah. Do you have any comments? You can come up. Sure. Come on up. Thank you, everyone. My name is Brandon Goldberg. I'm with Greenberg-Ferro. We're the designers for this proposed cooler addition. Thank you for your feedback. I think everything is pretty self-explanatory. I did want to question one of the items where it says CSLA for additional engineering comments. I did go on there, and I was just looking for clarification. Will this project require a land disturbance permit? Yes. It will. Okay. Noted. I was asked to do an affidavit and submit photos. Do I hand that in now or email it? Okay. No, we can take it right now. I will give it to you after this. And then I'm just thinking ahead. Is the next meeting for us that commission meeting on 2-22? Because you don't have any waivers, this is the only meeting. Oh, okay. Perfect. So then we just update the development plan, and then we can go for a building permit? Well, you'll update your development plan to address all the requirements not met. Then you can resubmit it into a SELA and also email it to the tech committee members who will remain as sign-offs. So that would be the Division of Engineering. And if we haven't given you already, we have contact information on our website for the tech committee members. So you'll have Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and Urban Forester, Environmental, and CAP. You didn't need to be on there. You do? We do, because it increases square footage. Okay. So you would resubmit to those individuals and or provide extra documentation of how you're meeting the requirements. And then it would come back to the Division of Planning. You would submit a final MILR to our office that's signed, and then we would double-check all those sign-offs, make sure that your final MILR meets all their requirements, and then ask that the Secretary of the Planning Commission, who our Director acts as, would sign the plan. And then you can go get building permits. Awesome. Or land disturbance permit first, really. And I'll just say, sometimes we go through this, and it's like three months before we hear anything. So it's really up to – if you get all these addressed, it can be really quick. Or if you get busy and you don't send anything for three months, it will be three months. Okay. No, we'll get on it, I promise. That's all. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? All right. So the motion is for approval of PLN-MJDB-2573, Beaumont Farm Unit 1, Block B, Section 1, Lot 3, with the removal of conditional sign-offs for the number 3, 4, and 7. So moved. Oh, and 9. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. Next one. Again, Tracy Wade for Cheryl's absence. The next item is PLN-MJDB-2575 for the Arlington Subdivision, also known as Arlington Weekly Payment Lot and Investment Company Edition, which is a very, very old name, for property on 1104 North Limestone. And this development plan actually does cover a little bit more of the property than just 1104, but the amendment to the plan is directed really to the corner, front corner here, of the property. So this subject property fronts along North Limestone and then has frontage also along Devonia Avenue as well as Carlisle Avenue. So it encompasses the entire frontage between those two local streets. The purpose was to depict now, instead of one apartment building on the previous plan, two apartment buildings and associated parking and circulation changes. So there's one structure that would be along, I guess, the northernmost part of the property between Carlisle and North Lime, then an open space, and then the real changes here at the corner of Devonia and North Limestone where, instead of demolishing this historic structure, the residents, they'd be maintaining the existing residence, converting it to apartments, and then adding an addition to that structure towards Limestone. So there's been some changes in our ordinance since the development plan and zone change went through previously that allow for the building to be five feet from Limestone as well as Devonia. So instead of building behind the historic structure or the existing structure, the applicant is proposing to build here in the front to do some infill. This shows seven dwelling units, and I'm assuming we can add clarification. Seven is for both the entire structure. No? Seven new? Oh, I see. Okay. So 15 over here. I see. So we might need to update statistics to address that. In terms of the circulation, access is to the rear, and it appears to be one way, although that's not denoted, so perhaps adding that. From Devonia to Carlisle in the back, and then angled parking, trees, vehicular use area, and sidewalks to allow for circulation back there. So there were a number of requirements not met. The first has to do with environmental, just a standard note about alluvial soils and foundations. We also need for there to be a record plot denotation on the plan. We need to provide information about the adjacent property owners with dashed lines to the north probably and to the east or west. I guess this is north and east. Depict a vicinity sketch to match the plan. We also need topographic elevation information. There's a line, but there's no actual number associated with it, so we don't know what the elevation is on that line. We need to dimension all the driveways, walkways, parking areas, spaces, and the points of ingress and egress. We need to dimension the VUA screening. We need to dimension the proposed and existing buildings where you've proposed changes over here on Lot 1. We need the addition of our existing and proposed easements. We need to complete all the information in a site statistics box, adding a total column. And we have a site statistics box. If that's not the correct one, it looks outdated. We need to clarify the area for the outdoor lighting plan. We need to provide an open space exhibit to meet the open space requirements. We also need to depict a rear entrance for the division of traffic, update our detail for the single dumpster enclosure per waste management, provide auto turn in the area of the dumpster for the fire department, denote that this development plan is within the Royal Springs water supply protection area, and then we also need to denote any recommendations of that committee. Correct the required canopy information for residential zones. It's actually 30%, not 20%. And then the calculation will change. That information wasn't quite correct either. Remove in Note 8 any reference to the Georgetown Road landscape ordinance, since that's not applicable on North Limestone. And then denote that there should be compliance with the infill and redevelopment standards of zoning ordinance Article 15-7. There don't appear to be any waivers at this time, but we do have some design considerations and questions. The first is there may be additional comments from the Division of Engineering based on discussion today. There was a recommendation to review Article 21 of the zoning ordinance for requirements for DPs related to engineering, including denoting the location of your stormwater. We also will need a consolidation plat to combine the various parcels that's consistent with this development. And then there was a question from engineering about will this be subdivided or remain two lots, or are you combining them all into one, at which point you would need a sanitary sewer tap for each lot. And there are some additional notes from engineering in Estella about the standard procedures. Questions, will there be parking along Carlisle and Devonia, or sorry, will on-street parking along Carlisle and Devonia still allow for trucks to enter and exit safely? So we might have to restrict parking. Discuss traffic flow and access as it relates to the subdivision shown on the plan. It looks like traffic flow is one way through the proposed two lots, and an access easement or other agreement may be required. Engineering asked for information about the stormwater management. We'll need to verify if there's going to be no increase in impervious area. They also asked for information about stormwater management because the proposal is to have more than five parking spaces or 1,800 square feet of pavement on the property. Who will maintain and own the stormwater management areas? Verify increase to impervious surfaces. Again, that's the division of stormwater, sorry, water quality related to stormwater. Verify the lot sizes and the overall land disturbance areas, and then the urban forester asked if there's any mitigation for significant trees being removed. The staff is recommending approval of the plan, contingent on sign-offs from the standard 10 divisions, as well as meeting the, sorry, 11 divisions in the post office, and then meeting the requirements not met. Open it up for questions or comments. And we'll see if the applicant has anything to add. Thank you, Tracy. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. We do have a question on the front, number 14, depict the rear entrances. Are you looking for just where the pedestrian entrances are to the building? Yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to figure out. I know there's also, I think they're noted on the front. I just didn't know if there was a rear entrance. Yeah, there are like breezeways, so just get those labeled. Is that what you're looking for? Yeah, okay. Under design considerations, it asks about a consolidation plant, and, yes, we'll be doing a consolidation plant, creating two lots. So this building, existing building, and then the addition, this will be on one lot, and then the other building will be on its lot. So, yes, we'll have to do a consolidation plant, and with the consolidation plant we'll create the two new lots. Parking along Carlisle and Devonia. On Carlisle, I don't think across the road the parking is off. It's kind of like perpendicular. You pull off, so they're not actually parking on the road. There are, you know, on this side there may be a few places where they can park, so we'll probably have to restrict parking in those areas, as well as this area right here we may have to restrict at least up near the entrance. So we'll look into that. Traffic flow, it will enter off Devonia. This will be one way through here. Stormwater management. So there's not, we've looked around the property. There is no existing stormwater facilities. So what we've looked into is on Devonia, about 250 feet from the property corner, there is public storm sewers on the streets crossing. There's an inlet on either side. So our intent is to run our stormwater down Devonia and tie into that. As far as detention goes, yes, we'll do a study. Most likely we'll have to do detention because the existing facilities, since there isn't any, won't be able to handle it. So our proposal is underground detention, and it will be in the parking lot here or in this area or a combination of both. And it may be that we end up using some pavers in there incorporated in with it. I do believe, I think, I mean, there's a stormwater project on North Limestone, the Prime A's designing for engineering capital projects. And then you're in the Royal Springs Aquifer, so they're extremely... They don't like underground. Adverse, this might be the right word, adverse to underground detention. What did you call the project? It's a stormwater project, capital projects. So I don't think they hear us, but, yeah, Prime A's the lead on it. It's been about a year, about a year and a half, so they shouldn't be too far away, I think, from a really solid design. Okay, I'll look into that. There's some ped and bike stuff, too, but mostly it's a stormwater project. Okay, and then if we end up doing detention, it will be owned and maintained by the applicant, who I failed to mention the applicant is here in Chattanooga. And if you have any questions for him, he'd be glad to come up and answer those. But he's going to maintain these properties, own them. It's not a flip, so he will be maintaining them in whichever lot the detention goes on. If it's sold in the future, the maintenance requirements will go with the land. Yeah, currently you have one owner going to own both parcels, but you do need to define the access and any easements for storm or sanitary that cross the property lines. Yes, yeah. And also, brings up another point, parking, the reciprocal parking across the lots and the access, reciprocal access. If we need to add an easement on the drive now, we can do that as well. The trees, for mitigation of the trees. So most of the trees along the back are to be saved. One thing we've discovered since we filed this is there's trees that we show here, they don't exist anymore. And we don't know when they were cut down or if they died or what, but they're just not there. So we'll take those off. As far as mitigation, we've got trees we're adding, and we're probably going to have to add a few more because we've got the canopy requirement of 30%, so we'll be adding more trees. But, you know, we're getting credit for large trees, 750 square feet. So we can work with you and see if that satisfies what you're looking for. We'll be glad to work with you. Other than that, if you have any questions for me or for the applicant, we'll be glad to answer questions now. Did you see those comments just about the couple of discrepancies in the stats? Yes. Okay. Yeah. We'll get those. Not sure what happened there, but we'll get those fixed. Yeah. Eric made some notes in his cell, and then when we looked over them again, you referenced 20%, but all residential zones are 30%. So, yes, the numeric numbers were wrong, but hopefully once you get 30% on there. Yeah. And then you had saving no trees on Lot 1, but saving, I guess, the hatch area on Lot 2. Yeah, this area. Okay. So there were some numbers for that, but, yeah, the numbers in the hatch area. Yeah, like in the stats it said 0% canopy to remain, so it just seemed like it was a discrepancy there. Okay. But, yeah. I'll get with Mark McCain and see. He did the statistics on that and see what we can come up with to make sure you're okay with it. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Well, thank you. Yeah, we've been trying to figure out this lot for a series of lots for a minute. There was a developer before us that tried to figure it out as well. We kind of saw that he wasn't doing much, so we came in and were able to say, okay, we'll get this project going. We purchased it from him, and it's been a challenge to get it going, obviously the environment financially, and then trying to do a few changes. I didn't realize there was a preliminary development plan when we first got into this existing building. Our goal is usually to save buildings. This has an old structure on it, still has our intention, so that's where we had to kind of rethink this whole project. Still trying to put it together. We think we've got a really nice path forward now, saving the original structure, adding in front with the new setbacks, creating a more urban feel, still within on limestone and putting parking behind. And that's the intention, that we're going to bring 39 units, affordable housing units, to this site by saving a building and keeping, I think, infilling a really nice project that's really needed on these four lots that have been sitting kind of vacant or just in disrepair for a long time. Grant Needham is my nephew. He works with us in the office now full time. He's kind of spearheaded the financial part of this project, and so it enables us to kind of keep, hopefully, this housing quite affordable. You can come and speak to that really quickly, but obviously with our success at Gray Line, we have a lot of commercial, and we just think the neighborhood needs some more residential, and this will help support a lot of the small businesses that are down on North Lime. And when it comes to tree canopy and stormwater retention, we did an infrastructure grant on stormwater at Gray Line. We're familiar with that. We managed that and have had good success managing that. We've planted many trees there and continue to plant more trees. So if we need to plant trees and then some, we're definitely game for that. So, yeah, that's the context of it, and we feel excited that this project is finally getting started. I'm Grant Needham. I work with Chad. Just affordability-wise, just really we're working with a consultant, working with Rick McQuadey down at the Affordable Housing Trust Fund here in Lexington, and these are going to be serving families at or less than 60 percent of AMI. So going to go try to get tax credits from the Kentucky Housing Corporation. So when we say affordable, we mean uppercase affordable. So just more context, but thanks, everyone. Anybody have anything else? All right. The motion is for approval of PLN-MJDP-2575 Arlington subdivision with no changes. So moved. Second. All in favor? Anyone opposed? All right. Moving along, this is our last plan of the day. Belmont Farm, not Beaumont, MJDP-2576 Citation Center. This is an amended development plan. The property is located at 2450 Georgetown Road. This is at the corner of Georgetown Road and Citation. The purpose of this plan is to revise building footprints and site layout for the entire development. Let's see. I'm not sure. Okay. Under requirements not met, number one, building inspection note. Number two, the note for alluvial soils. Number three, no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission. Number four, dimension all drive aisles and pedestrian facilities. Any internal pedestrian crossings greater than 24 feet will need to be altered or a raised pedestrian crossing added. Number five, dimension driveways in radius. Number six, update the dumpster enclosure detail to match the current dumpster service guide. Number seven, what are the proposed pipe sizes for the streams? Number eight, verify compliance with stormwater manual. Use open channels for flows greater than 100 CFS for the 100-year storm. Number nine, label the intermittent stream and depict vegetative buffers. Sorry, I lost my place. Number 10, add vegetative buffer note from the stormwater manual. Number 11, add KYTC note to note 11. 12, provide dimensions for drives and walkways. 13, explain note 21, revised from previous plan, and note 23 on the previous plan, which was MJDP 23-24. 14, denote stormwater management on-site or off-site, provide address. 15, depict direct pedestrian connections from all lines, 16, denote all addresses for all buildings and lots. 17, denote no building permits until final development plan. 18, provide lighting plan that meets zoning ordinance article 30. And it may be helpful to divide those up by lot because it's such a large site. It was really hard to determine some of the numbers and stuff on the lighting plan. It seems like there's some light trespass at the external property boundaries, so just maybe check the lighting plan, make sure it meets article 30, everything. Number 19, drive aisle behind lot 9 must be 20 feet wide. Number 20, someone's going to have to make sure that they're going to be able to get Number 20, submit a tree inventory map and tree preservation plan. 21, submit open space exhibit and include open space requirements and the site statistics as a percentage. Number 22, adjust lot layouts for all corners. I just want to say I can't ever say site statistics as a percentage. I pulled that off even though I messed up 20. It's a good day. Under waivers, VUA and front yard on corner lots, there are actually quite a few of these. There's this proposed road from Georgetown over into Huntley Place. Those are corner lots. Corner lot at Huntley. What is it, Remington? You'll need to request waivers or show those without VUA on the front yard on the corner lots. Under design considerations, review LFUCG ordinances, regulations, manuals, and standards in their entirety. Number two, see previous comments to this area including MJDP 2364 as well as comments returned via emails. Three, provide the status of the updated environmental study. Four, discuss proposed mitigation of streams, wetlands, and buffers. Number five, discuss proposed pipe sizes for the streams. Six, verify existing sanitary sewer systems can support the proposed new development as needed. Seven, discuss ownership and maintenance of the stormwater management areas. Eight, see a cell for all standard procedure notes provided by the Division of Engineering. Number nine, note, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands require vegetative buffers. See stormwater manual section 1424344, table 14, and figure 13. Number 10, redesign lot layouts to comply with zoning ordinance article 16-6A1 and 2. And then under plan questions and concerns, add specific notes related to permitting requirements and proposed mitigation. Number two, discuss Royal Spring Water Supply Protection Committee comments. Number three, additional comments may develop as the plan is discussed in more detail in the meeting. Number four, address utility easement conflict with building footprints prior to DP certification. Number five, discuss single lane roadways between Frontage Road and retail buildings on lot six. Number six, explain the paved aisles on lot six adjacent to the retail space and lot seven adjacent to the restaurant. And just to clarify, that's what looks like a smaller access road. Those are also VUA in the front yards as well. Six, explain, I'm sorry, seven, clarify discrepancy between tree inventory list and note number three. Number eight, discuss the 12-story hotel. And we have had quite a few public comments addressing the proposed hotels. And then we do recommend approval with the following conditions. The standard sign-offs, there are 11 of those, 12 with the postal service, and then finally number 13, correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. And with that, I will open it up to the committee for discussion questions. Can I just add in terms of the hotels? A hotel is a permitted use. I think the concern is that there appears to be a shifting of square footage to those two buildings, which is, again, fine for a structure. But eventually you're going to hit where you can't build anything. You know what I'm saying? The ordinance requires a certain FAR. And if you're saying, hey, we're going to meet it with a 12-story hotel, and that's not realistic, you're going to hit a point where you're not going to get any more building permits, and you're going to have a big vacant spot there. There'll be nothing unless you can meet the square footages somehow. So I don't know that planning is against people adjusting as we go and final development plans changing. That happens. But it feels like you're setting the client or the client is setting themselves up for, at some point, a just big vacant spot. And then I don't want that to be our fault. Is that fair? Okay. Yeah. Right. You still have to meet the ordinance, whether you do it today or in five years. There's still going to be a need to meet that FAR requirement. And as Chris said, we've gotten quite a few emails about concern about a 12-story hotel. And phone calls. And I would say I'm not even sure the hotels downtown are 12 stories. So. Any other discussion from the committee before the applicant comes up? I think we need a little more clarification on what the environmental study says. And I don't know if they've met with LFUCG to talk about mitigation measures or things like that. So. They're flaking again. Had met with the Army Corps of Engineers, potentially? Yeah. So is there. I can't answer for Jihad, but yes, he's having discussions with them. When you say updated environmental study, are you talking about. Was there one previously done before? Yes. Not by the current owners? No. When Huntley Place was built, they evaluated the stream and defined the wetland that you're now showing on this plan. Which is different from what was on the preliminary or the previous plan. So we need some determination from the Corps. And you're proposing mitigation. So there would be a whole report from RES that says what your mitigation measures are going to be. What your fees you're paying. There's a whole thing. Okay. So we will update. To Von's point, from the last plan we saw, it was a larger area that was denoted as a wetland protection area. And that was going to be reviewed at the next step, right? You made it a preliminary plan versus a final plan. And now that area has changed significantly. But we don't have any documentation as to why or how or what information went into determining that new boundary. Correct. And then our stormwater manual has specific protections for wetlands and streams within it. And so, you know, we haven't met with LFBCG to discuss that either. And there's a building on top of it. Yeah. Okay. I'll get with John. So we need to update the study. He is working with, I guess, is it the Corps, and trying to come up with what the mitigation and in-lieu fees that they would pay and all that. And it sounds like we also need to get with engineering and make sure that what we're proposing to do, you know, based on what the Corps will allow us to do, meets the requirements of the manuals and you're comfortable with it. So, yes, we will do all that. As far as detention, I think Jahad did a study, and I think you're aware of that. Is that correct? He did a study to show that off-site detention at another location was sufficient for this site. I can't remember if he submitted that completely. But there's also been some additional development. So we're just going to have to connect the dots and make sure that the commercial areas for the apartments and that other area on the other side of Remington Way are all included in the study for this going forward. And we understand your sign-off will have to satisfy all this with engineering to get your sign-off. So we understand that. As far as waivers go, we'll either turn in a waiver request this Friday or have to redraw these. So I'm assuming we're going to turn in a waiver request this Friday. The 12-story, so I understand what you're saying. It may be a placeholder now because they don't really know everything on this, what they're going to develop. But as it develops, they're going to have to keep that in the back of their mind that there could end up being a hole in this project that they have to build a 12-story building in. So I'll make sure the owners are aware of that and understand it. We certainly understand it. So other than that, I'll be glad to answer any questions. I think just keep in mind that anywhere there's a vehicular entrance or access for a public rider, there need to be sidewalks. Anywhere there's an internal roadway, there need to be sidewalks. So anywhere a car can go, a person needs to be able to go. Otherwise, they're walking the roadway. So just as you're developing this, keep that in mind. And then the direct connection from each lot. And then for the bike parking, you'll need to somehow chop this up into pieces for what parking is for what building, hypothetically, and just disperse it. So we're not stringent on that, but there needs to be some indication that it's going to be distributed throughout and meet the total amount required based on the parking numbers. Does that make sense? Yes. And then that'll change. So again, just like your 12-story building, as those things come in and those things deviate, you're going to have to make it that as well. The plan will be amended multiple times as different tenants come online. And that'll make it easier long-term if you have a chart that you can just say, this changed, so this changed, you know, that kind of stuff. How do you go back to the bigger overall plan? I do have one question on the sidewalk connectivity. Each lot has to be connected to a public road, correct? All adjacent right-of-ways to that lot. But then those will also obviously need to connect internally, right? So, like, each lot has to have that direct connection out to the public right-of-way and then connections to the lots adjacent to it so that those can continue to connect to the other place, you know what I mean, throughout the site, right? So cross-access connectivity as well as the... So my question is, and maybe this meets what you're saying, like for this long building here, there's a connection out to here. Does that meet that in spirit? No, it's got to be, it'll have to be direct. Okay. So you'd have to come off somewhere into the... What my concern is, is we have a retaining wall that starts somewhere in here and it goes down to somewhere in here. So, may be a little tricky to do. Yeah, I mean, it might take some, you know, some thought. So, okay. And you know the site, you know the things, so that's where you've got to start thinking about how do those things fit in. And, you know, again, you know what's happening there. You all know how this is developing out, so you've got to meet these requirements, right? Like as a part of your design, you've got to think about the functionality and how it works. Well, there's no sidewalks on Georgetown Road. Is that, don't worry about that, or do we just stub them out? You'll connect out to the shoulder. There'll be a sidewalk to nowhere until they develop. Well, the shoulder is the pedestrian facility at this point. And then if you add a turn lane or any of that stuff, you need to build a sidewalk adjacent to it. Okay. Because you're removing the pedestrian facility if you're using that. So, we've done this on these arterials, you know, quite a bit. Okay. So, the shoulder is the sidewalk. The shoulder is essentially the bike path. We are going to turn lanes and we'll have sidewalks on that. And you've done that on Citation, I think, as well. Yeah. Well, Citation already had sidewalks, but you know what I mean. You've done this on other jobs. Okay. I just want to mention, too, like entrance aprons, you don't need them for, obviously, streets or access easements. But the driveways coming off an access easement or a street, per the zoning ordinance, will require entrance aprons. Are these considered public streets? I know the one is. The other, I think, would be an access easement, right, when it's all said and done? There are some ones that cross multiple lots. Yeah. Ultimately, it would be an access easement, right? Yeah. I guess my question is, like, I think this one may have been the one that was a public street. Definitely, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, as far as creating corner lots, if it's an access easement, private access easement, those aren't corner lots, are they? Okay. It's on a public street. Those entrance aprons also help you have a wider than – we consider those raised crossings, right? But you have to put the sidewalk behind a planting strip. You can't put the sidewalk adjacent to the back curb. We saw that all over out at the public site. They don't work because you end up with a cross slope. It's hard for the contractor to build it. To build it, right? So, the entrance aprons allow you to meet the raised crossing criteria because you're raising six inches over five or six feet, right? And so that helps you, but they have to be set back so that the sidewalk crossing is less than 2% cross slope on it. So, if we see them shown adjacent to the back curb, you're going to have to move them or raise the crossing or do something. Well, you can't raise the crossing at that point because then you're out into the drive aisle. Keep those things in mind as these things – they're going to require some thought. They can't just be a line on the page. They have to be able to be built. And you're talking about when the road width is more than 24 feet, it has to be raised. A raised crossing. Okay, so – and you can't do a raised crossing at an entrance apron. Effectively, that's what I'm saying. The entrance apron is effectively because you're raising – It effectively is, right? Because you're raising the entrance. It slows people down, right? The intent is to slow people down, right? So, that's at that curve. If it's at that grade, it's not like an apron. Correct. Correct. People can come in at a faster speed under those conditions. Does that make sense? It does. Yeah. Okay. Matt, you said there's a retaining wall. Can you show where that is and make sure it doesn't cross any easements? I can't read this plan. My eyes don't work that – but it's in this area. And it does not cross the easements. We definitely were aware of where the easements are. And we made it miss all easements. And that is outside the public right-of-way for how we place the wall? Well, it's on the development property. It's on private property. Okay. Yeah. I'll get it more clearly delineated on the plan. Yeah. Matt, can you speak to number five and six under plan questions that concerns the single-lane roadways down in that bottom corner behind the buildings? Both of those show a single-lane roadway that wraps around the back of the building and goes around to the front. Can you point where that is? Can you click ahead to that? It's the center lot. Oh, my. That. Yeah, those are drive-throughs. Setting it up for drive-throughs. So, I mean, that's all it is is a drive-through lane. Okay. I know FIRE had mentioned that in our plan review. And then we were just, you know, they're narrow, and it looks like it would be kind of hard to turn into those depending on which direction you were coming from. Yeah, I wouldn't anticipate FIRE would be using those, but I guess we need to label them because FIRE probably saw them as streets and not drive-through. You're coming out the front through a pedestrian area. Yeah, and do you have to have a bypass lane, too? I don't know how wide those are. You don't have to. You don't. Okay, so once you're in, you're in. You can't have no going around. We still have some updated language that's going to the council for further review. Yeah, sometimes instead of a bypass lane, sometimes you can do like a bailout, like a place where they can go off the wait line a little bit, but they can get around. We don't have that here. Same thing here, both these, this building, those are drive-throughs, and those are spec buildings, so I don't know that they have a tenant lined up for it yet. Just out of curiosity, can you tell us what is going to be built? Well, I mean, some of it's under construction. Okay, that's what I thought. Yeah, yeah. I did see that. I don't know if it's this. I mean, this was approved under a different layout, and it's under construction, but I don't think the building's up. But I think basically they're just doing mass grading on the site right now. But I know this is probably going to be the first thing to go. Got to get that bank in there. And maybe even this guy here. But as you go west, plan west, it's all spec. It's easier to market property when you have an approved development plan with buildings on it, so a guy can say, I need this much square feet, and I'd like to be in this area. Show them that building. Given the amount of drive-throughs shown, you better think about what a nightmare this will be. I mean, seriously. Well, anyways, it is what it is, I guess. Yeah. And you're right. I mean, it seems like an awful lot of, like, redundant pavement for drive-throughs when you could use existing circulation. I mean, there's just a lot of – when I look at this, I think, what? But that's not for me to decide. I just – you know, that's your all's gig, so whatever. But it just seems like those drive-through aisles are like nothing we've ever seen in the world. No. And as people come in – let me go back to – yeah. Say this drive-through here. As a tenant comes in here, most likely he's going to have some redesign on that, and that's going to have another plan amendment fixing all that. So there's – I can't stress enough, this thing's going to be amended probably ten more times, if not more, so. Matt, I know this is all spec. Everything on the – I guess you might say the east side didn't really change all that much. The west side did, but I didn't bring my glasses down. Harold, I think that sort of proposed bank you have way on the west side, I think that's lot one. The only way into lot one is across lot two, and it comes from that cross street. So you're talking about this guy? No, go to the full plan. There you go. On the Georgetown roadside, that lot way up there looks like a proposed bank. Is the only way to there is through the lot next door, or do you have access to Huntley? I know this is all spec, but it makes a difference in how I address the thing. It looks like you're coming through lot two is the only way to get to that lot one. That's all I see. And it comes off that cross street between Huntley and Georgetown, doesn't it? Yeah. Okay. Got to have a lot of money to finance those projects. Put the banks on site. I'll slap addresses on them, but because these are all spec numbers anyway, they'll float around anyway. Leave a lot of room to wiggle around in the numbers. Yeah, because a lot of it's actually accessed on the frontage road you've got going around there anyway, because that building on the corner, so we're using that a lot pretty much for the whole thing. But I didn't know if you've got to come off Huntley to that lot, or if I've got to get an address off that cross road. I'll slap something on there, but this probably will float away every time we amend this thing. I'll see if I can get more information to you on it. Mark McIntosh will work with you on the address, and it will make more sense coming from him. Anything else? Thank you. Any thoughts on this? I guess on the previous plan, the area around the wetland was the preliminary DP, and now this is the final for that area. I don't know how we feel about that. Yeah, I was going to say, should we do that? I don't know how we feel about that. Yeah, I was going to say, there's a lot for this, so is it postponement that we can recommend? Especially the environmental, there's just a lot on this I think that we're better off under that condition. I'll make that motion for a postponement of PLN-MJDP-2576 Belmont Farm. I don't believe there are any changes to those notes. As presented, so moved. Second. All in favor? Is anyone opposed? All right, motion passes. I think that's all we got. Thank you all. Thank you.